New 12 string headstock?!?!?

chefothefuture · Post by **chefothefuture** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:57 am

YURRRK!
WHY! Is it me, or has anyone else lost their lunch as well
as their wish to buy a 12 with this abomination?
It's an awful day when a beautiful piece of art and engineering
is so destroyed( IMHO).....

ben_hall · Post by **ben_hall** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:44 am

Yeah, who made that dumb decision?

I bet there was a mad rush of people to cancel their orders leaving the warehouse overflowing with 12 string guitars, right next to their abundant stock of crazy.

Next thing you know they'll start putting walnut ears on 4003 and 650 Colorado headstocks!

Talk about the inmates running the asylum...

jps · Post by **jps** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 8:33 am

You crack me up!

longhouse · Post by **longhouse** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 8:57 am

I have mixed emotions about it. Overall, I think I prefer the old half-rout, but the new one likely gives dust less surface to stick too.

Either style is attractive.

rick12dr · Post by **rick12dr** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 9:56 am

You want "pure vintage look". or more utilitarian
function? the slots cut through make sense; hell, Martin made cut through slot headstocks on their acoustic 12s, works fine...

ben_hall · Post by **ben_hall** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 10:13 am

Inevitably, despite the overwhelming approval of the decision by customers, someone won't like it because it's different.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

valenti · Post by **valenti** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 11:52 am

I'm all for improving a design, regardless of whether it sticks to the "original." That would be like making the new generation Mustang GT with a carburetor and rear drum brakes just to keep it closer to the first generation.

The new headstock might look "different" but it makes sense from a design standpoint.

Now, if we can just do something about Ridiculous R tailpiece...

oreca · Post by **oreca** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 1:38 pm

The R tailpiece must stay!

tony_carey · Post by **tony_carey** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 1:41 pm

I agree....even though none of mine actually have one (Accents, Bigsby, Trapeze). My wife says that it's not a Ric unless it has an R tailpiece, so I suppose that technically, I don't have any!

valenti · Post by **valenti** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 2:48 pm

--My wife says that it's not a Ric unless it has an R tailpiece, so I suppose that technically, I don't have any!--

So this begs the question: is it still a Ric with her eyes closed?

As an admitted "newbie" to Ric-world, it was the Ric SOUND that made me plunk down my cash. Yes, it's the best looking guitar I own and yes, it makes people go "oooh, ahhh!" when they see it, but I think that's the whole Rick visual. With or without the tailpiece, it's still got all the Ric properties.
The fact that there are other models of Rics without the R (as Tony mentioned) doesn't lessen their "Rick-ed-ness" so to speak.

For me, the ability to change 12 strings quickly and easily is more important than the classic lines of the R tailpiece--though it would not take rocket science for Hall et al to modify the R tailpiece to make restringing an easier process. Just my two cents...

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 4:03 pm

Most of the people who have said they don't like it have never actually seen it. Furthermore, most who have seen one of these guitars never noticed the difference, until it was pointed out!

You have to be up close, looking at it dead on to even see the difference.

Anyway, this is a prime example why we really don't like to change ANYTHING, even when we see a dozen ways to improve it.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:56 pm

This , as John says, is a minor change visually--very minor. Yet functionally it makes lots of sense.

You new YURKKKers can always choose from decades of vintage 12s with tough-to-restring headstocks anyway.

Obviously, I'm all for it.

tony_carey · Post by **tony_carey** » Sat Nov 12, 2005 11:36 pm

I like the new headstock, it is a typical improvement from Ric...a functional improvement, but in a retro kind of way & as such, is just the sort of brilliance that we have come to expect. Having said that, it wouldn't sway me either way to buy one, I would be happy with either headstock.

gibsonlp · Post by **gibsonlp** » Sun Nov 13, 2005 4:08 am

I really like the new headstock.
If I understand correctly from the picture - it doesn't have the "rear wall" on the "classic-like' tuning heads.

Looks like a blessed change.

jps · Post by **jps** » Sun Nov 13, 2005 6:40 pm

I think the new headstock looks great and is more functional, I wish my 660/12 was like that.