Overview: The 1999 425V63 & 450V63
When is a reissue worth more than the original?
It’s a little difficult to categorize these guitars because none of the terms we normally use really fit. Despite meeting most of the criteria for what we’d call a “Vintage Reissue”—a mostly accurate reproduction of a classic guitar—that term usually implies a catalogued production model. These weren’t that.
You might call them a special run, but that generally implies a fixed number of guitars built for a specific dealer or market. Not that either. And while “Limited Edition” removes some of that customer-specificity, it still tends to imply a predetermined quantity. These weren’t that, either.
So what, then? What do you call a reissue-style guitar that had a limited ordering window, but where every guitar ordered during that window—for any customer—would be built?
Well, whatever you call them, Rickenbacker called them the 425V63 and 450V63. So what exactly were they? And why were they?
The first question is easier to answer than the second, so let’s start there. At a macro level, they are close reproductions of the entry-level solidbodied 425 and 450 (click to learn more) as they appeared in 1963—thus the V63. And some of the attention to detail was impressive.
But before we jump into that, a quick note on the “425” part of the 425V63’s designation. Astute readers may have already noticed a potential problem: Rickenbacker models ending in a -5 are generally equipped with a vibrato of some sort. The 425V63 does not.
Oddly enough, neither was the original 425 introduced in 1958. Why then did it get a -5? There’s no telling. It just did.
In 1965, however, the designation began to make sense when the 425 received a vibrato—specifically a Japanese unit commonly misidentified as a “Boyd vibrato” (click to learn more). At that point, the existing non-vibrato model was redesignated the 420, and that is how it remained until production ended in 1981. The vibrato-equipped 425 itself disappeared about 1968.
All of which is to say that because the 425V63 was intended to recreate the guitar as it existed in 1963, calling it a 425—even without a vibrato—is entirely correct.
Recreating a 425/450 body for the first time since 1984 required more effort than you might expect. The old jigs and tooling were long gone—by 1999 Rickenbacker had been using CNC manufacturing for several years. Borrowing the 610’s (click to learn more) body wings was simple enough, but the neck-through center section and top routs were unique to the 425 and 450, requiring new programs to be written. And rather than taking shortcuts with a giant swimming pool rout that could be used on either model, both got their own unique top routing pattern.
They needed a different neck section pattern because despite sharing the same outline, the 400 and 600-Series are structurally quite different. The fingerboard on a 610 and 620 sits about 3/4” over the body—similar to a 330 or 360—while a 425 or 450 sits only about 3/8” proud of the body, much like a 4003.
Consequently, the neck blank is smaller and a different CNC program is required. As there were no similar guitar necks currently in the line, a special program would have to have been created.
The contemporary 650 neck came close, sharing the lower deck height (click to learn more), but its neck was wider, extended to 24 frets instead of 21, and featured a heel designed for improved upper-fret access. Close wasn’t close enough, so a dedicated program was needed. And with the exception of a few Boutique one-offs, I’m fairly sure it hasn’t been used since.
And yes, that square heel is correct. While “square heels” have become a generic “vintage” signifier on many Rickenbacker reissues—even when not technically correct—the original 425 and 450 didn’t transition from square heels to rounded until 1964.
The headstocks reveal another nice detail. As new in 1963, the student model 425 featured white plastic button Kluson Deluxe tuners. The entry-level 450 had nickel-plated button Kluson Deluxe. The 1999 reissues nailed this differentiating detail.
But while we’re looking at the headstock, there’s one detail they didn’t get quite right: the truss rod cover (click to learn more). The “MADE IN U.S.A.” imprint was added below the Rickenbacker logo in 1964 at Rose Morris’s request, making it technically anachronistic on these 1963-inspired models. Were Rickenbacker to remake these guitars today, they could simply borrow the 360/12C63’s “correct” truss rod cover. But that part wouldn’t exist until 2005.
The wiring on the one-pickup 425V63 was also absolutely correct—a fact that confused more than a few people when it first appeared. The switch is only a two-way switch—which was apparently a difficult part to source in 1999—with a low-pass filter “strangle” or “dark” setting in one position, and a standard volume/tone setting in the other.
And here’s one more absurdly specific detail tied directly to those hard-to-source switches: the switch tip.
Everyone knows that the Switchcraft 3-way switch that has appeared on pretty much every Rickenbacker model ever (almost) always has a black switch tip. But the 2-way Switchcraft switch used on one-pickup models in the 1950s and 1960s usually had a chrome switch tip. And so it does on the 425V63.
One area they got it just plain wrong—but also unfortunately right—was the bridgeplate and bridge. You see, Rickenbacker has used two lengths of bridgeplates over the years. From 1954 to 1962—and then again from mid 1965 to 1981—they used a “long” bridgeplate.
But from 1963 to mid-1965—the period these guitars were trying to emulate—a shorter bridgeplate was used, with a correspondingly smaller cutout in the pickguard to accommodate.
The 425V63 and 450V63 used the “incorrect” longer bridgeplate. Why? We’ll probably never know, but I’d wager there were a couple boxes of long bridgeplates left over from 1984 sitting on a shelf somewhere in Santa Ana. If we know anything about the Hall family, it’s that they don’t throw anything away.
Ironically, the bridge itself was historically correct—and that’s probably the one thing modern players wish wasn’t.
In 1962, Rickenbacker changed the bridge to a floating one-piece, height-adjustable intonated bridge. And given when it was introduced, it was intonated for a wound G string as was commonly used at the time. But by the end of the 420 and 450’s lives, most players had switched to plain G strings—which do not intonate correctly at the same place as wound G strings. Yet Rickenbacker never updated the design.
And so the 425V63 and 450V63 used the “correct” bridge—probably found in a box on the same shelf as the bridgeplates—dooming modern players to perpetually out-of-tune G strings.
But these guitars came with a saving grace that excuses a number of minor sins: Rickenbacker chose the 425V63 and 450V63 as the debut platform for the reproduction scatterwound toaster pickup.
The vintage toaster pickup had been completely phased out and replaced by Higain pickups by late 1974, and it did not appear on any models until the launch of the B-Series guitars in 1982.
But while those B-Series toasters were more than mere cosmetic replicas, neither were they accurate reproductions of the vintage pickups that had first appeared in 1957. They were wound much hotter than the originals—typically to around 12k ohms, hotter even than contemporary Higains—and consequently sounded quite different than the pickups they were meant to emulate.
In preparation for what would become the C-Series of vintage reproduction models, John Hall spent over a year analyzing and deconstructing vintage pickups in order to build the most accurate replica possible—even down to randomizing the bobbin winding pattern to mimic the inconsistencies introduced by the original hand-winding process. Thus the “scatterwound” designation.
But the 425V63 and 450V63 got the pickups first. And while I tend to avoid the subjective here, I’ll just say that I own a 450V63, and when I want to explain to someone what a Rickenbacker “sounds like”, that is always the guitar I grab. Hall nailed it.
So we have two fairly accurate replicas of somewhat obscure models, made for a very limited time. Why? Well, there was a third model offered at the same time that might make it a little bit clearer: the 325/12V64 (click to learn more). Which, of course, recreated the one-off, rarely-played 12-string 325 built for John Lennon in 1964.
And while I assume everyone here already knows this, on a 1963 visit with his sister in the US before Beatlemania took hold on our side of the pond, George Harrison bought himself a Fireglo 1962 425—his first Rickenbacker—which he had painted black to match Lennon’s 325.
So we have a limited-time offering of two “minor,” rarely-used Beatles guitars. And if there is anything true in this world it is this: Beatles fans will buy anything related to the Fabs.
That explains the 425V63 and 325/12V64. How do you explain the 450V63? I honestly think the answer may be as simple as, “why not?” They were already making the husk, so why not offer an “add a pickup” option for anyone who might want one?
Although to be fair, Harrison’s 425 was later modified to add a second pickup—effectively making it a 450. That said, the guitar did not appear in that configuration during its brief period of onstage use in late 1963 and early 1964, so that connection is probably best viewed as incidental.
Both models were offered in Jetglo and Burgundyglo—and yes, they added the “-glo” suffix that had quietly been dropped from the catalog in 1976 back to the Burgundy (click to learn more). Jetglo makes perfect sense, but why Burgundyglo? It wasn’t even available in 1963. Somebody at the factory must have liked it.
Actually, the buying public did too. Final production numbers on the 425V63 were 84 Jetglo and 36 Burgundyglo, for a total of 120. On the 450V63, final numbers were 61 Jetglo and 80 Burgundyglo, 141 total. It seems like “might as well offer a 450 while we’re at it” was a solid idea.
There’s one lingering mystery we haven’t addressed yet: why were the models “V63s” when the ostensible inspiration was a 1962 model?
That’s a great question, and it raises a larger one: most of the Beatles “V” models were a year “late”. 325V59? Based on a 1958 325. 360/12V64? Based on a 1963 360/12. I could keep going, but you get the idea.
In this particular case it doesn’t really matter—the specifications on the 1962 and 1963 425 and 450 were virtually identical. But why Rickenbacker used this convention—which they “fixed” with the C-Series reissue models—in the first place? I’ve never come across a satisfactory answer.
We’ll end on one ironic note. Original 425s and 450s have long represented some of the least expensive opportunities to dip your toes into the vintage Rickenbacker market. But because the 425V63 and 450V63 were only offered for a short period and built in relatively small numbers, they now find themselves in the unusual position of often being worth more than the guitars they were designed to reproduce.
Which means Rickenbacker must have done something right, right?
Excellent write as always. These entry level models are intriguing. Great images. Cant help but wanna see Hetfield get up and push it to the maxx....via Amps😁
Great article as always. I believe the V series was numbered inaccurately to acknowledge that they weren’t strict reissues. I recall an old thread about the 325V59 where John Hall said something like “well, it’s a ‘59 reissue, not a ‘58”.