Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

What's next?Twenty one fret necks and toasters pickups as standard equipment?

"Gumby" head- there you go again.

Greater mass in the headstock- notwithstanding the claims from a certain add-on device maker- does NOT improve the tone or strength. The larger mass at the end of essentially a lever robs energy from the strings that otherwise would be released into the bridge.

The strength of the head itself might be ever so slightly greater but not in any useful way; the extra weight, on the other hand, provides additional stress at the throat of the neck.

The only reason the head was made larger was to give the larger Schaller M6 key buttons some extra space to turn. It never had anything to do with tone or strength.

It's only the general acceptance of smaller buttons and tighter spacing that let us reduce the size again.

"Gumby" head is nothing John. I think your description of the 4005 as "donkey donged" was all time over the top funny.

And there there is the pool of players, like me, who don't even pay attention to the differences in headstocks, or tuners for that matter, over the years!

Back in the day, I didn't even pay attention to the amps or instruments. I was into the groove, man!

John - I was wondering about something you said somewhere else. You were talking about robbing designs for entry level guitars. I am curious how far to take that. There are only so many pleasing ways to cut out a hunk of wood for a guitar, and the other parts have to be somewhat similar to work as a guitar. So, where is the line to be drawn between ripping off a design and making it different? Those that have tried radical new designs mostly look like attempts to make sure it looks "completely different". This usually makes it ugly, or unplayable. In the case of RIC, the design is different enough, that there is no way anyone could say you guys copied. But for most of the rest of the guitar makers, you have single or double cutaway, how pointy vs, round on corners and edges, hardware, and shape of headstock.

PS - this may have looked like a dumb question, but it has been puzzling me.

The bigger ones were better for smacking people upside the head due to the larger impact/area ratio..The smaller ones require a higher velocity to achieve the desired result..

I have always been for the original smaller headstock. Not only do they help the guitar sound better but they look the coolest.

IMO, huge tuners are tone suckers as well.

I'd always heard that less headstock mass = more sustain, which is partly why i'd always thought the Rick 12 headstock was a great idea.

Love the old skinny ones, glad to see 'em back.

Milking the pics of the 360CW, eh JB?

If he's milking, what do you call a certain jetglo 4005?

{:^)

I call it Jeff Scott Jr.

Alright! My favourite thing about my 60's 335 is now back. I've been thinking about ordering a new 330/335JG... and now I have a VERY good reason. Thanks!

What's insulting about the term Gumby? I love Gumby, dammit! But I like the vintage headstock, it's what I'm used to.

Yeehaw! I was planning to buy an ugly or worn 330 and get Dale or Paul to reduce the headstock and refinish JG. Now I can just buy a new 330 JG. Thanks for listening Mr. Hall!

I particularly love the cigar-smoking Eddie Murphy Gumby, "don't wan no banana up my tailpipe, unnerstan". He would look hilarious in a publicity shot with a Rick strapped around his neck: "Don't wan no Fendson up my tailpipe, hear?"

YESSSS!!!!!

Fantastic news - I LOVE the smaller vintage style!

Thanks Mr Hall!