Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Ok all you Rick historians. Can anyone tell me why Rickenbacker decided on the current neck widths for their models? I love all 3 of my Rics, but often wonder why they didn't settle on one width and stick with it (particularly for their 6 string models). I absolutely love the shape of the neck on my Sierra but sometimes wish it was as thin as my 360, or at least something in between.

Unfortunately, I know with their never-ending back-logs, they will never be able to offer the current models with "different" neck widths.

Be interested in hearing how these particular widths evolved.

Thanks!

That would be particularly boring and short-sighted on our part. The idea is to have different models appealling to different players or markets.

Why not make them all the same shape? WHy not make them all Jetglo? Same reason.

Same shape? Same color? With all due respect to Mr. Hall, that's the most convoluted logic I've heard in a while.

Using that train of thought, Rickenbacker should be offering the same color variety Fender does (after all, those same four Ric colors might get "particularly boring)".

The point was not to make them all the same--size, shape, or color.

I understand that different models appeal to different players. But some players might like the option of having a particular model with a wider or thinner neck--just like toasters vs high-gains. Only it's a bit tougher to do an after-market neck swap.

While having too many options for a product can be a cost liability, the factory already makes both neck sizes so I don't see how that would be short-sighted. It would be, however, an additional manufacturing/assembly cost, which might be the bottom line here (pun intended).

But the original question has yet to be answered--how was it decided which model would get which neck size?

One little bit that I can add here is that from spending time here and on the rickenbacker.com site, there isn't a real consensus on a single neck width, color, pickup, pickguard, finish type, etc. There are some work-arounds for people who want a solid body with a narrow neck (620), and for a time the wide necked 380L was available in a 360 package. Also, the pickups are interchangeable and that's an issue the factory won't have to deal with.

I'm guessing that Rickenbacker's triple secret marketing involves listening to players and staff and making new guitars/features/reissues when they feel that it's the right time. I also suppose that when you have guitars you are going to make in 3 years already ordered, you are reticent to add new guitars/features/reissues. It is a simple fact that the more options you offer, the longer it takes to make each guitar, and when you have a backlog, that doesn't make sense.

Oh fudge, now John has to kill me for divulging the triple secret marketing stuff.

What about 360WB JG with a Eppi casino neck. The perfect RIC

Well, maybe for you, but...

Casino's do have very nice necks... I'd just like to throw out that making a 360 out of Walnut and putting humbuckers on it is far from being "a 360 with a wider neck"

There is the tooling cost to consider if changing the necks to be wider on the 330/360/325/350 etc., and I think that is a big reason why they have stayed with the narrow necks on those.

The main reason, IMHO, is simply tradition.

You can keep Casino necks on the Casinos, thanks. JMO

Seth: Mr. Hall has given you the benefit of his opinion with regard to the question you asked.

You might not feel that your question was answered or you might not have liked the response, however, Mr. Hall did take the time to respond.

Your attitude can only be expected to discourage him from responding to your questions or the questions of others in the future. As a gentle reminder, continued comments such as you have made here will not stand you in good stead on the RickResource Forum.

Mr. Hall ribbed me about spending $75 for a custom nut. I took me about 5 minutes to realize he was kidding. I was just amazed I had gotten a responce from him. I even told the guys at the local shop.

Peter, my apologies. I did not think my original question had an attitude at all. It was not my intent to create any animosity whatsoever.

I detected some sarcasm in his response, and in hindsight, should have taken another approach for my own response. I'm disappointed, however, that he did not attempt to answer the original question, as he would be most qualified to do so.

Seth: I want to thank you for your response. Your comments are much appreciated.

But I DID answer the question:

"The idea is to have different models appealing to different players or markets."

There's nothing more to say about it because that's THE answer, even if that seems convoluted to you.