Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

JakeK wrote:+1, and add a tug bar, too, why don't they?

Yeah! So I can take it off and sell it on ebay for some silly amount!

Eden.

I'll throw my vote in for a 360/12c65!

NS body of course!

There is one...it's called the CW12...

jingle_jangle wrote:There is one...it's called the CW12...

Fine, then NS, without the super flamed/quilted top, or the limited production number.

Those tops look nice, but They TOTALLY aren't for me.

tennis_nick wrote: Fine, then NS, without the super flamed/quilted top, or the limited production number.

Those tops look nice, but They TOTALLY aren't for me.

Me neither - that's why i bought a Jetglo one.

Jeez...youse guys is grouchy today...

tennis_nick wrote:

jingle_jangle wrote:There is one...it's called the CW12...

Fine, then NS, without the super flamed/quilted top, or the limited production number.

Those tops look nice, but They TOTALLY aren't for me.

+A whole lot. I don't think the CW is comparable, really, to a full-on reissue.

Weren't the CW tops original to the tops of late '64/early '65?

Some of them were OK:
But others were outlandish:

I've never seen an original '64/'65 360 with that kind of flame or quilt...they seem to be plaintops, mostly.

I'm referring to the top thickness of a late '64/early '65

How much closer could you get to that period than a CW, aside from maybe tinting everything amber? If I recall, they were based on guitars from that time period? The tops clearly are thinner to those specs. Are you saying you want LESS-nice looking tops? Or just that you don't want to pay more for nicer wood? Even the pickups were scatterwound for the CW to match that time frame, and if I recall correctly they are now the standard toasters. You want a 65? Then I have to agree with Paul and say get a CW.

Just imagine IF they did have flame tops during the 1960s! Then, we would all compain now in 2008 if any guitar DIDN'T have a flame top because it wouldn't have that vintage vibe. That would mean production would grind to a halt because every guitar cannot have flame tops!

Who said anything about top thickness or inaccuracy- aside from the figuring?

The tops on most of the CW models are like maple on steroids. Give 'em less-spectacular wood, like the real ones...and make it a permanent reissue so I don't have to pay through the nose for one.

The 660TP became a standard model, why couldn't the 360CW?

scoobster28 wrote:Are you saying you want LESS-nice looking tops? Or just that you don't want to pay more for nicer wood?

"Niceness" is totally subjective. I prefer plain tops. To me that top on that flamed out CW above looks totally out of place. Kind of gross, really.

dpowell wrote:Who said anything about top thickness or inaccuracy- aside from the figuring?

The tops on most of the CW models are like maple on steroids. Give 'em less-spectacular wood, like the real ones...and make it a permanent reissue so I don't have to pay through the nose for one.

The 660TP became a standard model, why couldn't the 360CW?

C'mon, Dan...the comparison with the TP isn't really kosher.

The TP is a 660 with a special pickguard.

The CW is a 21-fretter, special top with vintage-style internal bracing, checkerboard purfling on the back. I suspect the body shape is subtly different from a standard 360. Even using "straight-grained" wood, it would be a lotta work to produce. That's why it is a special, and one of the finer specials too, I might add.

But this is the fantasy reissue thread, where your wildest dreams come true!!!11one1!

I still think a 360/12c65 is doable, somewhere down the road in no-backlog land. No more complicated than a 360/12c63 is. Not only that, Ric has already made some NS 360 reissues for the Japanese market.

Heck, let's compromise and just make the standard 360s 21-fretters.