Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Very nice! Welcome to the forum, Erik!

Thanks for all the comments. Took this out on the porch the other night with my new favorite. I've been using the same guitar for the past 5 years so it's still taking alot of adjusting, but i'm loving it more and more each day.

Spike- wrote:
A quick question: on the pictures of Jeff's i've noticed his pickups have smaller poles, mine are larger round buttons. Is there some point where they switched?

I note that nobody has addressed your pickup polepiece question. I've learned that in the first year of the 480's production, 1973, some guitars had "transitional" hi-gains with only a bare, threaded polepiece. Later models had the familiar "button" tops on those bare poles. I have a '73 480 with the transitional pickups as well. The guitar also has an ivory nut rather than the typical black. No pix yet...still needs some resto work before her coming out party. I didn't luck out with the pristine finish that you got. I've got about 50 dings and scratches to eradicate.

mrsparkle wrote:I note that nobody has addressed your pickup polepiece question. I've learned that in the first year of the 480's production, 1973, some guitars had "transitional" hi-gains with only a bare, threaded polepiece. Later models had the familiar "button" tops on those bare poles. I have a '73 480 with the transitional pickups as well. The guitar also has an ivory nut rather than the typical black. No pix yet...still needs some resto work before her coming out party. I didn't luck out with the pristine finish that you got. I've got about 50 dings and scratches to eradicate.

Ah, thanks for the explination. I would love to see some before and after pictures of your 480. Are you going to restore it in the origional color or completely refinish it to something new?

Spike- wrote:...pickups...

Transitional Hi-Gains! As John stated, they were an early version of Hi-Gains, originally developed for the 381 (and referred to early on as "381-style" pickups). They hung around until '73. The pole pieces are just screw shafts...

Also 480s actually go back to (from what I've heard) 1970! Mine's an Oct. '72...

Regarding the restoration of my 480, I haven't yet decided. It's Fireglo, so repairs are painstaking and just plain difficult. But meanwhile, I'm in no rush, and working on things like this is just one of my many hobbies. I'll probably give the repair route a go, and if that turns out to be unsatisfactory I'll do a complete refin. If I refin, I don't know what color I might go for - heck, I might even give Fireglo a try. I'm also currently scratch-building what the 480 (or more accurately the 481) should have been - neck-thru construction, toaster PUs, no slanted frets, checkerboard binding. That'll take a while, but I have most of the parts collected - even the binding. I'm thinking a bright metallic Corvette blue for that guitar.

As far as the 480 production years, I've only ever seen it listed as produced from 1973-1984. That includes several books I have, various online resources, etc. But Jeff, if you have a '72 it would seem those resources are all incorrect, or you have yourself one rare guitar. I've seen pictures of it elsewhere on the forum and it certainly is a beauty, as is yours Erik.

badeggs wrote:

Spike- wrote:...pickups...

Transitional Hi-Gains! As John stated, they were an early version of Hi-Gains, originally developed for the 381 (and referred to early on as "381-style" pickups). They hung around until '73. The pole pieces are just screw shafts...

Also 480s actually go back to (from what I've heard) 1970! Mine's an Oct. '72...

Those transitional pickups made it on to a wide variety of guitars in 1973. I have them on my '73 620 and I've seen an auction from Olivia's on eBay that show them on a '73 360.

I like these pickups a lot. I think they have a really unique sound. Could be my imagination though because I'm not sure how different they are from the later ('74 +) Hi Gains except for the button tops, and I don't know how much that would effect the sound.

Spike- wrote:

I'm late to this here thread, but man, she looks edible like caramel! Beauty!

mrsparkle wrote:As far as the 480 production years, I've only ever seen it listed as produced from 1973-1984.

Me too! Those are always the years given. I think it was listed in the catalog starting in '73, but was actually on the price sheets back to '70 or '71...I've seen one other '72 480 on eBay, and it was also eggplant Burgundy. (And I know the cavity writing usually means nothing, but that one had "480LL" scribbled in it and mine says "480QQ", I thought that was neat for some reason).

Early 480s have very thin fretboards/necks, which thickened over time. The neck on mine is about 1" fretboard to back. Seriously, it feels "paper thin" in your hand...

Dan, I love the transitionals too, and swear they sound different! It's probably a McDonalds Shamrock Shake sort of thing: you know, they say it's not mint but people see the color and insist that it is. Either way they're great pickups!

mrsparkle wrote:Regarding the restoration of my 480, I haven't yet decided. It's Fireglo, so repairs are painstaking and just plain difficult. But meanwhile, I'm in no rush, and working on things like this is just one of my many hobbies. I'll probably give the repair route a go, and if that turns out to be unsatisfactory I'll do a complete refin. If I refin, I don't know what color I might go for - heck, I might even give Fireglo a try. I'm also currently scratch-building what the 480 (or more accurately the 481) should have been - neck-thru construction, toaster PUs, no slanted frets, checkerboard binding. That'll take a while, but I have most of the parts collected - even the binding. I'm thinking a bright metallic Corvette blue for that guitar.

That would certainly be interesting to see. The only complaint I ever had with the guitar was the Bolt On Neck, and that's really only because I 'grew up' on Gibsons which all had set-necks. Of course, at the same time, you don't see people complaining about Strat's or Tele's necks which are argueablly the most popular and reconizable electric guitars. However, Rickenbacker should have atleast engraved the bolt plate to add some visual appeal. Or done something more unique with the metal shape itself, given the incredibly unique shape of the body you'd think they would have come up with something better.

I've often thought about it but in the end, even if I found one of those un-slanted 481's... I would still go with the 480. I love the un-bound, beveled body. It has a certain elegance to the bare wood. I also love dotted fretboards, and i'm warming up to it being a bolt on. Unlike my SG it dosen't have the cavity in the rear for the controls, so even with the plate the body is still mostly bare wood and that adds to its visual appeal.

I almost wish the guitar wasen't completely origional, because then I might feel justified in making some changes to the plate, like having one smithed in a more elegant shape that still retained the 4 bolt holes in the center, with some kind of Rickenbacker logo engraving on it.

cjj wrote:NICE!

I've gotta say, the 480/481 are, in my opinion the best looking Rick guitars ever made... 'Course, I'm a bass player, so maybe I'm just a tad biased towards that particular shape...

I share this bias for the same reason. Hot guitar bud. Don't get any cockroaches on it.

badeggs wrote:

mrsparkle wrote:As far as the 480 production years, I've only ever seen it listed as produced from 1973-1984.

Me too! Those are always the years given. I think it was listed in the catalog starting in '73, but was actually on the price sheets back to '70 or '71...I've seen one other '72 480 on eBay, and it was also eggplant Burgundy. (And I know the cavity writing usually means nothing, but that one had "480LL" scribbled in it and mine says "480QQ", I thought that was neat for some reason).

I found that thread from Sept 2009 where the 1971 price sheets are shown, and that 480 is right there like you said. I might add that companies often put things in price sheets waaaay before they're actually viable, shipping products. The company I work for does it all the time. After our industry's major trade show each June (our NAMM equivalent) we start listing the newly announced products on the price sheets, and I've personally seen a year or more pass before some items finally make it out the door. We had one item on our price list for over two years and then decided not to manufacture it at all. And btw, mine has "480T" scribbled inside, and "Fire".

Early 480s have very thin fretboards/necks, which thickened over time. The neck on mine is about 1" fretboard to back. Seriously, it feels "paper thin" in your hand...

Mine measures a scant .9" (and change) on a digital caliper. Very thin and refreshingly flat. I know I'm gonna love playing it when I finally get the resto done.

My later, thicker neck model is pretty much identical in thickness to the neck on my Gibson SG, but has a narrower width. Even though it's narrower I can't tell the difference when playing either one, haha. It dosen't make me play any better or worse. I also never noticed any difference with the flat fingerboard vs. the slight radius on the SG. What I DID notice was the frets, which are much lower, partly from Rickenbacker making them that way and partly from being worn down with 30 years of use. I can slide up and down the neck on the Ric all day long, and MUCH faster than on the SG. They we're really onto something with the fingerboard, applying the finish over the wood has kept it in excellent condition all these years.

What did throw me when I got it was the strap lock. The guitar was hanging down to my knees. I had the strap adjusted to the longest possible position to put the SG right at my waist, and had to tighten it all the way up to the top setting to put the Ric at the same level.

I would love to see some photo's of yours mr.sparkle, no matter what condition it's in.

spike wrote: The only complaint I ever had with the guitar was the Bolt On Neck, and that's really only because I 'grew up' on Gibsons which all had set-necks. Of course, at the same time, you don't see people complaining about Strat's or Tele's necks which are argueablly the most popular and reconizable electric guitars.

I agree, but bolt-on necks (actually screw-on, but nobody uses the correct term) are just plain WRONG on a Rick. The basses which the 480 emulates are neck thru. The 620 is neck thru. The thin hollow-bodies are set neck. I have to follow suit on my custom build.

However, Rickenbacker should have at least engraved the bolt plate to add some visual appeal. Or done something more unique with the metal shape itself, given the incredibly unique shape of the body you'd think they would have come up with something better.

I couldn't have said it better myself and totally agree that they should have added an embellishment to that stupid plate.

I love the un-bound, beveled body. It has a certain elegance to the bare wood.

Me too!! But I also love that checkerboard binding I went to the ends of the earth to acquire. The custom-build has gotta' have that binding!!

I almost wish the guitar wasen't completely origional, because then I might feel justified in making some changes to the plate, like having one smithed in a more elegant shape that still retained the 4 bolt holes in the center, with some kind of Rickenbacker logo engraving on it.

Just have one custom made in your design. Put it on the guitar, but retain the original of course. It would be a piece of cake to fabricate a custom plate.

My later, thicker neck model is pretty much identical in thickness to the neck on my Gibson SG, but has a narrower width. Even though it's narrower I can't tell the difference when playing either one, haha.

I noted the same resemblance in "feel" with my Epi SG, whose neck thickness measures just a hair thicker than the .9" of my 480.

I would love to see some photo's of yours mr.sparkle, no matter what condition it's in.

I wish I were more into taking pix. I never saved the original photos from the ebay listing, nor did I take any "before" pix when I got the guitar. The guitar is completely disassembled at this point, but I can take a photo of its naked body so you can see all the finish repairs that lie ahead.

mrsparkle wrote:I wish I were more into taking pix. I never saved the original photos from the ebay listing, nor did I take any "before" pix when I got the guitar. The guitar is completely disassembled at this point, but I can take a photo of its naked body so you can see all the finish repairs that lie ahead.

That would still be worth seeing, before and after photo's are awesome.

It's a love/hate thing with the binding. I love the way my Ric looks unbound, but wouldn't have a Tele any other way. I think the beveled edges feel more comfortable when i'm just laying around but that's probably just me making up BS.

I posted this in my thread about the pickguard but i've run into a bit of a problem recently. I pulled it completely out from the body today and removed all the electronics for the first time, it's in a fair bit worse shape than I origionaly thought. There's two pretty bad cracks on the underside from where the neck pickup was mounted, one is short and the other is pretty long and visible from both sides. The plastic is also pretty badly warped and brittle from 30 years of abuse. I joked in the other thread that it seems the pickguard took the abuse for the whole guitar, hah. It's in pretty bad shape while everything else is near pristine.

I'm not sure what to do about it at this point. I'm hoping to call Rickenbacker when they're open again on Monday to find out if I can send it in and have it replaced. I know they keep stock of vintage-style truss covers and will replace them if you send it in so it's worth a shot. I really, REALLY don't want to have one made by a 3rd party company.