"The idea is to have different models appealing to different players or markets."
That is a pretty good answer right there.
From a personal opinion I would also think that interchangeable neck widths and lengths within the same guitar-shape body could sometimes kill the aesthetic of the original design of the guitar, but that's debatable I guess.
Personally I don't mind the different shapes and shape/neck packages available ... it just means you have to get one of each ...
IMO, a 360 with a wider neck simply wouldn't be a 360. And a 650 with a narrower neck wouldn't be a 650. Not to mention the utter chaos that would ensue when someone tried to buy a used one without being able to play it first (Ebay and other sources), and the seller doesn't know the answer to the question, "Does it have the wide or narrow neck?"
I really hope no-one takes my 2 cents worth the wrong way here. I'm just trying to voice an objective opinion and no offence to anyone is intended...
"Tradition" has been mentioned above as one of the possible reasons for the current neck width on the mainstream models. I reckon that if a poll was taken on this forum about whether to offer the option of a wider neck, or whether to leave things as they are, then the winner would be to leave things as they are. But I also suspect that the majority of people who frequent this forum are traditionalists when it comes to Rickenbacker, as judged by some of the responses in this and many other threads. But Ric-Resource forumites are just a small slice of the guitar-playing population out there in the big wide world, and I'd bet that offering wider neck options on the mainstream models would make those models appeal to many more guitarists out there who can appreciate the superb quality of Rickenbackers but who can't get used to the unique feel of the current models.
There's nothing wrong with change when it's not just change for the sake of change. I don't believe this kind of change would damage RIC's reputation or the appeal of its heritage. After all, the addition of the Hi-gain pickups to the mainstream models all those years ago would have been a similar deviation from RIC tradition, and I can say that if the Hi-Gains had never been invented I wouldn't be proudly flying the Rickenbacker flag by using my DG 330 as my main guitar at every gig (and my JG 330 as the backup!).
This issue raises its head in this and the official RIC site's forums from time to time, and I've read other responses from John Hall simply stating that due to the current backlog it would be impossible to consider a change like that in the foreseeable future. So in reading between the lines does that mean he hasn't counted it out indefinitely on the grounds of tradition? Or in other words, in years to come if the backlog has disappeared and production capacity allowed it (after all, to reduce the backlog they have to have the production capacity to make more guitars than they are currently receiving new orders for, and therefore spare production capacity once the backlog had disappeared) would RIC be open minded enough to seriously consider offering the "wide-neck 620", "wide-neck 330", etc? I'd like to think so. I'm certain that this option would never be the death of the traditionally sized necks, but it wouldn't surprise me if in time it became the standard model, kind-of like the Hi-gain/Toaster situation we have now.
So... perhaps some day I'll be able to get my dream guitar - a 620 (binding, rosewood board, triangle inlays) with the 650's neck dimensions and larger fretwire, and (dare I say it) no thick lacquer on the board. Until then I'll continue to enjoy my 330s and 620s.
Well, Carl, with your username, we wouldn't expect a Rick traditionalist, now, would we? LOL BTW.
Your dream guitar exists--binding, rosewood board (actually they are mostly bubinga these last 45 years or so...), triangle inlays (full-width, even!), with the 650's neck dimensions.
The only thing lacking is the larger fretwire (which I think spoils the Rickenbacker feel), but you get checkerboard binding in the deal as a plus.
It's called the 660, and it's currently available.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
Yep, you're on the right track with the username. I was into Teles for countless years before I bought my first Rickenbacker. The username harks from those days and other forums, and for convenience I just keep using it wherever I go. But just in case the username gives you the impression that I'm a Fender fan just trying to stir things up here and my opinions don't matter, after buying my first Rickenbacker (a 360) I now also own a 340VP, 3x 330 and 3x 620, so these days my eight Rickenbackers outnumber my Fenders. Perhaps it's time for a name-change?
I have considered the 660 in the past, because as you say it comes closest to my dream guitar. I would have to do a pickup-swap or make a special order with hi-gains if I bought one to use in the band. But as a working gigging guitar the deal-breaker has been the vintage fretwire. I'm a confirmed string-bender, not just a strummer, so I wouldn't gain enough in playability over the 620 to justify the much larger outlay, because (neck-width aside) the 660 would still make me work almost as hard as the 620 to pull off my natural playing style.
I know this is a thread about neck widths, but you've made me very curious about the fretwire issue. You say with certainty that the larger fretwire spoils the Rickenbacker feel, so I have to assume that you've experimented with fitting larger fretwire to a Rickenbacker and you're talking from personal experience there. Again please don't take this the wrong way, but because you say it spoils the "Rickenbacker feel" rather than saying that it spoils your own preference for feel I suspect you are just saying (whether you realised it or not when posting) that it spoils Rickenbacker tradition. If you are one of the "traditionalists" that I mentioned then this is another example of what I was referring to in my first post here. If on the other hand you are saying that it spoils the feel for which you have a personal preference then I'd just add that for others such as myself with other preferences larger fretwire may well be a big improvement to the feel rather than a spoiler. Everyone's different so I'm not knocking anybody's personal preference for vintage-style fretwire, but if you look at all the guitars hanging on the wall in a guitar shop the ones with larger fretwire outnumber the ones with small fretwire, so that leads to the assumption that the people who prefer larger fretwire outnumber the people who prefer small fretwire. The 650 models aside, this is a largely untapped market for Rickenbacker. Having said all that, I admit that you're in a better position to judge the feel than I am because you've done it and I'm just theorising, so one day if I ever tried one with larger fretwire I may well think to myself "Man, Paul's right! This thing is a pig!". LOL. I'd like to hear more about your experience with larger fretwire on Rickenbackers, and the changes it makes to the instruments.
My next guitar will be a toaster-equipped 660 12-string by the way, just for pampered home use. My 340VP 6-string sounds so sweet with a clean sounding amp, so I anticipate that the 12-string 660 will take that sound to a whole new level for me.
Sorry Ken, I should have been a bit clearer with my post. After Paul's comments I was joking that I might find a 620, 330, 360, etc, that had been converted with larger fretwire to be a pig. I wouldn't expect the 650 to be bad at all, especially since it was designed from the get-go with that feature. In fact I've been really curious about what they actually do feel like and I'd love to get my hands on one to give it a test drive. It's just a shame that they look a bit bland to me in comparison to the 620 and 660.
I have played Ricks with larger fretwire, owned by customers whose frets I was changing back to vintage. Most recent one was last month. That one had a stripped fretboard, too. Ugh.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
