Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:20 am
Oh, of course, Mike Parks. I just heard from him the other day, too...duhhhhhh.
Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum
Rickenbacker Forum, Amplifier, Bass and Guitar Register
https://www.rickresource.com/forum/
What's the difference between a 320 and a 325?
Page 3 of 3
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:54 pm
Just to clarify, the body shapes are exactly the same (of a 320 and a 325)?
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:17 pm
What is "exactly", Nick?
For all practical purposes, there is very little variation in the plan view.
The thickness varies. The early 325s and the C58 reissues are around 2" thick. My '81 ex-320 is about 1.6". Hand finishing makes for variations.
For all practical purposes, there is very little variation in the plan view.
The thickness varies. The early 325s and the C58 reissues are around 2" thick. My '81 ex-320 is about 1.6". Hand finishing makes for variations.
Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:48 pm
There are some variations in body width. I had an Oct 1981 320 MG that was about 3/4" wider than my 325v63 and 325v59; it would not fit in either of the their cases, and it barely fit in the short-scale case I got for it on eBay.
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:15 pm
That's confusing...
A C64 is supposed to be 1.5" width. I don't see how an extra .1 would make it unable to fit in a case.
According to my 70s RIC catalog, the 320 is supposed to be 1.5" in body width as well.
The scale is the same though, 20 3/4"?
A C64 is supposed to be 1.5" width. I don't see how an extra .1 would make it unable to fit in a case.
According to my 70s RIC catalog, the 320 is supposed to be 1.5" in body width as well.
The scale is the same though, 20 3/4"?
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:56 pm
I believe Gary is referring to body width, and you are referring to body thickness, Nick.
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 3:41 pm
Oh, okay.
But even still...the scale is the same? I ask because I'm considering buying a 320, and I hear they are good instruments.
Paul, love the capital letters.
But even still...the scale is the same? I ask because I'm considering buying a 320, and I hear they are good instruments.
Paul, love the capital letters.
Posted: Thu Feb 16, 2006 6:22 pm
Scales are the same--20 3/4" roughly (they are actually metric!)
The capital investment seems to have paid off!
The capital investment seems to have paid off!
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:33 am
Nick, the only difference is that the "5" denotes a vibrato. The 320 shape has been around since '58. Thru the years, the scale has been the same but the body has changed albeit very little.
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:55 am
John, don't you consider the variances in thickness a major change?
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 6:31 am
The dimensions have varied through the years for sure in many ways, body thickness and width between the lower bouts, more rounded edges etc...but the shape of the body has pretty much been back to the 60s shape since the V63 was released. Different periods in the history of the guitar will give you different data, but the basic model nomenclature means either vibrato or non-vibrato, yes.
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:21 am
Paul wrote "John, don't you consider the variances in thickness a major change?"
Yeah but my typing finger was getting tired. Plus I knew that Leftybass would finish up for me. lol.
Yeah but my typing finger was getting tired. Plus I knew that Leftybass would finish up for me. lol.
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:24 am
Paul: My apology, I will try to be more punctual in the future.