Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 1:50 am
to me all of those headstocks look pretty much the same ... the headstocks from the early 70s to 1996 are shorter ... but the new ones look pretty much the same to my eye ...
Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum
Rickenbacker Forum, Amplifier, Bass and Guitar Register
https://www.rickresource.com/forum/
'Bulbous' headstock question.
Page 3 of 6
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:13 am
My 4003SB is very bulbous, too bulbous for accuracy really.
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:14 am
My 4003SB is very bulbous, almost too bulbous for vintage accuracy really.
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:17 am
Yeah, its not not that easy to see the difference. Its MUCH easier to see the difference with headstock shots of a pre-97 and post-97 V63 but unfortunately, I have no good photos of them.
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:23 am
What's a 4003SB Ed? Do you have pics?
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:50 am
My Blueboy is kinda "bulbous" or "stubby" as I prefer to call it. I just think you notice it more because of the lighter finish.
Never really bothered me though, Its not that big an issue with me.
Never really bothered me though, Its not that big an issue with me.
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:30 am
Though there doesn't appear to be that much of a difference between them, there is. Here's a pic of my 2000 V63 headstock after I reshaped it. It was bulbous, and was trimmed to vintage/C64 specs. Quite a bit of wood was removed, actually.
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:54 am
Looks nice, Sean! That's the shape I like!
Here's a rather poor picture of my '92 V63 ph.
Here's a rather poor picture of my '92 V63 ph.
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:02 am
I'm a fan of the 70s/80s style of Ric basses. The newer ones just reek of "ugly" to me.
now i will go hide.
now i will go hide.
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:13 am
LOL! To each his own, Sean. They're all great instruments though.
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:14 am
I have a v63 from 1993 which is non-bulbous, and my sept '97 v63 is most bubbly bulbous, almost light bulb bulbous. Its bombastic bulbousness is a bummer!
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:19 am
Okay, here are photos of the bulbous-headed 2001 V63 currently on ebay(top) to compare with Kevin's non-bulbous-headed 1992 V63(bottom). Yes they look similar, but note where the TRC ends in relation to the end of the headstock. The TRC's are the same length. Note where the tuners are in relation to the end of the headstock. See it yet, Jeff?!
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:49 am
Oops, a little correction here. I see I said my MG V is a '92. It's actually a May '93.
Nice one, Gene!
Nice one, Gene!
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:01 am
The definition of BULBOUS:
"Main Entry: bul·bous
Pronunciation: 'b&l-b&s
Function: adjective
1 : having a bulb : growing from or bearing bulbs
2 : resembling a bulb especially in roundness <a >
- bul·bous·ly adverb"
Damn, I guess I'M bulbous too-"especially in roundness".
"Main Entry: bul·bous
Pronunciation: 'b&l-b&s
Function: adjective
1 : having a bulb : growing from or bearing bulbs
2 : resembling a bulb especially in roundness <a >
- bul·bous·ly adverb"
Damn, I guess I'M bulbous too-"especially in roundness".
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:50 am
How I see the two is the FG one's Nike-like swoosh top point is not as pointed as on the MG one, and the headstock on the MG is longer than the FG one.
I don't understand the term bulbous as used for headstocks. I've been looking at the shape of the topmost bulge, but other than the pointed difference I spoke of in these two examples, I don't see a difference. What am I missing?
I don't understand the term bulbous as used for headstocks. I've been looking at the shape of the topmost bulge, but other than the pointed difference I spoke of in these two examples, I don't see a difference. What am I missing?