Page 1 of 2

320 Solid Body (again)?

Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 5:44 pm
by thewesthavers
Found a late 1977 320 and the owner swears it's a solid body. I've never heard of any 300 series being anything but a thin line semi. It's a stock 320 in fireglo, R tailpiece, short scale, 3 pickup ... just no cat's eye or f hole. I read a post on here not to long ago discussing the same thing and people tended to think it was either knockoff or simply a 320 semi hollow with no cut. I believe my old 83 Red Liverpool had no hole as well. Does anyone know whether Ric put out 320's like this? Is a solid body out of the question? Anyone know what a stock '77 320 would be worth? Would it be worth any more than the standard 320
s of the same year? Any answers would be greatly goobled up! Cheers.

Re: 320 Solid Body (again)?

Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:01 pm
by deaconblues
Well, never say never where Rickenbackers are concerned, but so far there's been no evidence of a solid-body 320.

However, solid-top 320s from the '60s/'70s are pretty rare - almost all had f-holes.

Pictures would definitely help.

Re: 320 Solid Body (again)?

Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:10 pm
by thewesthavers
Here are some pictures the owner sent me.
Image
Imagehttp://img1.classistatic.com/cps/l/kj/0 ... g5_20.jpeg[/img]
Image

Re: 320 Solid Body (again)?

Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:26 pm
by thewesthavers
Found this as well... http://www.daleslosthighway.com/1978-ri ... uper-rare/
I'd say they're semi hollows without a hole. I suppose weighing it or checking for a seam would solve it.

Re: 320 Solid Body (again)?

Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:30 pm
by wj350
Isn't it just as easy to remove the pickguard and peek inside?

Re: 320 Solid Body (again)?

Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:34 pm
by 1965
thewesthavers wrote:I'd say they're semi hollows without a hole
Definitely. That guitar isn't terribly exciting, in my eyes.

Re: 320 Solid Body (again)?

Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:11 pm
by libratune
This guitar evidently (the blanket is a dead give-away) is now appearing on ebay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1977-RICKENBACKER-3 ... dZViewItem

Re: 320 Solid Body (again)?

Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:17 pm
by 1965
Well, it's obviously not solid. What an idiot.

from ebay:
Image

Re: 320 Solid Body (again)?

Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:54 pm
by thewesthavers
Yup that's the one. I initially saw it advertised locally so i thought I'd at least entertain the idea of it being a blindsiding oddball! There were no pics of under the pickguard in that ad. I'm actually a lefty so now it's a definite "no-go" but vintage rics don't show up here in Nova Scotia too often so it was still worth getting the scoop. Many thanks to those who replied. BTW His mistake doesn't make him an idiot ... it just means he's not quite as bad as "us" when it comes to knowing every single detail about our guitars ;) I do agree the ebay ad is misleading though and will send him an email with what I've found out. Cheers.

Re: 320 Solid Body (again)?

Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 8:06 pm
by 1965
thewesthavers wrote:Yup that's the one. I initially saw it advertised locally so i thought I'd at least entertain the idea of it being a blindsiding oddball! There were no pics of under the pickguard in that ad. I'm actually a lefty so now it's a definite "no-go" but vintage rics don't show up here in Nova Scotia too often so it was still worth getting the scoop. Many thanks to those who replied. BTW His mistake doesn't make him an idiot ... it just means he's not quite as bad as "us" when it comes to knowing every single detail about our guitars ;) I do agree the ebay ad is misleading though and will send him an email with what I've found out. Cheers.
How is he not an idiot? He's advertising his guitar as an INCREDIBLY RARE SOLID BODY RICKENBACKER, but there's obviously a big hole in the middle his guitar, making it NOT SOLID. And he knows it! It's obvious! I woudn't consider '77 to be vintage, really. It may be old, but it wasn't made when RIC was cranking out their finest instruments.

Re: 320 Solid Body (again)?

Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 8:22 pm
by winston
Calling the seller an idiot may be a bit over the top Wes. Misinformed yes but not necessarily an idiot. That presumes far too much and we do not even know who he or she is. I wonder if the seller is a forum member?

id⋅i⋅ot  –noun

1. an utterly foolish or senseless person.
2. Psychology. a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.

Re: 320 Solid Body (again)?

Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 8:50 pm
by thewesthavers
I just dropped him a line with what I had found. Hopefully it clears up any confusion with ebay and spares him and any potential "misinformed" bidders any headaches. If he keeps the ad the same then I'd agree to unleash the hounds but I usually tend to approach my fellow Nova Scotians (and most people) with a bit more respect and patience. I'd say he's a bit too excited about his old girl (my baby's the MOST beautiful syndrome haha!) and has his facts a little mixed up ... I'll bet the ad will be dropped or changed. It might not be, but that's my bet. Cheers and thanks for ALL the responses to clear up the confusion.
Oh and one more question (and good humor poke "1965") .. Is this the Vintage 1954-84 forum or the Vintage 1954-84 minus '77 forum? :)

Re: 320 Solid Body (again)?

Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2009 10:18 pm
by Ontario_RIC_fan
I have been following this same guitar on Ebay, as I too once owned a 1977 320 - mine was JG though. I always pay attention when one shows up in Canada.

My 320 was the only one of my RICs (of three!) that survived a horrible fire in 1991. (the 620's were reduced to ashes alas)... Last time I saw it it was melted into its case. The wooden parts had survived mostly intact, other then some nasty scorch marks on the rosewood finger board. I should see if I can get it back and have it restored. It would be nice to have one of my guitars back from highschool. Even though it would likely cost more then a new one.

My 320 was a hollowbody with no F hole. It is easy to see if you remove one of the pickups.

But to a newbie this is a natural bit of confusion. No f hole is not the same as a solid body.

There was a solid body 320 prototype in Richard Smith's book I recall. Perhaps that is the source of his confusion.

I do like the fireglow colour though...

Brian

Re: 320 Solid Body (again)?

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:23 am
by 1965
thewesthavers wrote:Oh and one more question (and good humor poke "1965") .. Is this the Vintage 1954-84 forum or the Vintage 1954-84 minus '77 forum? :)
Sorry, didn't realize which forum we're in! :)

Guys, I don't mean to be harsh, but it pushes my buttons when people incorrectly advertise Rickenbackers with all the usual buzzwords on ebay. Usually copious amounts of all CAPS and the overuse of the words: RARE, RICKY, etc. are the giveaways. I see he's changed his auction, wonderful!

Re: 320 Solid Body (again)?

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:17 am
by antipodean
1965 wrote:It may be old, but it wasn't made when RIC was cranking out their finest instruments.
That'd be 1991, the year my 660TP was born....everything else is just firewood... oops, better go chop up those basses.... :mrgreen: :mrgreen: