Page 4 of 5
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:15 pm
by jingle_jangle
I'm not sure about that "whatever nameplate" theory, John S., the Rick 1000s I've seen had pretty nice finishes, whereas the ES 16s and 17s had thinner, non-buffed out CV finishes, surely as a cost-cutting measure. Perhaps they were pulled off the line (so to speak) before sanding and buffing, to become Electros, and stayed to become Rickenbackers...
My '83 ES-16 is a high-gain and neck-thru. The TRC screw hole is almost exactly centered.
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:24 pm
by ken_swearingen
What about the rounded heal? rounded heals started for basses in 66.
Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:32 pm
by ken_swearingen
My 66, RM4001s
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:58 am
by leftybass
Paul: Concerning the 1000/ES-16 models, I have yet to see a difference in construction on these save for the TRC(and running specs like pickup style etc), but I'm not discounting your observations in the least...from my own data, the Rick could be an Electro and vise-versa. The full-scale guitars are another matter althogether, with set-neck construction being used in Rickenbacker 420/450/460 production in some instances..I consider thsese guitars an example of the lesser-brands being reversed..the earlier the production, the more likely you'll see the thinner finish(but still nice)on both brands.
My own 1967 950 is Jetglo and in original minty condition, but the finish is rough and un-buffed, substandard to what you'd expect on a Rickenbacker...'Your mileage may vary..'
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:34 am
by 8mileshigh
I'd restore it Dave. They are a great little guitar. I love the neck on mine.
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:46 am
by dswp
Graham nice....
The neck on mine looks straight, however, the broken truss nut scares me a bit.
Ken, when did you get the 66?
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:54 am
by leftybass
I saw that bass for sale a while back if I believe, wasn't it in England?
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:37 am
by ken_swearingen
It was in England,and originally Fireglo.
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:14 am
by 8mileshigh
Ah you got it in the end Ken. Congrats!!
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 7:45 am
by leftybass
Dave wrote: "...The neck on mine looks straight, however, the broken truss nut scares me a bit...."
I'd try to put a new rod in it on that side for sure, but it's possible that it'll play fine without it. It's just one of those things you'll have to keep an eye on..
When you get to the point of putting strings on it Dave, I'd go with .012s at a minimum, probably .013s would be better. It probably wont intonate properly unless you use these string guages. Just follow the same guidelines as if you were stringing up a 325. It probably had .013s on it from the factory....
Posted: Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:04 am
by rickfan60
If the original rod is there you may be able to repair it. They are actually longer than they need to be. Sometimes just the threaded portion breaks. In that case just recut the ends to approximate the original offset. Use the other rod as an example. Then cut threads in the longer side with an appropriately sized die. Put a little electrical tape between the rod halves to prevent rattles.
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:35 am
by doctorwho
For the record, there is one more Model 1000 of that era, the Ryder 1000, an example of which I own:
Oddly enough, this one (date code FF, June 1966) has a set neck:
BTW, mine came with its original brown case.
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 1:27 pm
by leftybass
There you go. Thanks Gary for posting the pics. The Rickenbacker 460 I saw with a set neck was also within this time period, May-June 1966.
Posted: Fri Dec 23, 2005 2:01 pm
by doctorwho
Very interesting, John.
Posted: Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:45 am
by leftybass
For those of you who want to compare a 21-fret 900 with an 18-fret 1000, here is a 900 to look at...From 1963:
