What Guitar Do You Want... Just Because?

[rrobbone]

I'm building a baritone thinline Strat. I chose to make it a Strat because I didn't think a Tele body would balance well with the longer neck, but I see a lot of Tele-style baritones out there, so maybe I was mistaken about that.

Same here. I decided to go with a Strat shape because it's comfy. The only decently priced quality neck I could find was a tele neck from WD via Stratosphere, but it's a nice one. The body is hanging up in my shop while it flashes.

[Mossman]

I'm building a baritone thinline Strat. I chose to make it a Strat because I didn't think a Tele body would balance well with the longer neck, but I see a lot of Tele-style baritones out there, so maybe I was mistaken about that.

Same here. I decided to go with a Strat shape because it's comfy. The only decently priced quality neck I could find was a tele neck from WD via Stratosphere, but it's a nice one. The body is hanging up in my shop while it flashes.

The neck I'm using on my baritone is a WD, but it's a strat neck, and 27" scale. It's a nice neck. Are you gonna post a thread of this build?

That reminds me. I better hit the Stratosphere soon myself, before all the cheaper necks are gone... The neck I was planning to use on that flamey Telecaster is kind of a loose fit, and I think I want a Maple fretboard and a fuller profile anyway.

[andrewsrea]

image.png

Oh man, I already went my rounds with the Rickenbacker 12-string (mine was a 330 with a "Fireglo" finish). But that wasn't a "just because" guitar. That (and all the Rics that owned), was an object of seething, passionate desire - fueled by hero worship and utter, blind ignorance.

You can have 'em... all of 'em!

Actually, I wouldn't mind a 660/12, since they're all made with the wider (Tom Petty spec) neck now. The necks on the rest of their 12-strings are too narrow for me.

It would have to be a used one too... I've already given John Hall more money than I should have.

I'd take he 33 /12 in a heartbeat. The 660 /12 is beautiful, but I already have that solidbody 12 sound from my 1974 Ibanez Lawsiut Doubleneck.

[Mossman]

I'd take he 33 /12 in a heartbeat. The 660 /12 is beautiful, but I already have that solidbody 12 sound from my 1974 Ibanez Lawsiut Doubleneck.

That is a trade-off, but I don't know how big of a trade-off that is. The 330/12 and 660/12 don't sound night-and-day different from each other. They both have that signature Rickenbacker 12-string sound. I think they sound pretty much identical, to be honest. Ric 330s and 360s aren't constructed like traditional semi-hollow guitars. The tops are pretty thick, and I consider them more "chambered" than "semi-hollow". While there is a bit more "airy-ness" in the tone, they don't resonate as much as an arch-top. In fact, what really knocked the shine off of Rickenbackers for me (among other things) was when I was A/B'ing my 6-string 330 against the first Telecaster that I built, and I realized that with EQ, I could get the Tele to sound about 99% identical to the Ric. In the room, you could hear a little bit more air from the Rickenbacker, but when recorded, you could barely tell the difference.

My point is; I don't think you'll be sacrificing a lot in terms of tone by going with the 660, and you'll be gaining a lot more in terms of playability. That 330/12 just gave me fits. I could not play it without muting strings. And a 660 won't even sound close to your double-neck Ibanez (I'm very jealous, BTW). The construction and type of pickups see to that. Of course, the 330 has more of that classic Ric aesthetic, which is really the reason why I bought the 330 instead of the 660.

[andrewsrea]

I'd take he 33 /12 in a heartbeat. The 660 /12 is beautiful, but I already have that solidbody 12 sound from my 1974 Ibanez Lawsiut Doubleneck.

That is a trade-off, but I don't know how big of a trade-off that is. The 330/12 and 660/12 don't sound night-and-day different from each other. They both have that signature Rickenbacker 12-string sound. I think they sound pretty much identical, to be honest. Ric 330s and 360s aren't constructed like traditional semi-hollow guitars. The tops are pretty thick, and I consider them more "chambered" than "semi-hollow". While there is a bit more "airy-ness" in the tone, they don't resonate as much as an arch-top. In fact, what really knocked the shine off of Rickenbackers for me (among other things) was when I was A/B'ing my 6-string 330 against the first Telecaster that I built, and I realized that with EQ, I could get the Tele to sound about 99% identical to the Ric. In the room, you could hear a little bit more air from the Rickenbacker, but when recorded, you could barely tell the difference.

My point is; I don't think you'll be sacrificing a lot in terms of tone by going with the 660, and you'll be gaining a lot more in terms of playability. That 330/12 just gave me fits. I could not play it without muting strings. And a 660 won't even sound close to your double-neck Ibanez (I'm very jealous, BTW). The construction and type of pickups see to that. Of course, the 330 has more of that classic Ric aesthetic, which is really the reason why I bought the 330 instead of the 660.

I guess I would have to actually A/B them in the same setting. That is probably unlikely for me, as these are hens teeth to find one in music stores let alone two at once.