Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

aceonbass wrote:those model number designations are arbitrary numbers assigned to the body shapes for the page they appeared on. How can I tell? Because the body shapes are clearly not in the order they were introduced into the line while the numbers are consecutive.

Hum let's see...

I don't think the web was really around before the 80's so you are probably correct that they were assigned after the fact, however it is a big assumption that they have no other value to the company then how they are applied on the web page. I'm not saying they do, as I don't know, but I don't think you can assume by this fact that they don't either. It could be a filing system for the CNC blueprints or something internal like that. The only way to be truly sure is if a RIC employee or RIC's web master let's us know either way.

But, even if they are arbitrary numbers used by a web designer and are assigned to a field for the simple purpose of algorithms within the model identifier only, I think it's funny that I appear to be the only fool who noticed!

Just sayin'

Looks like the same numbering system Tony Bacon used in his book. I wonder if it was his idea or not?

FIREGLO67 wrote:If you contact one of the sellers here you can probably get any configuation of Rickenbacker guitar that you want, if that's your bag.
Just don't ask them for a Number 008 though, you might end up with fried rice.

http://www.dhgate.com/wholesale/rickenbacker.html

i agree with you

Matt Clark wrote:. . . however it is a big assumption that they have no other value to the company then how they are applied on the web page. I'm not saying they do, as I don't know, but I don't think you can assume by this fact that they don't either.

It's no assumption- I've said they are arbitrary several times now. The webmaster at that time created the outlines in that order, nothing else, and we don't use those designations anywhere else. I may just go scramble them to emphasize the point.

What is it that you want to keep about the shape? The look from the front? the width at the horns? There's not much else that you can see when either a) you're playing it or b) it's sitting on a stand (unless you like twirling it above your head or sit watching the stand on a motorized turntable.

To keep the general look, when playing or admiring, I'd get the back removed, fill the cavities with either resin or maple, replace the back (you're going to need at least some resin now to take the air out of the sandwich) and then get the back, upper and lower bouts profiled where it meets your body (strat -like). This would retain the overall look, remove some of the weight that you've put in and actually improve playability by having it sit exactly where you want it to. You'll probably need to refinish the whole guitar to make it look nice.

Personally I prefer to switch to a LP when I need it and that's heavy enough, but if you must do it then I'd definitely take the weight back out by profiling - it might actually work quite well.

johnhall wrote:

Matt Clark wrote:. . . however it is a big assumption that they have no other value to the company then how they are applied on the web page. I'm not saying they do, as I don't know, but I don't think you can assume by this fact that they don't either.

It's no assumption- I've said they are arbitrary several times now. The webmaster at that time created the outlines in that order, nothing else, and we don't use those designations anywhere else. I may just go scramble them to emphasize the point.

Thanks John, now I know not to use them!

I did a brief search of this forum for this question but could not find anything in the past.

FIREGLO67 wrote:If you contact one of the sellers here you can probably get any configuation of Rickenbacker guitar that you want, if that's your bag.
Just don't ask them for a Number 008 though, you might end up with fried rice.

http://www.dhgate.com/wholesale/rickenbacker.html

Makes sense, but I would like to know how to choose a good guitar it?

scotty wrote:

jingle_jangle wrote: Scotty the Troublesome.

009 licensed to Kill and it it dont the fecking weight will

LOL!!!

How about using cut blocks of balsa wood for the inside? At least it would still be very light.

Doesn't matter wrote:How about using... ...At least it would still be very light.

Let's be very clear... I don't care about a heavy guitar. I do not want "light." If I was going to have a custom body made in the 330/360 shape I would use a very heavy wood like walnut and probably make it a half inch thicker even. Slinging a heavy instrument is not a problem here. Having a semi-hollow guitar that I love the look of and wanting it as a solid body is.

The RIC high gain pickup preform outstandingly well on a 620 but on a 330/360 they squeal like spoiled little girls! I was really looking for a solution that doesn't involve making a ghost guitar and therefore, not supporting RIC by doing so.

I just had a third RIC high gain pickup added to my 620 and had it rewired. It has now become the most versatile guitar I've ever heard--period. I can get everything from a deep Les Paul tone to a tele/strtat and she still sounds like a RIC too. And, he used all of the same pots and toggle so it still look like it should (with the extra pickup of course). Simply outstanding! My tech is a genius! Now I want to make my 330 into a 340 and get the same kind of performance out of that guitar as well, but I don't think that is possible if it remains a semi-hollow guitar.
.

Matt Clark wrote: The RIC high gain pickup preform outstandingly well on a 620 but on a 330/360 they squeal like spoiled little girls! .

This is what happens; when you play the 330, all the girls in the neighbourhood go crazy, and you can't hear your guitar anymore.
Happened to the Beatles too.

Other than that, both the 620 and the 330 are listed for 8 pounds on the RIC website.
Except for the cavity in the 330, both of them are 8 pounds of the same.

Matt Clark wrote:Let's be very clear... I don't care about a heavy guitar. I do not want "light." If I was going to have a custom body made in the 330/360 shape I would use a very heavy wood like walnut...

Well, walnut isn't a particularly heavy wood. It ranges from about 30-43 lbs/cubic foot, depending on species. Maple ranges 39-47, so in general, walnut is going to be a bit lighter than maple...

I just had a third RIC high gain pickup added to my 620 and had it rewired. It has now become the most versatile guitar I've ever heard--period. I can get everything from a deep Les Paul tone to a tele/strtat and she still sounds like a RIC too. And, he used all of the same pots and toggle so it still look like it should (with the extra pickup of course). Simply outstanding!

How did you wire in the middle p/u on your 620-- did you tie it in parallel to the neck p/u as is done on a 370, or did you do something different? I've always been curious about what a 3-p/u RIck would sound like with a Strat-like 5-position switch, although it might be tricky to integrate that with the Rick-o-Sound wiring (I haven't given this any real thought).

Probably sound about as good as this does.