Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I have read from some of your threads that the older Rickenbackers had X-Bracing. What do the new models have? And what was the advantage of X-Bracing in Rickenbacker guitars?
I love the tech part of Rickenbacker guitars but I cannot find a source or pix of the X-Bracing inside of a Ric.
Thanks,
Joey

Here you go:

Wow, Jeffrey, great shot! So what are the pros and cons of X-bracing?
Thanks,
Joey

Pros and cons I couldn't tell you about; the photo is from John Williams' site. It is his 4005 being restored before the famous BB finish was applied to it.

Well, in my opinion, the X-braced guitars have a brighter and louder acoustic tone, which translates to a brighter electric tone. They are just so loud unplugged....really alive.

The big con is structural stability. Some of the older ones ('60s-early '70s) develop sunken tops which pull the neck angle upward. When the guitar's bridge can no longer be adjusted to compensate, you'll see tricks like a sunken bridgeplate, or more commonly, the grommets removed from under the pickups so that the strings can still clear. When that happens, it's neck-set time. Which is a real bear on a Rickenbacker as you have to remove the back.

In the late '70s and early '80s, they still X-braced the guitars (until '84 I am pretty sure), but it seems to me ( I am extrapolating from what I have seen and not really sure of their actual intent) that they hedged themselves somewhat by making the top of the guitar thicker and stronger. The guitars of that era, especially the 12-strings, are heavy due to the thick top.

You are right there Bob. My 1980 330 has x bracing & it is substantially heavier than my others.

From what I can see in the soundhole of my 1979 370 it's built with the X-bracing.

I always found the guitar to be a bit heavy for a hollowbody. Not like a Les Paul or anything like that.

I have 1983 320 which has one brace going across the guitar ,but it is much heavier because it has a 3/8" top vs a 1/4" top.I also have a 66 360/12 with x-bracing and a 1/4" top and it is much lighter than the new 360 ricks.I have played my vintage one side by side with a new one with vintage p/u's and it sounds much different.I think it sounds better.

My '67 4005WB has X bracing and it is quite light and the top and back are nice and straight and parallel.

According to a prior rick luthier:
"The bracing was 4 for pieces of scrap wood that all met roughly foward of the bridge which caused a weak area where the top could flex.A more effective use would be two solid notched pieces that would fit together in the center and provide better support."

I don't know about others, but when i worked at Electro in the early 70's, i was taught to use 2 pieces of Maple for the X braces that were notched in the middle and glued in place where they crossed at the treble pick up for max strength so the top would not collapse.

I can't say I've ever observed a four piece X brace. Most of them are as Dale describes- two pieces interlocked- and some models, like the 4005 above are three piece due to the need for asymmetric bracing.

The X bracing, when combined with a thin top, certainly does have a nice acoustic sound quality but the later carved-in-place bracing guitars sure have a great electric guitar sound- volume, sustain, and presence- that you don't get with the earlier ones. I guess it just depends which sound you're looking for.

The only x-bracing I have seen is on my own guitars and a few others,so I cannot say they are all that way.I can certainly say that my own guitar from the 60's and the ones I have been able to see in detail have had three and four piece braces.I am sure that isn't a representation of all of them.I would certainly use a newer rick if I was using an aggressive distortion due to the lack of feedback.I own ricks now from the 66,83,88 and 04 and like them all,however my favorite is the one from 66.

When did they start putting x bracing in 330s? Would a 1958 have it?