Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I was looking at the new Rickenbacker color catalog, and an idea hit me that maybe others have tried, or had, or whatever. Surely, I cannot be the first to come up with it. But...

Can you take an R-Tailpiece and drill holes into it to make it function like a Trapieze tailpiece? Thus, you would have the beauty of the R style and the ease of stringing (I know, I know, the catalog says the R-piece is designed for ease of stringing) that the trapieze offers? Is there enough metal in the R-tailpiece to withstand drilling the holes? Would it shatter while drilling (NOT trying to say that they shatter under normal use!), and would the result be strong enough to support string tension? Anyone ever tried this before?

I'm sure John Hall could comment on this, but my own 2 cents is that you'd be risking a break as soon as you strung it up and brought the strings to tension.

The "R" tailpiece is pressure-molded (die cast) from a non-ferrous alloy. The trapeze tailpiece is made from thick sheet stock and is much stronger.

And it'd be BUGLY wit' all dem holes.

"R" for style, trapeze for minimalism and function

If you're talking about modifying an existing tailpiece, the answer is clearly no. A chrome surface is almost impossible to drill and it's damage to the part's surface which destroys these tailpieces, very similar to glass cracking.

The zinc die cast is actually much stronger in shear than the sheet metal part so a new design probably could be made to incorporate holes instead of slots. However, the consumer lack of understanding about zinc diecast, referring to it as "pot metal" (which is something else entirely) has doomed the -R- tailpiece, i.e. it will never be used on anything other than a "historical" model.

John: Your comments beg the question, So what would a new tailpiece look like? Is there a new design in the works for an upcoming Rickenbacker line?

Good question Peter info about new features is always interesting, but isn't there a newer design on the 650 and 380 guitars already ?

Mr. John Hall,
While I know of the "pot metal" comments and the exploding incidents that you are referring to, I was trying to avoid them. I was NOT taking any shots at either tail piece. I was just wondering if the R-tailpieces could support an operation that I was thinking about. Thank you for your response...clearly, they cannot as they are currently made.

And Paul- I don't think it would by ugly at all. I mean, if you had the holes drilled and the string balls were concealed beneath the tailpiece so that the strings came up and over the front, I am not sure many people would even notice that the holes were there. Anyways, to each his own.

I for one, don't care how hard the "R" tailpiece is to string. It looks way cool and will be a featured part on one of my upcoming projects. Making it a rear stringing design that brought the strings through channels over the top would be a nice update though.

I swapped for a trapeze once and thought that I could load the strings from underneath, but it wouldn't work. The tension wouldn't pull the trapeze up - so I think if you did try that, you'd have to put the string in from the top and you'd see the ball ends.

I never had an issue with the "R" on my 6 string. And if you use a capo to hold the string in place so it doesn't fall out when stringing a 12 string, the "R" is actually pretty easy to work with.

I switched to a 12 hole trapeze (for about a day) thinking it would be easier and it's actually more annoying. I found pulling all those strings thru to be a hassle. And when you pull the string through the holes it's almost impossible not to drag the string across the edge of the hole possibly damaging the string, or reshaping it.

Put the ball end in the "R" pull the string tight enough so it stays in, put the capo on. It's easy!

Brian: Yes there is, I was just wondering whether something else might be on the horizon.

If it aint broke - don't fix it - stop messing with my R....just make it a long R

JH: "has doomed the -R- tailpiece, i.e. it will never be used on anything other than a "historical" model"

Gadzooks! The R-tailpiece is going to be phased out? What will take it's place? Like many others I have grumbled about the string slots - until I discovered the capo trick - but to lose the "R" that's practically un-American!

I wasn't saying it was bad, or knocking it, or anything. My Carl Wilson 360/12 has it and I think it looks awesome. I was just wondering if it was possible. Man alive, I wasn't saying could you change the neck to a telecaseter neck, add gibson pickups, put on tuners from an old Yamaha guitar, and paint it orange! Yuck! Thinking of that makes me sick!

I first saw the R tailpiece in 1969 on a friends guitar and his name was Ruffin. He called himself Ruffie and of course claimed that was what the tailpiece stood for.

I got my Ric Montezuma 360 Last year and I had thoughts of changing mine to a bigsby before I received it. But when I got it both my wife and I feel in complete love with it.

Now thats it historic there is more reason that ever to keep it. Pretty cool really. But it sure would not bother me if they kept that R either.

I dont think there is much concern about the R being phased, considering 70% of Rics guitar model lineup are historical, and probably 90% of their sales are historical models