Page 2 of 3
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 4:44 am
by jingle_jangle
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!)
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 4:53 am
by steverok
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 ?
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 4:58 am
by Scastles
I have to agree the 'cat's eye' is the real deal, pure Rickenbacker....that's my slant on it.
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 5:20 am
by tony_carey
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...
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 5:28 am
by ken_j
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.
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 2:43 pm
by clearblue
Interesting. It was easy to handle.
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 2:52 pm
by scottpro1969
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.
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 2:53 pm
by ozover50
Cat's eye for me. IMO f-holes look good if there are two of them.
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 4:05 pm
by jingle_jangle
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.
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 5:12 pm
by ozover50
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"!!
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 8:19 pm
by dean712
My 660/12 is perfect. I wouldn't change a thing, at all:
Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 9:03 pm
by ozover50
Yep - no holes! That's truly magnificent, Dean!
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 1:33 am
by 360dave660
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.
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 2:21 am
by admin
Now that is really something Dean.
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 4:36 am
by jingle_jangle
Second that emotion.