Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

OK, I asked someone this the other day, and they had no clue, so, up it goes to the board. Why did Rick make that 325 a 3/4 scale? It wasn't a student model (from my understanding at least). Were they experimenting with scale length and tension? Is anyone in the know as to why this was done? One merely wonders...

Thanks,

JKC

From what I've read I think the concept of the short scale neck was simply designed with the thought it would be easier to play.

I thought the 325 was a student model?

The Model 1000, with 18 frets, was known as the student model.

OK, why would it be easier to play? Shorter reaches? Just kind of interesting.

Thanks for the input. Anyone else?

good question... maybe just trying to tap those who are digitally challenged? All I know for sure is that my fat fingers cant handle the 325.

I've got, let's see...five short scale Ricks as well as several vintage Fender short scale "student" models.

Although the "student" label has been attached to the ES-16 Electro and the 1000, in truth, RIC has had a virtual line of student (or young folks) guitars for a long time. The difference seems to be in price points, and a price point spread within this assortment is a solid marketing move.

Bear in mind also that "student" makes us think of kids playing them, whereas anyone with slim fingers or small hands would be a customer for this type of guitar.

John Lennon made good use of his own 325 in playing some of those chords and the occasional lead, in the early hits. I have large hands and slim fingers and really enjoy the shorty fretboards!

I too have large hands but love the short scale Ricks. They definitley make long reaches easier, and I found certain jazzy chords easier to play as well.

I never thought of the original 325's as student guitars - simply an experiment by Rickenbacker, like slanted frets, or the converter comb. Thanks to John Lennon, this one, unlike the others, will be forever enshrined as one of the world's famous electric guitars.

So, Paul, are you saying the 3/4 1000 models with 18 frets, and the 325's (as well as other 21 fret short scales) posses the exact same playability?

Stan, playability is a product of many factors: weight and body size, type of frets, scale length, balance.

The Rickenbacker short scales, at 20.75" are noticeably shorter than Fender's shorties (22.5").

Exact same playability? No way. Similar advantages over longer scales, to me? Yes.

I have a '63 900, '64 1000, and '67 900. They are the "poor man's 325" so to speak. I've played lots of 325's and they are similar except for the body. There is not a noticeable difference between a 900/950 and a 1000 despite losing 3 frets.

I agree Jason. I love my 950, it's a 67. The neck feel is very much like a 325....mine has ATOMIC powered pickups, it rocks.

Hmmm, my inquiry was answered, of sorts. I don't know if it does any good for the original question on this thread though. However, it's my bad, since I hijacked it from its intended query anyway. My apologies, Jim.

I forgot to mention the (one) pickup on my '83 ES-16. It's a high-gain and it, too, is ATOMIC. Insane.

Once I played it through my Dual Shwman, and the "normal" Jaguar volume and tone settings were too much.

IIRC, John Fogerty had a 3/4 scale Gibson Les Paul Custom in the early CCR days (besides the 325 FG, of course).