Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I in the process of looking to buy a new Ric 12 string. I am considering the 381/12V69 but am concerned about the string spacing because of the neck binding.
If I'm not mistaken, The Rics with binding have a more narrow string spacing at the nut as compared to the models that don't have neck binding.
Also, with the exception of the 660 series are all the ric necks the same width and thickness?

I will have to buy through the mail so I won't have the chance to play it in person.

Welcome Charles,

There are several threads on the forum devoted to this same pursuit. If you care to peruse them your questions will almost certainly be answered.

Here's a link to the last discussion.

../7/67049.html"#FFEECC">

Here is another.

../7/62013.html"#EECD9C">

Briefly, Skeeter, if you replace the nut on the 381V69/12 with a factory nut from a 330/12, you'll have the wider string spacing. You can order one from RIC or one of Rickenbacker's dealers if you are in the USA. Otherwise, it'll have to come through your local distributor.

Thanks Brian and Paul for the help.

I did remember reading something about the nut spacing being different between necks with binding verses neck without. When I did a search to find the info again, what I was looking for didn't come up.

Welcome Charles. I play a 381-12 regularly & it plays, looks & sounds fantastic. A 360V64 is also worth checking out & when the dust has settled, try a humble 330-12....great, great sound!

I'll also take this opportunity to mention that there's some erroneous info posted about this at some other boards. All of the 12 string spacings were readjusted back in the mid 1990's sometime- I remember posting the exact date right off the CAD files somewhere recently- and we chose to have different spacing for instruments with and without binding. We still don't feel it's good practice to have the edge of the binding in the playing field on the fret board. However, enough people (at least vocal ones) have chosen to disregard our advice so we said, okay, let's just have one wider style that fits all, which happened to be the 330/12 style. We have less SKU's to produce and people get what they want, so who are we to complain?

Anyway, my point is that the calculations for the spacings were done here and done years ago. This was done with CAD and simulation to take into account the diameter of each string, how it vibrates, and how it might interact with it's mate, rather than a simplistic divide-up-the-space scheme.

Grover Jackson did the bulk of the actual design work on this with some technical assistance and guidance from me. It didn't come from anywhere else.

So, you are saying that 360/12 and 330/12 have the same nut? That would invalidate the argument that the 330/12 has more room. I look at many pictures of Ric's at the nut, and they all look the same. The spacing at the bridge, however, seem to vary from axe to axe.

Thanks for the welcome Tony. I've been a member on the Ric forum for awhile, I just don't post very often. I would rather "listen" most of the time and let others do the "speaking".

Now, as to the 381/12, I was never a great fan of this model. It was something about the German carved edge (I think that's how its referred to) That kind of turned me off. But over the years its grown on me that now I find it rather pleasing and definitely unique. The only thing that would make it better would be if it was offered in a three pickup model. Would that make it a 391?/12?

To Steve... The spacing at the bridge probably varies slightly because this operation is done by hand. If you happen to look at a twelve string with the twelve saddle bridge, you can easily tell it now done with a machine or template.

Aha!!! Another 'lurker'...........



Welcome from me also, Charles!

I totaly agree Charles. I never particularly liked the 381's carve, but like you, it has grown on me. You can always add a third pick up.....it's easy to do & I do it to every 330 I get.

Here is a "381" with 3 pickups and some other modifications:

http://www.stthomasu.ca/~pmccorm/research/thacker39112.jpg

Tasteful. Subtle.

Migod, Peter, that's not yours is it?

Bling-bling!