Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Wildberry wrote:

aceonbass wrote: it doesn't look like the older 615 shown at all.

The old 615 shown is not the exact guitar they used as example. And we all know that these older Ricks can differ slightly in looks.

The old 615 shown is only 3 serial numbers away from the one used for the tracing, which is significant. I think the bigger question is, find a single 1960's 600 series that has the upper horn of a 2010.

No Warner is correct. There was some variation in 60s models as they were prepared by hand.

Unless we have pictures of the particular 615 in the museum to compare - this debate has become pointless.

aceonbass wrote:True, but I think RIC should have stayed with the shape that was apparently the most common instead of going with something that could have been one workers inspiration whilest sanding on a given day. As many 600 series as have been shown here, it seems ineviteable that SOMEONE has an old one with the current shape. This is kinda like the vintage bass pickup surrounds. These definitely varied from bass to bass, but I feel the one chosen for the later V63's and C64's were not as iconic as say, the shape of the one on Chris Squire's bass. When I cut vintage lapsteel surrounds for use on vintage Ricks, Squire's is the one I go for.

Are you serious? Sanding on a given day? That crest wasn't SANDED to look like that, it was drawn and then machined like that. You couldn't sand it to look like that if you tried!

aceonbass wrote:Ben, when I say sanded, I'm referring to using a sanding drum on the contours of the horn, not sanding by hand. Again, I've never seen that shape until recently, so to me and I think most on this forum, it has no precedent. I'd certainly like to see a pic of the 615 John's talking about just to satisfy my curiosity. While I'm thinking about it, how about changing the 4003 guard shape back to the pre-'97 shape. It had more of a flow to it, and followed the contour of the edge of the bass better. Does anyone really think the newer guard shape is better?

Yeah Dane, I understood that. I will also point out that they do very little drum sanding in that area because it is way too easy to screw up the binding. My point was that the new shape is a bit larger and more pronounced. To sand an old one to the current shape would make it way smaller than what it is now. Heck, you'd have to add wood in order to sand it down to the current shape. As far as no precedent, a lot of the things we've changed don't have precedent. The new inlays are a different material than anything that we used before. The way the truss rod channels are cut are different as of two years ago, but you probably didn't notice that change (I don't think anybody did). UV curable polyester, big, big, change, never used polyester (esp. UV) top coats before. People still complain about the 12 string heads. I guess what I'm saying is that precedent doesn't always matter AND everyone has their own opinion.

As far as the pickguard is concerned, I'm completely apathetic to it. Maybe we will change it back, maybe not. I have so many pressing things going on in production every day, that is the last thing on my mind nor my sole decision in the end. Does anyone think the shape is better? I don't know, but it seems to me that that kind of minutia does not extend to 99.9% of our customers.

To each his own.

BTW, the 660 is not in a vintage series, it has always been a "pseudo" vintage model, subject to any change in the rest of the 600 Series. The V and C Series are the "untouchables." That being said, we don't make the 660/12 with the slot-through headstocks because it is literally a press of a button to do them that way and a lot of people didn't want them on that model and the neck program IS different from the 620 neck program from the start since it is a wider neck. The body shape is an entirely different story. The machine program to make any 600 Series guitar is the exact same perimeter to expedite production (which has helped a lot). The difference is in the later programs that do the checked binding and 650 body roundover.

And the truss rods routs... I was referring more to the squared off sections at the base of the fingerboard.

Here are some assorted pickguards from the forums/register here. I don't see too much difference in contemporary pickguards through to 2009, aside from the older 2-piece. But the biggest variation is in the vintage one. IMO, that pickguard shape coupled with the long ducktail bridge surround is the best!

The pickguard shape flares out over the bridge pickup, like the lines of a woman's 1950's poodle skirt. Then the shape of the surround narrows back in under pickup (the ducktail), just like the lines from the hem back into to her legs, and the strings take over down to the tailpiece at the bottom, just like the lines from her legs to her feet.

That was organic design at its best, just like 16th century violins, cellos, etc., and Spanish guitars were designed to be shaped like a woman. That vintage pg is the way it was supposed to be, and I'm certain it was done that way intentionally. Even if it was done on the fly on the shop floor during production, that organic design happened subconsciously. Our brains are just hardwired to mimic shapes we find pleasing. A freshman at Art Center in Pasadena would catch that.

A picky detail (no pun intended) some may think so, but in a company where design is so highly valued, I'm surprised it has been overlooked, disregarded as minutia, or left to chance.

coolhandjjl wrote:Here are some assorted pickguards from the forums/register here. I don't see too much difference in contemporary pickguards through to 2009, aside from the older 2-piece. But the biggest variation is in the vintage one. IMO, that pickguard shape coupled with the long ducktail bridge surround is the best! ...

Personally I think that one comes too close to the edge of the body near the output jack. I guess we all have our preferences.

Could be the picture is from a weird off center angle or maybe because it's an S.

Here's another pic from the register showing the pg better, but unfortunately w/o the nicer bridge surround.

I actually can't stand the vintage bass guard and I don't see how your opinion relates to the discussion Dane and I were having, other then the fact that it proves (by your own admission) that people either don't care or don't notice the "hump" pickguard. THAT is minutia. The wholesale and intended redesign of the shape of that part clearly isn't.

I think Ben's main point is valid - that the designs for the guitars even 50 years old models - are still in a state of evolution. The company will continue to make "improvements" to the line if they can do so to make them better, cheaper and more producible.

Most of us here have certain eras of Rickenbackers that are our favorites. Mine is late 70s/early 80s, for others it is the golden era of the 1960s.. But other then the vintage re-issues the company is trying to attract buyers who are choosing between a RIC or a newer Fender, Gibson or Gretsch. If you have never owned a 620 before then the new ones are what a 620 is supposed to look like!

I have no doubt that the build quality of new instruments is higher now then it has ever been. And if I were buying a new guitar for the first time I would be very very impressed.

As has been said many times before there are no "bad" eras in RIC's production history. But those of us who are fans certainly wish that features we have come to love about a specific instrument could be repeated...

The only hope is that if the backlog can be managed that one day Rickenbacker might create (or license some one like Paul W) to make custom instruments to customer specifications...

Other then that you just have to embrace whatever comes out of the factory on a daily basis...

RIC_FACTORY wrote: As far as the changes to the "horns" or scoops on some models, that is by design. I happen to prefer the current look of those instruments, ....