Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Hi I am interested in the use of x-bracing in 360s, was this an original structural feature and when and why was this feature dropped?

I'm sure others have mentioned it, but I can not find the low down why the skunk stripes in 60s necks were fat and this changed to thin in the 1970s? Is it something to do with changes in truss rods?

Jimmy-jim-jim

The X-bracing was a structural feature dating back to the earliest full-bodied Capris in 1958. As manufacturing methods were streamlined (in the mid-60s, I'm not sure of exact year and date), tops were thickened and X-bracing became redundant.

The wider center stripe had its glue joints running along the outer edge of the truss rod slots, which could weaken part of the neck's length, although I personally haven't seen a neck split along this joint. I therefore would theorize that the thinning of the stripe was an economy move.

The center piece of walnut varied all the time.

I've measured them from a few different years in the 60's, and they varied quite a bit (from '64 to '66, '67 etc.....and instrument-to-instrument). I think they may have used a thinner piece here or there because it was available, and employing their resources as much as possible.

I've never seen a 330/360 style Ric made before the mid 70's that didn't have X-bracing. They might have also phased that out around the time they moved to 24 frets?

My '67 4005WB has X-bracing.

Okay there seems to be some conficting facts and opinions. I have to say that while there may be minor variations from guitar to guitar, it does seem that the thin walnut centre stripe was a structural design change (not a variable) which came in at some point in the early to mid 1970s. Perhaps this has something to do with the shift to 24 frets? I can not really see that going from fat to thin scunk-stripe was a cost cutting measure either, surely adding frets was a value added not a cost cutter at the time.

I think it is quite important to locate the date of the design change from x-bracing as bracing is a major factor in sound production.

Thanks for your help so far,

Jimmy-jim-jim

Jimmy-Jim-Jim wrote:I can not really see that going from fat to thin scunk-stripe was a cost cutting measure either, surely adding frets was a value added not a cost cutter at the time.

So you can't imagine that making them thinner and producing more useable wood pieces per board foot wouldn't be a cost effective move?

As I said, they varied all the time.....I think using what was available (even if it was 1/16" thinner etc..) not not out of question to maximize use of wood.


I believe adding frets was done per customer/trend requests, as many other brands moved to increased frets around the same time.

Go through the Register year by year, I think you will have to revise your opinion. All scunk-stripes from some point in the mid 70s are thin and are remarkably consisent in their dimensions.

Hello again, I was scouting around and found this quote from Beatcomber from Thu Mar 23, 2006 6:09 am:

'Personally, I would have cut it off at 1984, because unless I'm mistaken that was the last year for x-braced 300-series Ricks, and the last year for the old-style truss rods.'

Is it generally acknowledged that 1984 is the terminus ante quem for x-bracing on 300 series guitars? And what came after?

While, the strips do vary in thickness for any given year, it looks like the thin strips were first used in the 4001s in 1972. The 4001 did not have a strip before this, but rather had walnut head stock wings. A short time after the 4001s, it looks like the thin strip was used on the 330/360 (May 1973 is our earliest photo in the register).

I think Paul is right, it was most likely economics or maybe aesthetics as well, or both. After they made the switch on the 4001, for what ever reason, now the thin strips were available. Why make two thicknesses.

Ric went back to the thick strip in 1997. They were using the thick strips for the reissues so why not the regular 330/360 as well.

These are all assumptions, and only the production manager at the time would know for certain.

there are quite a few not exactly x braced 360 style rics from 60's out there that have bodies from convertible runs with a big block of wood right around/under the soundhole - i have seen these on guitars from like 1967 to early 80's...

grazioso wrote:there are quite a few not exactly x braced 360 style rics from 60's out there that have bodies from convertible runs with a big block of wood right around/under the soundhole - i have seen these on guitars from like 1967 to early 80's...

I think that was done on many 360/330 style Rics from '67-'69 when the convertible models were in production, though it's just a small block of wood positioned where the thumbwheel would go---I believe they still have X-bracing throughout the rest of the body. (I can take the bridge pickup out of my 336/12 later and investigate....)

Found this from rickfan60’s much admired Anatomy of A Rickenbacker Bass series of posts (Anatomy Of A Rickenbacker Bass Part 2, Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:41), quote:

'The most drastic change to the neck slab happened in '72 when the shedua stripe was added and the size of the headstock was scaled down – the headstock wings having been reduced to mere slivers. I have to think this change was an attempt to combat warping and/or dead spots (or as they are more politely called, less prominent notes) and not just an aesthetic improvement. Tbough the shedua stripe does nicely underscore the fact that the neck runs from head to tail.'

This to some extent backs up some of the things which have been previously said about the skunk-stripe. But there is nothing here in the understanding of the structural and aesthetic improvement of the thin Shedua (not walnut - shedua is an expensive hardwood) skunk-stripe, that suggests cost cutting measures. In fact many of the deluxe archtops by Gibson and in particular Epiphone of the great years of the 1930s and 1940s had such thin hard-wood skunk-stripes for just this reason of neck stability (they also had truss-rods). Clearly at Rickenbacker in the early 70s the thin shedua skunk-stripe was a new and at the time improved feature on 4000 series basses as well as 300 series guitars. As to the question of cost, one has to remember that the wider stripes of the 60s were from the cheaper walnut and not from shedua.

Thanks for the information on when x-bracing was discontinued in the 360/12. This is an issue I've been wondering about in weighing a somewhat lower cost vintage model against a more expensive new c63. For example, is it safe to assume that a 1980 360/12 WB (currently on e-bay) has x-bracing, or were there variations in the bracing in OS models up until 1984 when it was discontinued entirely? Thanks again for your help. The information on this forum is amazing.

Welcome, James!

We're just a bunch of anoraks!

My November, 1984 built 360 WB has X bracing, along with the thicker top (with the step to a thinner dimension around the sound hole), and 24 frets, of course. Not sure about the actual cutoff date, but RIC used X bracing as of the date my guitar was built. It may have been one of the last ones though. Does anyone have a 1985 year guitar who has taken the bridge pickup out of? The intersection of the "X" pieces is located underneath the bridge p/up rout, so it should be visible in the rout if the guitar is X braced.