Re: Can you help me identify my Rick?
Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:43 pm
Yes this is true. That's what happens when you jump to the 2nd page of a thread without re-reading the first one. I forgot about the non standard tailpiece. In this case, yes it does suggest the guitar was a 365. Otherwise there would be the holes for the the R hook, which are closer in to the strap hole than the ones in this guitar.
However it's still true that internal markings are no indication of what the guitar would end up being assembled as. Clearly it's a marking the guitars were given after finishing but prior to fitting of hardware. A 360 would not have a 335 marking inside. A 330 body can't become a 360 after the finish process.
I understand Richard Smith sighted the factory invoices to come up with his totals. This would explain why he's also able to give quite a few specific examples of finished instruments in pg 225-9 to explain the sequencing.
The known serial number sequence makes the '65 total approx 2600 instruments. Smith's totals for '65 are 2400, not including lapsteels, so he's not completely out of the ballpark as we so often hear.
However it's still true that internal markings are no indication of what the guitar would end up being assembled as. Clearly it's a marking the guitars were given after finishing but prior to fitting of hardware. A 360 would not have a 335 marking inside. A 330 body can't become a 360 after the finish process.
I understand Richard Smith sighted the factory invoices to come up with his totals. This would explain why he's also able to give quite a few specific examples of finished instruments in pg 225-9 to explain the sequencing.
The known serial number sequence makes the '65 total approx 2600 instruments. Smith's totals for '65 are 2400, not including lapsteels, so he's not completely out of the ballpark as we so often hear.
