Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Tell me about it, John!

It was actually missing the serial numbered jackplate when I bought it from the pawnbroker. I guess it was cheap for a reason. There's no doubt that it was a Rickenbacker though.

Did the strip on the headstock run the length of the bass?

simer4001 wrote:Did the strip on the headstock run the length of the bass?

Anyone???

simer4001 wrote:

simer4001 wrote:Did the strip on the headstock run the length of the bass?

Anyone???

What strip on what bass, Brian?

I am assuming that he is talking about a B series 4001s.

I can't answer the question though as I have never seen one!

Brian

Ontario_RIC_fan wrote:I am assuming that he is talking about a B series 4001s.

I can't answer the question though as I have never seen one!

Brian

If the B series 4001 is the subject, no, the strip does not run through the body, it is a set neck bass.

Wow, that was a cool one, Darren! I didn't notice the full width inlays til today!

STEVE AND BRIAN! I bought my '64 4001-s at Hudson's Music near Jane Street in Toronto back in '83. I traded a '77 Music Man Stingray I got off Ralph from Harlequin. I traded two SVT 8x10 cabs for the Stingray back in'82 when i played for a Halifax band "Titan". I still got the '64 rick...you can see it in the DWaRfS "Stand Tall" vid on youtube. I loved the music shoppe in Thornhill. There were lots of ricks there due to Rush buying their gear from that store. I got a '75 4001 from there, used.

kiramdear wrote: I'd be curious to learn more about my 320 with respect to the comment about "more precise re-issues soon followed". It would be nice to learn what are the differences in fact (beside the tailpieces) between mine and the "Miami" version of the 325 which it is to some degree modeled after.

A couple of other small differences not already mentioned between the 320s (presumably including the B series) and the later model 325 iterations:

-The 320 body is just slightly wider across the body--13.25" vs 12.75" for the later models (v59, v63, c64, c58).
-The bridges are standard saddle, as opposed to the roller bridges on the c64 and c58s.
-Alder bodied (same as the c58), whereas the v and c series 325s are maple.

Bill

wj350 wrote:A couple of other small differences not already mentioned between the 320s (presumably including the B series) and the later model 325 iterations:

-The 320 body is just slightly wider across the body--13.25" vs 12.75" for the later models (v59, v63, c64, c58).
-The bridges are standard saddle, as opposed to the roller bridges on the c64 and c58s.
-Alder bodied (same as the c58), whereas the v and c series 325s are maple.

Bill

Also worth mentioning about B-Series 320's is that they do not have a blend knob. That would seem to be the most obvious feature...

The 320s are alder-bodied? Where did you get that information, Bill? Seems a little weird that they would use a wood other than maple for a 'standard' model.

I'm certain that my 320 (which I now know is a standard issue, not a "B" as I thought when I began this thread) has a maple body. I don't know whether the "B" models are alder.

Dan, sadly I don't have a source--I could be wrong. A 320 owner passed me the info when I was working on a comparison spreadsheet for the various 325 models a while back. The weight I show (from the same guy) is closer to the maple-bodied Rics, so Maple would probably make sense.

Apologies for any confusion.

Hmm how do I attach pictures?
I have one of the 12 string 360 12 wbw's in excellent shape...

StephenZ wrote:I have one of the 12 string 360 12 wbw's in excellent shape...

Stephen, your 360-12WB has a beautiful fireglo, but I would not qualify it as a B-series, since it lacks several key features, most notably Kluson Deluxe tuners and toaster-top pickups. It is a very nice guitar, nonetheless...