Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I recently had the chance to play one of these beauties, and the sound was incredible! The guitar is significantly lighter in weight than a standard 360/12. If you look carefully at the slash sound hole, the body is thinner, that is, the maple top is thinner, and I suspect the back of the body is thinner as well.

When played acoustically, this guitar is fuller and louder than my hollow body RIC 12's (V64 and Roger McGuinn Ltd Ed). When plugged in, the electric tone from the Scatter-wound Toasters is richer, that is, more airy than other semi-hollow RICS. When using a compressor, the result is Jangle Heaven. Esthetically, the instrument is gorgeous with its highly flamed Fireglo maple finish.

Anyone out there a lucky owner of one of these, and, if so, do you concur with my findings? I would be happy to hear from you.

regards...Ron

A good friend of mine bought one last year but I have yet to see and play it, as he is in Philly and I am not!

Not quite lucky enough to be an owner, but I did get to play one at the last MARF!

If I had the cash, you can bet I'd be hunting down a CW12. They just have that classic Rick 12 sound.

RonLovesRic12strings wrote:...When played acoustically, this guitar is fuller and louder than my hollow body RIC 12's (V64 and Roger McGuinn Ltd Ed). When plugged in, the electric tone from the Scatter-wound Toasters is richer, that is, more airy than other semi-hollow RICS. When using a compressor, the result is Jangle Heaven. Esthetically, the instrument is gorgeous with its highly flamed Fireglo maple finish.

Anyone out there a lucky owner of one of these, and, if so, do you concur with my findings? I would be happy to hear from you.

regards...Ron

I concur!

Great-looking example of a Carl Wilson...nice photos!

Would you mind sharing how you post photos directly to a reply.

Thanks...Ron

Here is a pic of my friend's CW:

jps wrote:Here is a pic of my friend's CW:

I've changed my mind on figured tops! Although I think Richard's CW with the subtle flame is the one I'd be leaning towards...

[img][IMG]http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj283/ronlovesric12s/th_PubCWRIC.jpg[/img][/img]

I got to play a 1966 360/12 MG at the Minicon last week ... it too had a thin top, and sounded more resonant than my thicker-top 370/12RM FG ...

RonLovesRic12strings wrote:When played acoustically, this guitar is fuller and louder than my hollow body RIC 12's

doctorwho wrote: ... it too had a thin top, and sounded more resonant than my thicker-top 370/12RM FG ...

About a year ago, I took the CW along on a week-long business trip. However, for whatever reason, I failed to put an amp in the Jeep (probably a senior moment ).

It was during that week that I really became to appreciated the resonance of the CW.

The CW has the modern Rick internal routing that connects the top solidly to the 1/4" back, this is effectively a solid body guitar under the bridge mounting area.

The vintage Rick's have cross bracing that is connected to the top but not the backs including, of course, the bridge. The CW has a slightly thinner top but not the 1/8" tops common from 66 to 68 (they varied). All 60's Rick's were more acoustic/alive than modern ricks for this reason. Modern Ricks feedback a whole lot less when serious amplification is involved.

The CW just looks like a vintage 360/12 when looking through the sound hole/slash........and that's all.

Si.........

If I can't ever get my hands on a '87 1993/12 reissue, then a 360/12CW would be my second choice for a dream 12-string.

I've never EVER seen a CW, but if I could get the chance to play one, that would be too awesome.

Ron, where did you stumble across this CW? Did you play it at a store? Did you buy it?