A plea for wider 12-string necks - Mr. Hall?

[admin]

Andrew: It doesn't take long for a concept to snowball does it? The image I had for the 360/12 SPC was indeed that of a 21 fret guitar.

[markthemd]

I know many players who would love to own a Rick 12 string ,but don't have the physical ability to play one .
They also want a 360-12 ,not the solid bodies .They are middle aged and have monies .They all grew up on the same type of music as we did .

A customer of mine who does toolpath and CAD work for Boeing was here today and commented on a Rick 360-12 that I was working on .He said it sounded tremendous ,but he was here for his 1&3/4"nut width Strat kit guitar that I put together for him .He expressed a life lone desire to own one ....but now is intrigued by the idea of having some one make him a custom version .

By the way ...his fingers are bigger than my thumb!

[rob_u]

Well, I guess we have our answer. Judging from the tone of Mr. Hall's response, I doubt if there will be a reversal of his decision. Change very rarely rises from an atmosphere of comfort, and Rickenbacker appears to be very comfortable at the moment. It is comfort I cannot share as I play my Rickenbacker, but we will have to accept that. I suppose we must be thankful, that this thinking did not exist at Rickenbacker in the 50's, or the first Capri would not have been born, and given birth to the what we now know as the entire Rickenbacker line up. I do thank Mr. Hall for his personal response, and candor - even if I do not enjoy or agree with it. I still have great respect for him and his instruments, and when I replace my 620-12 it will most likely be with a 330-12, so that I may get every millimeter I can.
Peter McCormack's thinking on this matter has gone farther than mine, and I agree with him whole-heartedly. His strategy for introducing the model slowly and as a special order would require little risk. Peter's assertion that the new model would soon surpass the old in sales echoes the belief with which I began this thread.
Perhaps someday, like Mark Arnquist's customer I will have the funds to have someone custom build a guitar for me. It's just that the Rics are so close - just one..little..change. And through it all I still don't understand the 380L - why a six-string wide-neck, but not a twelve?
I suppose I will have to get some tools together, and attempt Mark's suggested nut change on my 620-12, perhaps it will encourage me enough to look for a hollow-body. I also wonder how well the Stratocaster would have sold, if all it's owners had to make a major modification just to play it comfortably?
There still remains the fact that while all us here are excited about our twelve-strings, Ric's narrow necks are responsible in a small part for also turning some people off to electric twelve-strings. The model we have proposed here would bring them into the fold as well.
I can't help but think that 98% of a market is good, but 98% of an even bigger market would be better.
Thanks to everyone - Rob

[axel]

why a six-string wide-neck, but not a twelve? ...
6 stringers is a much bigger market than 12 stringers, right. So, getting more lead players playing ricks is far more interesting, image-wise as well as sales-wise.

People going for a 360-12 will most probably go for the 60s sound/music/feel/looks... hence the V & C series and the keeping of the 'old' specs on the regular line, because it is RIC's main market.

But that indeed leaves RIC a little bit 'out' of what's happening now (or supposedly)... hence the modern 380 and 650 series: modern bridge, minibuckers, no fireglo etc (and I'd like to try one of these 380 because this piezo thing seems pretty interesting, sound-wise).

back to the topic, 21 frets indeed, it does sound better.
a

[johnhall]

As a result of this discussion, I'm at least toying with the thought of increasing the neck width slightly on ALL modern 300 and 600 twelve string guitars and leaving the traditional narrow width on only vintage replica guitars. The question is how much more criticism I will then have to accept from those that like them just as they are, while trying to please some other group of people.

I see it as an all or none decision as there are already so many options across the line that production is truly mind-boggling sometimes. Furthermore, it would be a one way trip as the expense of making even small changes is quite significant. The 12 string market is fairly finite and I genuinely doubt this change would alter that; even if we had 100% of the market as a result it would take some time to pay back the retooling costs.

[rick12dr]

John, can you provide some comparitive specs on the 660-12 fingerboard vs the std 360[vintage] board? I know that the 360 board is 1-5/8" wide at the nut, and the 660-12/Petty is 1 3/4" at the nut, But, are they Both the same At The Body End
of the fingerboard?If the 660-12 is wider than the 360 at the body end, this Would constitute
some factory re-adapting, right?And not only to making fingerboard jig changes, but making the laminated neck block/blanks a hair wider.All this,
of course, Assuming there Is a difference at the body end.I'm sure there are other machining related issues that come into play here as well.
One suggestion I would make, and others I know who've tried the Petty/660-12s say it as well, is,
the wider-at-the-nut idea is Great, but why isn't the back of the neck profiled better[than it is]
better being subjective, of course.But everyone I've talked with about this to agrees; they Don't like the feel of the back of the neck shape. Surely there is enough"beef" in the wood there so that at least a slight, but noticeably "thinner"
front to back profile could be achieved ,say like a good early '65 Rick neck is.Comments, John??

[sir_andrew_of_left_coast]

Well, I've heard tell of a limited run that was made for Norm's Guitars (circa '93-'94) with a slightly wider 1-11/16" nut. Were a lot of changes required to accommodate this design?

[admin]

John: Thanks for giving some consideration to the views expressed in this topic. I believe that this option, should it be given a trial, would be a successful.

[grsnovi]

I think that as a result of this thread Mr.Hall is thinking about wider necks.

I have heard him comment several times regarding the current number of options produced by RIC. The general trend in manufacturing companies world-wide has been to reduce inventory and WIP and to produce to order. This has to be difficult when you are trying to produce product to 50 year old specs as well as new product.

I love my 360/12v64.

As Mr.Hall also notes - the 12 string market is finite!! Let's face it gang, a twelve string is (for most of us) a novelty instrument.

Thirty years ago, I played an acoustic Framus twelve string that had a fretboard that looked like the deck of an aircraft carrier - talk about room!!

[wilbur]

Here's a different point of view. I always wanted a 360/12 since the late 60's. I never even had a chance to play one until a couple of years ago when I was in a music store and there was a 360/12v64 sitting on a guitar stand. I picked it up and started playing and I couldn't believe how narrow the fingerboard was and how difficult it seemed to play. I put the guitar down and thought well forget that idea of ever owning one of those. But then a funny thing happened. As time went on I became more intrigued with figuring out how to play it and make it sound good. After all, if Harrison, McGuinn and countless others can play it why can't I? It almost became an obsession until last May when I bought a new 360/12CW. I've hardly put it down since and feel like I've made a lot of progress on it. Going back to when I played the v64 for the first time, if it would have had a "normal" (or wider) width fingerboard I may have just thought well I'll get one of these someday and probably still wouldn't own one.

Jim

[admin]

John: At the risk of putting the cart well before the horse, in the event that the new 300 series had a wide-neck option, would you expect the cost to be the same as the narrow neck, other things being equal? Also, would 1 and 3/4 inches be the width or who you go further at 1 and 13/16 inches?

[axel]

I wouldn't know about inches, but the equivalent of 2mm and/or a tiny bit more.
(strange how such a little difference could change so much)

I believe wider would belie the traditional 'fast action' reputation of Rickenbacker necks - highly justified, needless to say (so I will say it again: highly justified)

Otherwise, same neck & neck shape as current 300s&620s (skinny), same frets (ditto) and same Magnificent instruments.
a

[fred56]

My comments: 1. I would love the idea of adding a different width neck to the available options for Ricks, especially for the 300 series guitars (not including the 380L here). Inasmuch as the options for reverse hardware, vintage pickups and or knobs, etc. were/are available, I would see this as a nod to those who simply cannot manage the 1 and 5/8" neck, particularly for the 12-string Rick.

I had a 370-12RM for about three years, and fought with that neck constantly, trying to cleanly play notes on it. Aside from the fun of playing an A-chord cleanly using only my ring finger on things like "Feel a Whole Lot Better", the individual note passages were what killed me. Finally gave up and sold the guitar, after acquiring the 660-12TP model, and after having compared the two instruments for about a year, for playability. (Note that I determined that overall I prefer the semi-hollow body tone over the solid body.)

2. Someone asked if we should expect to pay more? Possibly, in fact, "probably", although I would not expect the upcharge to be *too* much. Given the current lack of that option (e.g., wider neck), I guess if I were given the chance to get a "360/12V65" (inventing a model) with a TP-like neck, I think I'd be prepared to pay extra for something like that, perhaps on the order of $200 - 300 or so. (Maybe a bit more -- don't know.)

The reason I say that is since that a wider neck is currently produced for the 380L, the 660, and the 650 models, so they are already "out there". However, there would likely be additional costs reflecting additional effort and possible tooling for the body-neck joint, and perhaps other items, I expect. These added costs would have to be passed along to the customer, of course.

3. I think RIC currently offers three neck widths at the nut: 1 and 5/8" (most guitars), 1 and 11/16" (700C and 700S), and 1 and 3/4" (660, 650, 380-L). I suppose adding a 1 and 13/16" or even a 1 and 7/8" neck width are further possibilities, and I'd hope that a guitar manufacturer providing these types of accommodations might add a single-cost charge for such a modification, regardless of the width chosen. I.e., the customer might be able to choose from "Standard" width (say, 1 and 5/8") when ordering the guitar, or be able to select from 1 of three or four "Non-Standard" widths, all offered for a consistent upcharge fee.

4. As to the historicity aspects (fast, slim necks), I don't see too much of a problem with paying tribute to the tradition of musicality and appearance, while at the same time increasing the access to entire model lines to more players, on the basis of enhanced playability.

Selfishly, I would love the chance to have a 300 series vintage style-except-the-neck Rickenbacker 12-string guitar.

My 2 cents.

Fred

[admin]

Fred: Should RIC actually go with a wider neck, I would think that it would be one size as opposed to a range of sizes. Your points are well taken though. I cannot see how increasing the neck width would work against RIC in any way.

[fred56]

A true enough comment, Peter. I expect that would be the ideal.

However, with the three sizes that RIC offers/builds now -- representing a range of 2/16 of an inch, in 1/16" "steps" -- I reasoned that those three would be the most logical to work to.

Another way might be to offer the wider neck of the 700C/S (1 and 11/16") -- also a set-neck (I assume) -- as an option on the 300 series set-neck guitars, and the 1 and 3/4" neck-throughs on only the 600 series. But then, on the 600 series, there's already the 660-12 which gives the buyer an "upgraded variant" of the 620-12, and the 650s are already wider-necked. (Although not available as 12s.)

So, perhaps the main area of interest would be the 300 series 12s anyways.

I wonder how much effort there actually would be to adapt the wider neck to that body. Was there not something like that produced in a very small run, in the early 1990s?

Fred