Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I'll take a stab...

wooly wrote: I read several comments about a John Hall headstock.
What is that? If he owns the place, then everything is a "John Hall" isn't it?

Some people use this term for the very large "paddle" headstocks from about the mid-'70s to about last year; John Hall started running the company in the '80s, I think. I don't know if I agree with this term because I always thought they were around before he joined, they were only implemented to give Grover tuners some room, and he changed the headstocks back to small '60s style recently.

wooly wrote:For being so set about changing the styles, what brought on the 12-string headstock with the "thru slots"?

Saves weight, time when changing strings. I didn't really notice the difference when I owned a new-style 12-string.

wooly wrote:The wider inlays? How about that?

They just look a lot cooler, more like those coveted '60s models. Plus, they save time because they're made of a sheet material, while the old inlays are poured resin.

wooly wrote:Does that mean a wider neck for the hollow-bodies is coming?

Doubt it, unless the backlog magically disappears.

Hope that helps!

wooly wrote:By being away for some time, I lost some insight on new things.
.
.
.
.
Thanks guys,
Mike Perez

Wow! Welcome back, Mike. Not in South Pas anymore???

THe weight saved by the slot-through headstocks is quite minimal, FYI.

OK, I have a few questions...

First, I have a wide headstock, smaller inlay 360 JetGlo, that is nicked up a bit but plays awesome. Previous concensus was not to do wide inlays, and simply buy a new style... Still the same?

Second, does the new inlay really save manufacturing time? Costs?

Third, is it really stronger? How? Was this covered before? If so, sorry for the repeat. Been silent for a few weeks myself too.

Finally, I've seen PICs of JetGlo with the new inlay, and FireGlo. Any other colors out there? Man that JetGlo looks really, really slick. The new inlays also make me a bigger fan of the FireGlo. I actually like the newer, brighter material better because it grabs you.

Thanks in advance for any feedback.

JKC

Dubl Post®

jcreasy wrote:OK, I have a few questions...

First, I have a wide headstock, smaller inlay 360 JetGlo, that is nicked up a bit but plays awesome. Previous concensus was not to do wide inlays, and simply buy a new style... Still the same?

Second, does the new inlay really save manufacturing time? Costs?

Third, is it really stronger? How? Was this covered before? If so, sorry for the repeat. Been silent for a few weeks myself too.

Finally, I've seen PICs of JetGlo with the new inlay, and FireGlo. Any other colors out there? Man that JetGlo looks really, really slick. The new inlays also make me a bigger fan of the FireGlo. I actually like the newer, brighter material better because it grabs you.

Thanks in advance for any feedback.

JKC

The consensus will depend on who votes this time, but I'd say go with the new.

These do save time and costs are lower. A win-win for everyone concerned, IMO. Fretboards and necks are stronger because the new inlays do not require as deep a recess into the board to fit. The new recess looked about 30% shallower, and that's substantial.

Thanks for the feedback, Paul. Anyone else?

JKC

I dislike the fat 'stock and smaller inlays, so I'd go with a newer model. Personally though, I can't live with anything that doesn't have a C or V in the nomenclature.

1965 wrote:I dislike the fat 'stock and smaller inlays, so I'd go with a newer model. Personally though, I can't live with anything that doesn't have a C or V in the nomenclature.

Amen to that! The same goes for me, but you can add an "artist limited edition" to it!

Call it a paddle-head or anything else, but not a "John Hall" headstock. Those changes preceded me and were done while I was not working for the company and/or had any control over such things.

jingle_jangle wrote:THe weight saved by the slot-through headstocks is quite minimal, FYI.

Yes, the weight is small, about .036 lbs on average. The moment, on the other hand, is quite large, about 0.7 in-lbs. Don't forget that a peanut could move the earth with a lever of the right length.

When you pluck a typical 10 high E string, the moving mass is less than 1/20th of that moment removed from the headstock by those slots. Even so, you very clearly hear the effect of plucking that string!

Would it not save much more weight to change to the vintage Kluson-style tuners? The difference in mass between a full set of twelve heads of each type must be a lot more than that of two thin strips of wood.

I always thought the 12-strings with the modern Schaller tuners felt noticeably headstock heavy - I like them on the 6-strings but not on the 12s.

A set of 6 modern Schaller tuners weighs 198 grams--that's 396 for a set of 12. Seven ounces per set of 6, and 14 ounces for a set of 12.

A set of 6 vintage-style Klusons weighs 158 grams, or 5.57 ounces. Twelve for 11.14 ounces. You're saving about 3 ounces per set of 12.