New headstock design

Scastles · Post by **Scastles** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 12:35 pm

Oh, so it's a 660 but more like a 620V** (as Ken said), which isn't made either. Makes sense.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:00 pm

I love my 660/12V reissue.

brammy · Post by **brammy** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:11 pm

I'll ask the basic question... what is new about the "new" headstock design?

ken_j · Post by **ken_j** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:30 pm

The slots are cut all the way through the headstock.
look here

brammy · Post by **brammy** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:46 pm

oh, I see. Thanks. I like it... I think so, anyways.

I wonder who was the Ric genius who invented the patented 12-string tuner arrangement. That boy should be given a medal (even if it's pothumously)

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 5:19 pm

Richard Burke, alive, and enjoying his retirement after 40+ years with the company.

brammy · Post by **brammy** » Fri Aug 26, 2005 5:32 pm

Thanks, John. Please tell Richard that (in my opinion) that headstock arrangement is one of THE best things about Rics in general. It makes 12-strings look beautiful instead of cumbersome.

Tell me, are there any new acoustic 12-sting designs in the works? Any thoughts of ever doing a Ric acoustic-electric?

Did you ever hear George Harrison's comment about the design?... something to the effect that one of the reasons he liked it was that it made tuning a 12-string easy "even when you are dead drunk".

polly_mathis · Post by **polly_mathis** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 4:51 am

So, 660/12 as quasi-reissue or no, will it have the new headstock design or won't it? And if not, why not? C'mon, I need an excuse to get another one!

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 6:29 am

Andy, as much as you'd like the new headstock on a 660-12, I'm afraid you won't be able to go that route.

polly_mathis · Post by **polly_mathis** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 5:22 pm

Aye, so 'twould appear, alas. But again, I'm (really only) curious, why is that? I can understand keeping vintage reissues true to their original designs, but the 660 isn't, to the best of my knowledge, exactly a vintage design, but rather a recent issue design that incorporates some "vintage" characteristics.
And I wouldn't really care, IF there were another 12-string model with a wider neck and 12-saddle bridge.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:02 pm

Well, do you own a 660/12, Andy?

You can always get a good luthier to cut those slots all the way through for a few hun'.

polly_mathis · Post by **polly_mathis** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 4:42 am

Yup, gotta byoot of a turquoise.
No way am I gonna have my luthier do anything quite so drastic to her, tho.

I'm guessing from the answers that I'm getting that maybe I'm coming across too shrill in my questioning. I'm really (REALLY!) just curious as to the reasoning behind excluding the 660 from the new headstock design. Really.

Yes, I've got one already, and no, I probably won't be getting another.
Just curious. Really.
And apologies for my shrillness.

jps · Post by **jps** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 5:59 am

"I'm afraid you won't be able to go that route."

But they are a cut above the norm!

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 6:47 am

More like a route below the surface.

But groovy either way...

stubby · Post by **stubby** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 4:20 pm

Yes John, if you are still in contact with Richard, tell him I too think that his design is a real aesthetic coup (I'm sure he's been sitting around in his retirement just waiting for this affirmation from some stranger up in Canada!). The vast majority of 12 string headstocks are just "too much" for the guitar, even on well crafted, beautiful classics. They give the guitar an assymetrical, top-heavy look. Having the second line in the back is one of those great, simple ideas that just works and gives the guitar a real elegance. It's like inventing the can opener or something.