Now the only actual available 350 offers a small head stock. - Fine, thanks!!!
There is just one thing I would change: the space between the three pickups. The same like the 325 is possible and while thinking about, the process of building would be easier, too. - Same measures, same work. Less different CNC!
As You can see, there was a 350 with closer spaced pickups in former times. Together with a small headstock the look would be perfect! And enough space for a perfect Bigsby installation, for those, who want to do.
That would make the 350 in the actual list more present, too.
What is Your opinion?
Your thoughts about a little change of the actual 350(V63)?
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
- Hotzenplotz
- Intermediate Member
- Posts: 942
- Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 8:51 am
Re: Your thoughts about a little change of the actual 350(V63)?
I think there is a difference in construction between the 350 and 325 models that explains the PU placement.
I am looking at the last 2 photos for comparison.
As the 325 has a ~4" shorter scale length than the 350, some of the "shortness" of the 325 is compensated for by placing the bridge closer to the end of the fretboard than on the 350. This allows less room (or just enough room) for the 3 PUs to fit in that space, so they appear to be "stacked" together with no spacing in between them.
On the 350, the bridge is placed slightly down more towards the "ramp," and the PUs are spaced evenly between the bridge and the fretboard, with the bridge PU close to the brige and the neck PU close to the neck. If you "stacked" the PUs together on the 350, there would be an odd space either between the top PU and the fretboard, or the treble PU and the bridge, or some other variation. I believe the current placement (spread out) is designed to achieve the maximum tonal range while maintaining symmetry by equal spacing between the PUs.
I am looking at the last 2 photos for comparison.
As the 325 has a ~4" shorter scale length than the 350, some of the "shortness" of the 325 is compensated for by placing the bridge closer to the end of the fretboard than on the 350. This allows less room (or just enough room) for the 3 PUs to fit in that space, so they appear to be "stacked" together with no spacing in between them.
On the 350, the bridge is placed slightly down more towards the "ramp," and the PUs are spaced evenly between the bridge and the fretboard, with the bridge PU close to the brige and the neck PU close to the neck. If you "stacked" the PUs together on the 350, there would be an odd space either between the top PU and the fretboard, or the treble PU and the bridge, or some other variation. I believe the current placement (spread out) is designed to achieve the maximum tonal range while maintaining symmetry by equal spacing between the PUs.
Re: Your thoughts about a little change of the actual 350(V63)?
The 350s with 24 frets had pickups spaced close together. The V63's with 21, however, have them spaced far apart. The first Ric pic you posted was a custom one-off 350V59, which had a 24-fret neck.
- paologregorio
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6376
- Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:56 pm
- Contact:
Re: Your thoughts about a little change of the actual 350(V63)?
It's easier to clean and polish between the p/ups if there's more space, and IMO, gives the guitar a cleaner look.
There is no reason to ever be bored.
...why yes, I suppose I do have a double bound guitar fetish...
"Uh, I like the double bounds. . . ."
...why yes, I suppose I do have a double bound guitar fetish...
"Uh, I like the double bounds. . . ."
- 8mileshigher
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4886
- Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 12:34 pm
Your thoughts about a little change of the actual 350(V63)?
paologregorio wrote:It's easier to clean and polish between the p/ups if there's more space, and IMO, gives the guitar a cleaner look.
Yes, and a little more space give one a little better target area for the pick attack on the strings. Some folks never get used to the three-pickup configurations.
