Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

tmossman wrote:No matter how you parse the mechanical details (accurate or inaccurate) there is nothing "historical" about the headstock.

I think the C64S needs the reverse headstock in order to be an accurate reproduction of Paul's RM 1999.

I like the reversed head stock, I think it gives the bass character. And it certainly still looks like a Rickenbacker. I'm keeping my C64 and C64S!!

dpowell wrote:I had thought it was just a cost-cutting measure.

Maybe you could explain to me how cutting two blanks, instead of one, then the extra work of planing and laminating them could possibly be construed as being a cost cutting method?

The whole point is to reverse the woodgrain against itself across the lamination, making a far superior neck in terms of rigidity and straightness . . . at some additional expense.

Thanks for the explanation. Some guitar makers use/used multi-piece necks so they can use smaller pieces of wood (example: '70s Gibsons). Good to know Ric did it for strength.

johnhall wrote:

dpowell wrote:I had thought it was just a cost-cutting measure.

Maybe you could explain to me how cutting two blanks, instead of one, then the extra work of planing and laminating them could possibly be construed as being a cost cutting method?

The whole point is to reverse the woodgrain against itself across the lamination, making a far superior neck in terms of rigidity and straightness . . . at some additional expense.

dpowell wrote:Thanks for the explanation. Some guitar makers use/used multi-piece necks so they can use smaller pieces of wood (example: '70s Gibsons). Good to know Ric did it for strength.

Gibson used to do a three-piece maple laminate on several models back in the 70s and 80s. The RD and RD Artist, The Ripper, The EB3L, the Les Paul Signature, all had that three-piece set-neck construction. Those necks were rock-solid. I never saw a warped or twisted condition. The laminate process, when done correctly, yields stellar results. I have to believe that they would not have gone through the extra effort and expense unless it was beneficial. Same logic would apply to the current Ric models.

rickaddict wrote:

tmossman wrote:No matter how you parse the mechanical details (accurate or inaccurate) there is nothing "historical" about the headstock.

I think the C64S needs the reverse headstock in order to be an accurate reproduction of Paul's RM 1999.

For what RIC was trying to accomplish, I agree. I saw the C64 as a interesting "bizzaro world" mirror image of Paul's. Paul's (left-handed body, right-handed necked - C64 right-handed body, left-handed neck. My comment wasn't meant to knock the C64, but rather point out that RIC wasn't attempting (IMO) to create an exact historically accurate replica.

egami rorrim|mirror image

tmossman wrote:... My comment wasn't meant to knock the C64, but rather point out that RIC wasn't attempting (IMO) to create an exact historically accurate replica.

egami rorrim|mirror image

I agree / eerga I

When ya get a righty 4001C64S, you're actually getting an instrument that's strung backwards form Paul's.

The reverse headstock makes sense.

And hey, if the two-piece laminate neck adds rigidity, I'm all for it.

E-A-D-G : G-D-A-E

You say yes, I say no
You say stop, and I say go, go, gooo
- written by some south-paw from England