Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

What's your favorite kind of maple syrup? I prefer mine robust, compared to lite.

firstbassman wrote:It's not the grain that bothers me so much on my 360/12 MG as much as the actual color or shade.
My MG (made in '06 I think) is a light pale blonde, pine-like color.
By the time it ages to a nice rich wood color (or in fact as PW says it's the CV that actually chages color) I'll be 90- years old.

Mark, I think I've stated on more than one occasion that it's both the maple AND the CV that yellow.

Leave a piece of raw maple out in the sun, with a bit of tape wrapped around its center section. A month of sun later, unwrap the tape. The exposed maple will have yellowed, the area under the tape will be the original whitish color.

I've got a $500 Chinese (Washburn Cumberland) jumbo 12 string acoustic that is quilted maple every bit as nice as that Gibson, BTW. Grain is lovely when you can get it.

The whole issue of wood grading is a sore point with luthiers...no two suppliers grade wood the same: it's very subjective. I daresay that the ONLY way to consistently "score" really great wood at good prices, is to be there when the truck is unloaded, and hand-select it. My usual SF supplier, MacBeath Hardwoods, has taken to charging silly prices for single or grouped exotically-grained pieces, and I've seen stuck logs of maple and mahogany (good if you're building furniture sets with matching grain on the faces) in the high-four and low-five figure range for less than a hundred board feet of usable lumber. I recently paid about $250.00 for a single piece of highly-figured bubinga for fretboards--about 12 board feet. But that makes a lot of fretboards!

I have both a 660 and a 381, and a couple of Gibsons too. I wouldn't describe any of them negatively. When my 381 arrived just this past Christmas, I have to say that I was disappointed when I first saw it - it did seem rather plain compared to some of the spectacular figured examples I've seen before. Once I had it for a while I noticed there was a lot of really nice, yet subtle, flame and grain. So I've come to appreciate mine more over the months I've had it. If its really bothersome, try closing your eyes while you play and see if you can hear the figuring coming out of your amp.

Here's an interesting thread on the Rickenbacker forum on a similar subject...

http://www.rickenbacker.com/forum_view_ ... o%20finish?

seanyfitz wrote:

dpowell wrote:
I think comparing a Ric to a gibsonis unfair because Gibsons are lifeless pieces of ****. Come on....You can play a Ric, Gibsons are tanks made of wood. like playing a baseball bat

I couldn't disagree more with this statement, having owned and playing both brands of instruments for 26 years. When you say that Gibsons are lifeless peices of ****, what is your intention regarding other forumites who own and love theirs? I might also add what about the numerous artists of all genres that have used Gibson instruments to create signature tones?

If they are not for you, then simply say that instead of offending the many here who have them.

My old ES-125 has quite a bit of life in it!

If not for a Gibson Les Paul and a bit of talent I suppose, I would not have become a professional musician. I also had a Rickenbacker 375 FG and a Rickenbacker 360/12 FG that I used on stage. So where does that leave me I wonder?

dpowell wrote:

tennis_nick wrote: Um, no, it's about 5/8th of an inch, or 7... it's definitely more than 1/2 though.

1/2"...5/8"...Still a heck of a lot thinner than a 620.

Those '59's are up upcharge not only for the top itself, but for the time they spend in sorting going through all the slabs to find the highly flamed maple.

I'd prefer a 59 reissue I think, just because the 58's have much larger necks, and the 60's have much smaller necks!

The 59 I played was perfect in every way, except for the strings, which were old. As soon as I started leaving, the salesman changed em out.

tennis_nick wrote:
Those '59's are up upcharge not only for the top itself, but for the time they spend in sorting going through all the slabs to find the highly flamed maple.

I'd prefer a 59 reissue I think, just because the 58's have much larger necks, and the 60's have much smaller necks!

The 59 I played was perfect in every way, except for the strings, which were old. As soon as I started leaving, the salesman changed em out.

Probably a topic for the non-Rick forum at this point...

No matter how much time they spend looking for wood, it's not worth that much per guitar. The real reason it costs that much is marketing-based - they know how much people want the '59 or the slim-necked '60 and not the other, less-famous years, and charge accordingly.

I'm perfectly happy with my '58, neck and all.

I think it would be important to acknowledge, in the greater scheme of things, that the Les Paul has been one of the most successful guitars in history.

Sean, Mike is exactly right. Perhaps more thoughtful comments could be used when discussing instruments for which you have a dislike.

My friend has moved back home to Japan, but before he left offered to sell me his '68 SG, or have me sell it for him. He offered it to me for $1,000. Man, the most wonderful guitar to play, really never felt that positive about a guitar's playability. I showed it at SoCal '08.

Plus, being a '68 it had a nice mojo.

Well, I pondered too long, as is my habit, he found a buyer in Japan. $4000.

Snoozed, I Loozed.

shamustwin wrote:... Well, I pondered too long, as is my habit, he found a buyer in Japan. $4000.

Snoozed, I Loozed.

Yep, been there, done that ...