Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

........I've got one of them.........how do you upload a picture?
Regards
Alex

Below the text box is a Upload attachment button. Click on it and choose your file to download. It is that easy; make sure the attachment is no larger than 299KB and 1200 pixels in size.

dlandau wrote:The brand new AFG 1996's are gorgeous. I saw 5 brand new ones opened up today and a vast difference from the 06's. They were all exceptional. The two photos tell it all. Including a Jetglo.

Hey every one I just saw this post about the new 1996's being a better color.

But let me make sure I'm getting this correct. In the first picture, Is the guitar on the left an older 06 and the darker one on the right a newer year? Or are they both the new colors?
thanks!!

I did a double take when I looked at those pictures of your trio or beautiful RIC's..

The flash picked up the shadow of the tuners, so for a moment I thought that they were 12 strings, although with a very different tuner arrangement then a standard Rickenbacker 12.

Funny how your eyes can play tricks on you!

B

johnnyaquanet wrote:

dlandau wrote:The brand new AFG 1996's are gorgeous. I saw 5 brand new ones opened up today and a vast difference from the 06's. They were all exceptional. The two photos tell it all. Including a Jetglo.

Hey every one I just saw this post about the new 1996's being a better color.

But let me make sure I'm getting this correct. In the first picture, Is the guitar on the left an older 06 and the darker one on the right a newer year? Or are they both the new colors?
thanks!!

Right you are; the one on the left, lighter color, was produced in 2006, the one on the right, dark shading around edges, was produced in 2008.

There are differences of opinion both as to which is more attractive, as well as which one is more "true" to the coloring of a 1964 vintage 1996; the 1996 played briefly by JL appears below:

Woah, black is black -- is that a recent Jetglo? I'm under the impression that Rickenbacker has great reluctance to offer any vintage model in a 'custom' color. In fact, I've been told repeatedly that the 1996 is only available in Fireglo. Otherwise, it would be a kick to have ordered one in say, Midnight Blue or (?). Also, here's a really good question -- Why do the early production 1996's look dimensionally 'off' a little, while the recent deliveries are 'right-on' if you get my drift. It's almost as though they used two different templates or has anyone else noticed?

tracy wrote: Also, here's a really good question -- Why do the early production 1996's look dimensionally 'off' a little, while the recent deliveries are 'right-on' if you get my drift. It's almost as though they used two different templates or has anyone else noticed?

Tracy, are you talking about the 2006 reissue 1996s as the "early deliveries" and the 2008 darker finish ones as the "recent" ones? Or are you comparing the original 1996s to the reissue 1996s? Probably the former, but it wasn't totally clear to me.

And on the issue of the earlier ones being "dimensionally off", could you describe some of the differences that you see?

Thanks.

tracy wrote:Woah, black is black -- is that a recent Jetglo? I'm under the impression that Rickenbacker has great reluctance to offer any vintage model in a 'custom' color. In fact, I've been told repeatedly that the 1996 is only available in Fireglo.

RIC always does a few of each model in Jetglo, not as a custom color, but to cover up less desirable wood grain.

Well, here's the jist -- I'm familiar with what the guitar should be as I owned an original 1996JG back in the sixties. The early 2006 1996FG's seemed a little deep and also a bit skinny at the 'waist'. Not by much, but uncomfortably 'odd'. The 2008 production 1996ATG looks 'right' somehow.

tracy wrote:Well, here's the jist -- I'm familiar with what the guitar should be as I owned an original 1996JG back in the sixties. The early 2006 1996FG's seemed a little deep and also a bit skinny at the 'waist'. Not by much, but uncomfortably 'odd'. The 2008 production 1996ATG looks 'right' somehow.

I don't know, chances are good they're exactly the same. CNC doesn't leave any fun variations like the what came out of the factory in the '60s.

Speaking of the early '06 1996s, when Johhny Aquanet visited my house last weekend, he brought his 1996 for a mild setup and inspection. After I finished, I got my own 1996 down off the wall, and we compared them. I was shocked to see that mine was made in the batch after his, yet his has a very nice deep amber center with dark FG around the edges, and the back, tho the colors are again gorgeous and very much the current AFG, the pattern is definitely "Clownglo". Mine, OTOH, is lighter FG around the edges and just a hint of amber in the middle, and a very gentle transitional character to the burst on the back. We were both ready to trade, until I saw the back of his...

I would have thought things would have been the other way around--his would be the later instrument.

I expect, though, that these anomalies represent a transitional time in the RIC paint shop, when Eric Behring came on board. Can anyone comment on this?

I'm not an expert, but that fits with what I've observed...when the FG was reformulated recently, there was a bit of a transitional period when the bursts were very dark, like this one:
Which then made the AFGs look like this:
Just for comparison, here's an '09 FG:
And an '09 AFG:
I think they've gotten it right now...the transitional FGs looked strange to me.

That certainly speaks for '08 and '09. But back in '06, when I was at the factory, I saw the what I thought were the first of the AFGs going through the paint booth. They were the lighter AFG; very close to FG. As I said, barely any ambering at all, and certainly no dark edges.

I have seen a number of 1996s since, both in photos and in life, and they all looked like mine, regardless of manufacturing date.

Johnny's 1996, earlier than my own, really surprised me...it looks like it was sprayed last week!

There were two 1996 AFGs that had October 2005 seial numbers and were marked NAMM inside the control cavities. I still own the guitar that was actually displayed at NAMM in January 2006. They both had different versions of AFG than the ones I have seen from batches produced in the 20th. week and 28th. week of 2006. The finishes on the two "pre-NAMM" versions were also slightly different from each other, even though they had consecutive serial numbers. The photo below shows the NAMM display guitar in the center with the other one from 2005 to the left. The one on the right is from the 20th. week of 2006.

This is the back of my 2006 AFG and an original Ric from the 60s with a AFG. They look pretty close to me or am I just not getting it? I know the backs on the FG's can have more of a blend but if you have the dark ages of the AFG then it seems you have to have more contrast.

Can some one post a picture of a "good" AFG back?