620 body

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Mon May 23, 2005 4:44 am

Steve, that's only partly true. A whole lot of development time and money went into resurrecting the V63. Not to mention the extra work that goes into building them.

A Mercedes and a Rolls-Royce are "basically made out of the same material", too. It comes down to whether you want to (or can!) pay the extra for head-turning exclusivity.

Peter, I never quite got the appeal of "F" holes on a Rick. They look anachronistic to me. In my eyes, the "cat's eye" sound holes are a part of the Rick DNA. 1993s through 1997s look a bit forced and fakey to my eye. I know they're rare and all, but...

(OK Paul, you can start ducking now. Be sure to cover your ears!)

steverok · Post by **steverok** » Mon May 23, 2005 4:53 am

I agree on the F hole, it makes it look more like a typical guitar (not that a Ric could ever look like a typical guitar, but it takes it in that direction). Why did they stop making the 360v64, and what is the difference compared to the new 360v63 ?

Scastles · Post by **Scastles** » Mon May 23, 2005 4:58 am

I have to agree the 'cat's eye' is the real deal, pure Rickenbacker....that's my slant on it.

tony_carey · Post by **tony_carey** » Mon May 23, 2005 5:20 am

I love the F hole Rics, but being British, a lot of the pics you see of the '60's British bands had Rics with F holes. To a Brit, the F hole is every bit as Rickenbacker as the slash.
I don't dislike the slash in any way, but if I could, all my Rics would have F holes...

ken_j · Post by **ken_j** » Mon May 23, 2005 5:28 am

I have to say that I prefer the cat's eye also. It fits the lines of Rick styling, IMHO.

Back to the thread. If you measure the lower bout of a 600 series guitar you will find that it is actually about 1" wider than a Strat or a Tele. It is the smaller upper bout that makes it seem small. I find it to be a comfortable size.

clearblue · Post by **clearblue** » Mon May 23, 2005 2:43 pm

Interesting. It was easy to handle.

scottpro1969 · Post by **scottpro1969** » Mon May 23, 2005 2:52 pm

I'm primarily a bass player but owned a 360V64/6 quite a few years back. The neck was just too thin for my hands. I'm considering getting back to an electric and would love to try out a 660. I agree that appearance wise, the 360V is the classic "look" but, the 660 is just as pleasing on the eyes as far as I'm concerned. All the vintage features...checkered binding, full inlays, toasters. Just a beautiful guitar. I'm going back home in July and hope to find a 660 to play.

ozover50 · Post by **ozover50** » Mon May 23, 2005 2:53 pm

Cat's eye for me. IMO f-holes look good if there are two of them.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Mon May 23, 2005 4:05 pm

No holes on a 660. Don't need 'em. F-holes look good on Gretsches and some Gibbies. Also on violins, cellos, basses, violas, etc.

ozover50 · Post by **ozover50** » Mon May 23, 2005 5:12 pm

My 660 must have an a-hole. I overheard a comment the other day when I was having a strum at the guitar shop: "Look at that a**hole on the 660"!!

dean712 · Post by **dean712** » Mon May 23, 2005 8:19 pm

My 660/12 is perfect. I wouldn't change a thing, at all:

ozover50 · Post by **ozover50** » Mon May 23, 2005 9:03 pm

Yep - no holes! That's truly magnificent, Dean!

360dave660 · Post by **360dave660** » Tue May 24, 2005 1:33 am

You could try to find a 380 laguna which would give a thicker neck (like that of a 660) with the body shape & cat eye, checkerbinding of a 360.

admin · Post by **admin** » Tue May 24, 2005 2:21 am

Now that is really something Dean.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Tue May 24, 2005 4:36 am

Second that emotion.