Rickenbacker 330, 1994 Vs new

Pabcrane

Hiya, I am actively seeking a 330/12 and there is a 1994 in-store nearby and a new one in a store in Germany.

The price difference is only a bit over a hundred quid difference. The bloke trying to sell me the 1994 was trying to tell me that in five years it will be vintage.

Does anyone out there has any knowledge or experience between 1994 Rickies Vs new (2018/2019) ones.

Cheers.

Musicwolf

Pabcrane said:

The bloke trying to sell me the 1994 was trying to tell me that in five years it will be vintage.

Well, in 5 years time he can charge ‘vintage’ prices.  Until then, it’s just second hand.

andrewaward

In 5 years time it won't be vintage. Vintage isn't just time elapsed. A 1994 Ric will never be classed as a vintage guitar.
I've played quite a few mid 90s 330/12 and a few more modern ones. And didn't feel or hear any difference. Personally for a few quid more I'd get the brand new one.

thermionic

Rickenbacker are known for their consistency of manufacturing. They’re notoriously reluctant to change how their guitars are built, and don’t really have “bad” periods like Fender’s CBS years or Gibson’s Norlin era.

The ‘94 has at least a couple of advantages - you’re able to try it in person, and the new one will lose value as soon as you open the box.

Seziertisch

Pabcrane said:

Hiya, I am actively seeking a 330/12 and there is a 1994 in-store nearby and a new one in a store in Germany.

The price difference is only a bit over a hundred quid difference. The bloke trying to sell me the 1994 was trying to tell me that in five years it will be vintage.

Does anyone out there has any knowledge or experience between 1994 Rickies Vs new (2018/2019) ones.

Cheers.

One difference is that they changed the string spacing at the nut sometime in the late 90s (I think). I have a 93 and the string pairs were  quite far apart, it was nearly like having 12 strings as opposed to 6 pairs of strings if you follow. The newer models I have played have the pairs closet together and this helps playability quite a bit. Though I have seen some guys on the Rick forums wanting a return to the wider spacing.

Otherwise, Ricks old or new can have issues with them. They make a big deal about their all American craftsmanship but their QC is pretty hit and miss. The neck pickup on my Rick was wound to 18k and was unusably muddy, someone had quite literally filled the coil, and the headstock grooves hadn’t been cleaned properly before painting so their is saw dust under the finish on the headstock. This has come up in conversation here before and some of those in the guitar repair business have shared similar stories.

I would definitely try to try before buying and if you are buying without trying try to buy from somewhere with a decent returns policy.

RonnieHotdogs

Will be almost identical, but I believe around 99 they got a new CNC machine,  got the best examples of each model and copied that, now they are identical.  Prior to that they were a bit more hand finished... I think.
Unlike almost every other guitar manufacturer I don't think they've had a bad era or period. 

thermionic

I think I read somewhere that the hi-gain pickups had a lot more winds in the 80s, and they reverted to a more normal number of winds in the mid to late 90s?

stickyfiddle

Play both. Buy the one you like more. Don't worry about anything else, but don't be under any illusion that the older one will suddenly jump 30% in value when it becomes 30 years old. 

ICBM

thermionic said:

Rickenbacker are known for their consistency of manufacturing. They’re notoriously reluctant to change how their guitars are built

Except when they just do it when they feel like it...

Seziertisch said:

Otherwise, Ricks old or new can have issues with them. They make a big deal about their all American craftsmanship but their QC is pretty hit and miss. The neck pickup on my Rick was wound to 18k and was unusably muddy, someone had quite literally filled the coil, and the headstock grooves hadn’t been cleaned properly before painting so their is saw dust under the finish on the headstock. This has come up in conversation here before and some of those in the guitar repair business have shared similar stories.

This, despite what the fanboys say.

Overall build quality *is* good, but I've come across several with Gibson-level "how many people had to not give a fuck about this before it left the factory?" random but glaringly obvious QC faults.

Pabcrane

Thanks for yer helpful comments.

I telephoned the store in Germany, the bloke was great, their returns and warranty seemed great, so I bought the new one.It's a big retailer with a good track record.

In the end the price difference was £37 more for the new one and the salesman in Germany was three times nicer to deal with.

Now I just have to wait for the Postman...

andrewaward

Great! What colour?

Pabcrane

Jetglo. I can put up a photo once I start use it at gigs.

But it will look like every other black 330! Just shiny.

Wazmeister

thermionic said:

I think I read somewhere that the hi-gain pickups had a lot more winds in the 80s, and they reverted to a more normal number of winds in the mid to late 90s?

Im swimming against the time here.... they wont sound or feel identical. The older one will be different in some way.

Ive got a 1994 (year) 360/12 WB. The high gains are the loudest, and cleaner, than any other Ricky ive owned. And ive owned about 20-30.

Tuning is also stable. Despite consistency comments above, about 40% of the Rickys ive owned had tuning issues - including a brand new 381, which was to be fair, a bag of shit.

@ICBM can offer more pick up insight.

Seziertisch

Wazmeister said:

thermionic said:

I think I read somewhere that the hi-gain pickups had a lot more winds in the 80s, and they reverted to a more normal number of winds in the mid to late 90s?

Im swimming against the time here.... they wont sound or feel identical. The older one will be different in some way.

Ive got a 1994 (year) 360/12 WB. The high gains are the loudest, and cleaner, than any other Ricky ive owned. And ive owned about 20-30.

Tuning is also stable. Despite consistency comments above, about 40% of the Rickys ive owned had tuning issues - including a brand new 381, which was to be fair, a bag of shit.

@ICBM can offer more pick up insight.

Regarding the brand new 381, not an inexpensive guitar presumably, probably at custom shop Fender or Gibson prices. 

A lemon at that price point is inexcusable, even Gibson, who have pretty bad QC, when you reach that price point you get an objectively good guitar. 

ICBM

The pickups are best described as “primitive”, and vary a lot. They also have the worst failure rate of any modern pickup I can think of. (Actually the HB1s are quite well made.)

Have you seen the price of a new 381 now? I had a look recently when I was thinking of selling mine, and nearly fell over - over £7K list. Ludicrous - they were overpriced at £4K+ after the last price hike. They’re not even that complex to make - very little more than two 330 bodies glued back to back, and the “hand carving” looks suspiciously like the hand pressed the start button on the jig router, to me...

prowla

I had someone on another site talking about "antique" Ric basses; he wouldn't have it that there are no antique Ric basses.

As for "vintage", it is a kind of generic term used in guitarspeak to suggest something is old, and therefore collectable.

Same with cars.

In winespeak it means a particular year and doesn't imply that older is better.

prowla

On to the question, you can't really say whether one particular unseen guitar is better or worse than another unseen guitar; each one tends to be different.

I tend to buy older/used, because I figure that any anomalies will have surfaced in the elapsed time, also there's usually a money saving aspect.