Gibson neck circumference

[burchyk]

Toying with the idea of getting a 175 VOS.

I usually prefer slimmer necks, but seen reports that these tend to be on the fuller side.

Any VOS owners around with a tape measure at hand? Would be very grateful if someone could measure the circumference of the back of the neck from fretboard top to fretboard top, around 3rd and 9th fret..

Also curious how it compares to the vintage specimen and possibly it's cousins like L4, ES-125..

I find the circumference the most useful as it accounts for both depth and shape.

My current favourite is a Guild T50 with a svelte 6.9cm @ 3rd, and 8cm @ 9th fret.

Thanks

[jads57]

In terms of actual neck shape and specs. I go by depth at 1st and 12th frets. From the examples of these VOS 175 1959 Historic they have been .860” at 1st fret and 1” at 12th fret depth.

Also they are 12 radius and 1&11/16” width. Hope this helps!

[burchyk]

That sounds like they are somewhere in the middle as far as Gibson necks go

[Stringswinger]

I have one and while I prefer a slim neck (I Like the Gibson early 60's necks the best), the 59 VOS is quite playable and is not as thick as a 57 Custom shop Les Paul that I once owned. It has a C profile which I find helps when playing a full neck. D Profile and U profiles with full necks feel.....big.

[burchyk]

Thanks @Stringswinger, that's exactly what I was hoping to hear My thumb placement is gradually shifting down over time, and with it the preference from full C to slimmer D profiles.

[burchyk]

So I've got the ES-175D VOS and the neck is second only to a 1958 ES-125 I've tried recently.

But the measurement difference is minute: 72mm @ 3rd fret and 82mm @ 9th.

Will get the calipers to see the depth vs width vs shoulder difference to figure what's going on.

[vintagelove]

I have an 84 175 (super rare lefty!!!).


It has the PERFECT neck shape. Much thinner than today's slim taper profile. Also rock solid stability. I have no idea why they changed this profile.

[burchyk]

Wondering if it could be the tendency for less stability with thinner necks depending on the wood quality that they are trying to compensate for?

I am quite surprised how comfortable the neck on mine is after a few hours of practice, considering the drastic contrast with my Guild.

[Stringswinger]

Wondering if it could be the tendency for less stability with thinner necks depending on the wood quality that they are trying to compensate for?

I am quite surprised how comfortable the neck on mine is after a few hours of practice, considering the drastic contrast with my Guild.

On the 59 Reissue 175's, I think Gibson was going for an accurate neck profile, not neck stability (after all they still make guitars with the 60's slim taper neck). And those thicker, non tapered 50's neck profiles are very much "in style" these days. I have done hundreds of gigs with my 59 reissue 175 and have to say, it is very playable. This comes from a guy who likes slim necks. I too am surprised that I like it. But I do.