Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Did Rickenbacker change back to the smaller vintage style headstock for its' 6 string electrics. I Like It !
In fact I just bought a new Jet Glo 360 6 with the smaller vintage style headstock. If this is the case I'm really happy about it.
I grew up with the vintage headstock size (I believe pre 81's were smaller, except for vintage reissues) and I'm noticing a few 2007 models coming out with the vintage size headstock. I've seen them on some new 330's on line.
The Jet Glo 360-6 I just bought, which by the way is really quite nice, appealed to me first when I noticed the headstock was more vintage size. Then I played it and ...well that was that. The neck pickup is really nice. It has the high gains on it but boy do they sound sweet through a clean setup tube amp.

now if they'd only go back to the larger bodies on the basses and the smaller neck profiles, i'd consider buying a new one.

phlemmy wrote:now if they'd only go back to the larger bodies on the basses and the smaller neck profiles, i'd consider buying a new one.

Like this one?

ric330 wrote:Did Rickenbacker change back to the smaller vintage style headstock for its' 6 string electrics. I Like It !
In fact I just bought a new Jet Glo 360 6 with the smaller vintage style headstock. If this is the case I'm really happy about it.
I grew up with the vintage headstock size (I believe pre 81's were smaller, except for vintage reissues) and I'm noticing a few 2007 models coming out with the vintage size headstock. I've seen them on some new 330's on line.

They went back to the 60's style headstocks around March or so.

As for that being pre-'81, i'm not sure i'd agree with that since we saw so many Gumby headstocks in the 70's. "60's headstock" works for me!

My '80 320 JG has a '60s spec headstock shape.

My '80 320 BG and my '80 620/12 FG both have sixties style headstocks and nickel Kluson tuners. My '79 360 MG has a slightly enlarged headstock with Grover tuners (which I think was normal for "deluxe" guitars of this vintage). I'm pleased to report that my new '07 330 JG has a sixties style headstock. I'm very pleased!

jps wrote:

phlemmy wrote:now if they'd only go back to the larger bodies on the basses and the smaller neck profiles, i'd consider buying a new one.

Like this one?

ewww...no! those are hideous creatures!

I'm seeing some listing of 2007 Ricks with the larger headstock but then again these could be new (NOS) 2006 models.
Maybe there were a few necks around with the larger shape that are being used as they phase out.
I wonder if the vintage shape is back for a limited time.

I hope the vintage shape is back to stay. I personally think it looks great with all Ricks.

OK, I'm not trying to be The Grinch, but how, in the Sam Hill, is a smaller headstock changing the tonal and sonic qualities in the guitars? I understand about mass up there, but the usual school of thought is that more mass equals more sustain... In any event, I'm hard pressed to see how anyone can actually hear that difference in a real life situation.

I must admit, I like the look, though.

JKC

randyz wrote:My '80 320 BG and my '80 620/12 FG both have sixties style headstocks and nickel Kluson tuners. My '79 360 MG has a slightly enlarged headstock with Grover tuners (which I think was normal for "deluxe" guitars of this vintage). I'm pleased to report that my new '07 330 JG has a sixties style headstock. I'm very pleased!

My Ruby '83 360WB has the boat paddle, sadly, and with the factory Grover tuners, which have short shafts on the tuning keys, there is less than 1/16" clearance between the keys and the headstock edge. Of course, the Ruby is chipped off around several keys...I'm getting ready to refinish this one, and a headstock narrowing to vintage size is also in the cards, along with some Schallers.

jcreasy wrote:I understand about mass up there, but the usual school of thought is that more mass equals more sustain

Not so - less headstock mass actually leads to more sustain. Why do you think Ned Stienberger designed his guitars the way he did?

Ahhh... I thought those Steinbergers were designed to look weird in Journey videos! (Kidding).

I thought I'd heard the opposite and even seen some sort of weight or clip to put up there, but I may be mistaken... Color me corrected. Still, would the trimmer headstock make a noticeable difference in real world application?

If it did make a difference in the Steinberger, you were losing four bass tuning machines and all of the wood in the headstock, which has got to be a lot bigger difference than the trimmed down vintage headstock.

JKC

jcreasy wrote:Ahhh... I thought those Steinbergers were designed to look weird in Journey videos! (Kidding).

Still, would the trimmer headstock make a noticeable difference in real world application?

Well, let your ears be the judge, I suppose. I don't think that id notice a difference, but scientifically, there is one!

jcreasy wrote:
I thought I'd heard the opposite and even seen some sort of weight or clip to put up there, but I may be mistaken... Color me corrected.
JKC

Nope. You're correct...this (the Fatfinger) was one of Aspen Pitman's big ideas, and it did work. But it wasn't wood--it was solid brass. Here's an explanation of the workings from his own press release:

...the physics of fatfinger are simple; by effectively adding 2 to 3 times more mass to the "weak" end of any stringed instrument, the strings ring out longer, louder, and with more balance. The increased sustain is immediately apparent, but the improved balance is the ultimate reward.
The fatfinger's mass lowers the frequency of the harmonic imperfections, or nodes, of any stringed instrument.

These "dead spots" are moved below our audible range, and so are effectively eliminated! They work as well on electric guitars or basses as they do on acoustic instruments. It's an incredible "fix" for that Fender Jazz Bass with the "disappearing C note" syndrome, and it adds new punch to your finger pickin'.