Page 1 of 3
360J "Jazz Bo" ?
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:16 am
by saturn
does anyone own one of these? I really love the look of them, and all of the deluxe detailing... but apparently they go for $5000 according to a few sites I've checked? seems like a lot. I thought they're still in production?
also, why don't the current models from the ric site look like the vintage model? it, in my opinion, looked a lot better.
(photo taken from a vintage ric catalog)
notice the black truss rod cover, black nut, double black/white inlays, and the (NICER) vase-style tailpiece. it'd be neat to have one just like in this photo, but new.
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:33 am
by saturn
oops I meant 760J.
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:13 am
by johnhall
They look nice. Too bad they didn't sound as nice as they looked.
The 760J, on the other hand, sounds wonderful.
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 11:08 am
by beatlefan
I've talked to Mike Parks about the "J".....
I am on the fence about ordering one, I'd just like a better time frame for delivery.....
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:13 pm
by saturn
Mr. Hall; I'm confused about what you said. You said they don't sound as nice as they look, but the 760J sounds wonderful... I'm confused. Are you saying the vintage Jazz-Bos sound bad, and the newer 760J (with slightly different looks from the vintage model) sounds great?
I'm sort of on the fence too. I'd like it to have the vintage looks, and have a guitar that sounds wonderful... the pricetag makes me want to be really picky.
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:25 pm
by johnhall
The guitar pictured had a Mahogany back that's about a 1/4 inch thick, no top shaping at all internally to loosen the top so it could vibrate apart from the sides. The Spruce top units at least had wood that could flex a bit.
A toilet seat would probably have better tone and volume.
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 1:10 pm
by saturn
Oh, an acoustic guitar that thick - I agree, it probably sounded like crud... it is really pretty though. I really like the fancy (but trademark Rickenbacker) sound holes.
Why were the inlays and the tailpiece dramatically changed? I can understand the inlays (to fit in with the rest of the RIC line), but the older tailpiece seems to look a bit more "deluxe."
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 2:23 pm
by billikenn
I dont think the old one was ever in production.
The new one doesnt seem to be shipping yet either.
so if you want one, your only choice is the new model (a Jazz-bo), and who knows when it will ship~~
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 2:35 pm
by billikenn
I like the one in the catalog with distinct fireglo

Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 6:46 pm
by johnhall
I haven't yet decided on a tailpiece but I know it won't be that one- give us some credit.
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2005 8:01 pm
by dale_fortune
Man Talk About Straight To The Heart Of The Matter. Tell It Like It Is John. I had a chance to play a few of these in Ward Deatons(Gen.Mgr.at Electro) office in 1974, and as you said they did not sound very good. While they were a thing of beauty, they weren't much better than those thick spruce top Fender Acoustics. Things sure have changed over the years. As for a tail piece: I would like to see a matching Bubinga or Walnut sculptured tail piece with a matching "R" inlay that has a French Polish to it. John, do most of the readers know how the Blue Boy got it's name?
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:47 am
by zekmoe
Are these acoustic only guitars, or do they have a fishman type pickup? Most of the jazz boxes I see have some sort of floating pickup or something. I'm not that famililar with this type of guitar.
Bob, has electrics.
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:52 am
by tony_carey
I don't know Dale. I understand that the colour was based on a gtr that Jim Reeves used to play.
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:33 am
by 8mileshigh
Long R tailpiece please Mr Hall
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:23 pm
by ken_j
Jim Reeves played a 360F. Here's a shot from the Smith book. I like the gold pickgaurds with the Boy Blue color.
