Page 2 of 3
Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:36 pm
by jingle_jangle
I wonder what it weighed, tho, Rob?
Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 2:45 pm
by red_rob
well scholars maintain that it was the approximate weight of a sturdy holdall containing dane's glaucoma medicine requirement for a fortnight.
Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 3:21 pm
by ozover50
GO TO BED, ROB!!

Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 3:29 pm
by j_gary
Kinda reminds me of a Three Stoogie's episode.
Hey Moe! Woot? (Don't get "good stuff" like this on other guiar sites)
Scott, is she jetglo? Looks like it in the photo. Love black Ricks.
Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 3:43 pm
by jingle_jangle
That heavy, Rob?
G'night.
Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 3:58 pm
by atomic_punk
For the Canadian members....Woot are they talkin aboot?
Let's go Leafs!
Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 4:02 pm
by winston
Steve I say we're talking aboot Canada.
Let's go Canada 4 - 0 over the Russian Junior team right now.
Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 6:15 pm
by scott_s
Couple more details: It's a 2004 330 JG -- virtually brand-new... the eBay seller runs a music store, so it might well have hung there this long. The OHSC has all the goodies, and the guitar smells new. No fretwear that I can see.
At $860, it was almost 3x what I paid for my last guitar. Sure enough, now I have GAS for a 360/12 AFG...
Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 6:25 pm
by rkbsound
The photo is great. In fact, you may have invented a new color -- Flatglo!!! I really like it!
Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 7:13 pm
by brian_l
Congrats on your purchase! I just bought a 2005 Jetglo 330/6 shortly after Thanksgiving and I love it. It does a great job keeping my 1998 Fireglo 360/6 company. Trust me, you will find your other guitars spending more time in their cases as you get used to playing your Rick.
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 5:35 am
by jingle_jangle
Scott, the reason I asked is that (going by the photo) I've never seen an unmodified Rickenbacker with such wide flat fret tops. The frets also seem to be very shallow--maybe .020", which would mean that they've been levelled quite radically, since the full-depth frets are around .045" in height.
The action seems a bit high, too, judging from the photo...
Discussing this with Aitch and Brian yesterday afternoon, we supposed that this guitar was used by a person who primarily played rhythm, and wanted the chords to fret especially easily. Brian's seen this sort of thing before, but then he was in "the biz" as a player for a long time.
This is not meant as critique; just the results of some observations and a bit of detective work...
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 1:40 pm
by byu
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:36 pm
by ken_swearingen
I used to have that keyboard it was awesome.Now I have a Microsoft wireless executive with mouse its awful and a hundred bucks more.
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 8:51 pm
by scott_s
Paul, I measured .025"-.030" of usable fret height -- that's why it surprised me so much! (The action is 3/64" on the high E and 1/16" on the low E, fretted at the 1st fret and measured at the 13th. Neck relief is at .005". I think the photo angle and zoom give the impression of high action.)
I imagine this is what playing an early Les Paul Custom was like. I might be able to get used to it, but .030" is where I usually refret, y'know?
Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 9:57 pm
by winston
Scott,
My 71 Strat is like that. It was previously owned by a guitarist who had the frets filed down so he could play rhythm with really low action on the neck. It is a bit disconcerting when I play lead on that guitar.
Don't get me wrong I can still do fret board gymnastics, but it feels weird.