Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Does anyone out there have both the Bacon large pic and the Beatles Gear book shot. Check out the stud in the arm on the B5, they look different to me. Is it the same? More fun, lol. I'm going to be out of the loop for the next few days, I'll check back in when I get back on line.

BTW, Mr. Hall knows a lady in his town who could replicate the wood grain from the Bacon pics perfectly on your natural C58s if you want it done. No kidding.

Belated HB, John...I celebrated a different birthday yesterday. The birth of my first grandson came around 3:30.

Didn't mean to move this thread around from birthdays to the V81 and back to birthdays...but couldn't help tossing this in.

Congrats, Stan!

When I was 49, I got tired of waiting for my kids to give me a grandchild. So we had another daughter. She's 8 next week, and my older kids (36, 35, 31) still have not given me a grandchild!

We must remeber that V81, in it's current state, has been sanded several times since the early Hamburg photos shown. DeMarino also gave it a darker 'honey' stain as well.

The B5 stud bolt looks different today than when new due to rust (makes it look a little pregnant against the shiny handle). I have a half a dozen old B5's and they all look like that.

Why hasn't Rickenbacker had the opportunity to closely inspect Lennon's 325's when Gibson had the privalge with Lennon's Gibson guitars?

Correct that as 'privilege'.

I type too fast!

Karl wrote:"Why hasn't Rickenbacker had the opportunity to closely inspect Lennon's 325's when Gibson had the privalge (sic) with Lennon's Gibson guitars?"

Only JH can answer that.

It would be interesting to see the back just for kicks! Any nice pix?

And a fine back it is, Ron.

Looks to be a single-piece back as well, at least I can't see a seam...what's it belong to?

Lefty: Seeing the back of this Rickenbacker makes me wonder, assuming competent repair skills, how is one to know with some certainty that the work was not done at the factory to begin with.

Would comparisons with Rickenbackers of the day be helpful in determining whether the back on the V81 was replaced at some later date outside the factory?

Replacing a back on one of these is not rocket science. Assuming that the skills of a neighborhood repairman in Liverpool (or Hamburg?) back then would have been either of the traditional stringed instrument repairman (with violins and cellos as his bread and butter) or at the worst, straightforward handyman-type repairs, this task would have been well within his capabilities. Luthiers or repairmen would have been very rare and associated with and probably referred by a local music store.

Even today, it's easy to tell European plywood and glues from American. If the back was replaced in Europe or the UK, I believe that the materials would be the tipoff, not the method or degree of craftsmanship.

Did Rickenbacker use hide glue or rabbit skin glue at the factory when V81 was built? Possibly the former, definitely not the latter. Both these were in common use by repairmen in the '50s and 'early '60s in Europe. I recall Titebond (yellow) glue becoming available in the US in about 1958-9, although not under the Titebond brand. Would Rickenbacker have been using it in the factory when V81 was built? Or were they using formaldehyde or hide glue? Titebond didn't come into common use for repairs in the UK until roughly 1970.

Most likely when the back was originally put onto V81 at the factory, some glue squeeze-out occurred. This also would have been the case if the back was replaced. Reading the color of the dried bead of excess glue could be a good clue. "Glue's clues", as it were...(sorry...)

Titebond when dry is a yellow ochre color and translucent. Formaldehyde is a medium red-brown and quite opaque. Hide and rabbit skin glues are both dark amber and transparent to translucent when dried, and exhibit stress cracking which the other two do not.

Pulling the pickguard and looking at the joint area revealed, could provide an excellent insight.

Also, would the repair person put on the same type of back that he took off? Inquiring minds want to know.........

Exactly. The wood available in the UK at the turn of the '60s would almost certainly differ from that used by the Rickenbacker factory in Southern California. The current stripped-down-and-much-sanded finish could make this easier to ascertain.

It is maintained that V81 had a solid-wood back rather than ply when it was made.

So far there are only 3 or 4 photos, maybe less, that have been published of the guitar when it was new and doing the trade show circuit.

I believe there must me more unpublished pics of the guitar at RIC that would support the evidence that it had a different back on it..Lennon's 325 was one of the first made, and also served as a photo model and trade show demo. F.C. Hall took loads of pics of product back then, and there are bound to be some that only very few have seen, the unknown, un-tapped resource so to speak. I dunno for sure, but I'll bet there's more pics. GOOD ones. (They're all good, just more detail.)

It's easy enough to see the back on it now if you go to Japan, Larry has made the trip. He knows what a plywood back looks like, there's one on his own '58 325. Was the plywood back there in '58???

Hmmmm.... As JH said, "...it all eventually comes out...."

Peter: IMO there were some subtle design changes as time progressed, but the construction generally stayed the same, at least this much seems to be true based on the one's I've held in my hands. As it was said above, the job of putting a back on a guitar like a 325 would have been a fairly easy task for a good repairman, so I doubt if a decision would've been made to send the guitar back to the factory to have it done...

"It's easy enough to see the back on it now if you go to Japan..."

That's assuming that the guitar that's on display at the Lennon Museum there, is genuine.

Which it's not...