Rhoads Rant

[PowerTube]

This has probably been covered about a gazillion times before, but that's okay. That's what the Back button is for.

So the USA Rhoads, the RR1, is only available in 22 frets. This is supposedly because, hey, "Randy designed it that way!"

Well, Randy also designed it with tiny little frets, yet Jackson puts the big jumbos on the RR1. Randy's preference for tiny frets is well documented.

So which is it? Are we 100% faithful to what Randy had to say 28 years ago or is this a mix-n-match deal? I think it sucks that the only way to get a 24-fret Rhoads is to go with an import or wait 18 months for a Custom Shop order.

[MetalHeadMat]

Well, if you want to get technical... He also designed it with reverse sharkfin inlays, a TOM bridge, and the Concorde model, (if you count that) was made of maple.

I believe they only make it 22 frets to INCREASE the sales of CS orders, and Japanese Imports. Either that, or they look weird, and the upper access is "Meh" to say the best...

[toejam]

Well, if you want to get technical... He also designed it with reverse frets

Huh? :think:

[neilli]

24 fret Rhoads can look wierd, especially if they 'move' the body back to improve the access...

[charvel750]

I think he meant reverse inlays on the fingerboard, not reverse frets. The first SD Rhoads all had the skinny frets, as they did until about 1990, then the USA Production jumbo'd them. There are some exceptions.

[MartinBarre]

Ranty Rhoads.

[stagemaster]

they've already got the king v to address the 24 frets V market segment. and the king v looks much more menacing.

[Mazz]

Huh? :think:

I think he means inlays?

[tcwil8]

Reverse frets wouldn't be very comfortable IMO.

[MetalHeadMat]

I apologize Toejam, I wrote this without my daily coffee intake
Charvel750 and Mazz were correct, I meant the reverse inlays, at least that's what I thought I saw in the picture of his.

[MetalHeadMat]

24 fret Rhoads can look wierd, especially if they 'move' the body back to improve the access...

Like the ESP Alexi or SV

[Rogueleader]

Not aimed at the OP but....


....People who complain about 22 fret guitars get on my nerves. It seems very rarely that they complain about the neck pickup tone, more often it is "22 frets can't contain my elite shred abilities". How often to you actually use those two frets? My preference is for 24 as well but people who say 22 is a "deal breaker" are just being absurd.

[PowerTube]

Reverse frets wouldn't be very comfortable IMO.

They might be comfortable, but I bet the intonation would really suck!

[PowerTube]

Not aimed at the OP but....


....People who complain about 22 fret guitars get on my nerves. It seems very rarely that they complain about the neck pickup tone, more often it is "22 frets can't contain my elite shred abilities". How often to you actually use those two frets? My preference is for 24 as well but people who say 22 is a "deal breaker" are just being absurd.

It's not about the extra two frets. You're right; very few people would ever use them. It's about the overall balance and feel.

[Grim]

I only play 24 frets too. Well, aside from my strats.

I have a huge pet peeve with this because I like the pup config and shape of the rhoads as opposed to the KV. The KV2s double JBs is not in the cards and neither is the KV2T's 3+3 headstock.

Besides, I play classical position, and the rhoads is super comfortable for this position, but since I play D standard exclusively, I really like having 24 frets for obvious reasons (Being that I can now access the full high range of a 22 fret guitar tuned to E standard).

Anyway, I support you in this. I like small frets too, but oh well.