-
A) Borys B-120 and B) Lehmann Session 16.
-
04-13-2024 05:51 PM
-
.80 is indeed on the slim side at the nut. That's not super slim though—Fender Custom shop makes Strats and Teles with measurements like that. And, .940 at the 12th is medium to medium-large territory.
Originally Posted by ccroft
As to Example B, I would say any neck that measures 1" anywhere is chunky. That said, I'm starting to think that the shoulder shape has a lot to do with how we perceive neck size, i.e., you can have a deeper neck with slimmer shoulders that feels smaller than it is.
-
I would say yes, the first is slender and the second is pretty fat. Almost an inch at the first fret, the only one I have like that is a '50's telecaster, and it's a baseball bat but somehow very comfortable to play. Originally Posted by ccroft
I am surprised your Borys is that slender, mine is .840 and .950 at the ninth fret, so medium full, and the only other one I've played was similar. My Campellone is about the same and that's the size I gravitate towards.
The Campy is slightly more "C", that is a bit more shoulder. Both are excellent neck shapes.
-
Thanks for the info Bluejay. You made me go look again. Borys is actually .813 AKA 13/16 right behind the first fret. When I talked to Roger I did mention I liked thinner necks. I didn't spec a number and in the end told him to just do his thing. Maybe he picked up on that and went a bit thinner. Mine was built in the last half of 2022.
Baseball bat! Bit of an exaggeration, but at least now I know what people are talking about. The Lehmann has almost no taper. Much less than a baseball bat anyways. I guess if I ever do get around to selling it I'll call it 'a nice full C'. I don't mind it. I just like the Borys and Eastman 880 better.
I'm a woodworker by trade now, and I must say I'm amazed by what 1/32" here or there can do to the feel of a neck. I just got serious about measuring them all when this thread showed up.
-
Yes, it sounds like he may have gone a bit thinner on yours, but my sample size on Borys consists of two, so it could be that those two were a bit heftier. Originally Posted by ccroft
I am not that fussy about neck shapes, I can make most of them work, but I got serious about it when I ordered a custom guitar and had to make a decision! I do find that I prefer thicker necks. I have a couple that aren't perfect for me. One is a '94 Gibson R8 that is fat, but not that comfortable to me. I find that I generally prefer a hand carved neck by someone who knows what they are doing, as opposed to CNC, if I was going to over generalize. The R8 just doesn't feel like it was made by a guitar player to me, but a lot of folks love them. Real '58 guitars are big but somehow more comfortable, though I've played a few that are too big for me.
I also have a nice old D28 that has a fairly shallow V neck on it, I find a prefer the rounder necks from the '40's on those.
But as I said, I can make them all work when needed!
-
I can take it a step further: I've been playing since about '67. I didn't know anything about neck dimensions until I started visiting here about 8 years ago. I just played the dang things. Some felt better than others and I guess I didn't really think much beyond that.
-
I have several different necks in my collection, from chunky (1-11/16" nut width, fat "c" shape) to small (1-5/8" width nut, thin-V shape) and I can play all of them equally well, pretty much. Some necks are faster than others, if I'm doing any hard rock/speed type playing, but in general I have no issue switching between them. Ditto scale lengths: 24-3/4", 25", 25-1/2". Ditto fret size, I have everything from tiny vintage frets to super jumbo 6100.
That being said, there are 2 necks that "feel like home" to me. But I don't think it's because they "fit my hand better" or anything like that, it's simply because they are the 2 pivotal guitars in my life, I've spent more time on them (both learning and playing) than the others.
One is a Charvel/Jackson from my youth, which has a thin D, compound radius, jumbo frets neck... it's incredibly fast. a "shredders neck".
The other is an American Fender telecaster, which has their most-used "Modern C" neck profile and medium jumbo frets.
Altho I recently got a Vintera Thinline, which has a "thin C" neck profile and tiny vintage frets, and I play it as well as the others.
I play "thumb over" alot, so the only deal breaker would be a neck that was either so fat I couldn't do that, or a neck with sharp shoulders that would make thumb over uncomfortable.
-
GuyBoden, thank you for this reminder. This is one of those things that can make a big difference if you are aware of it. It seems to me that less thumb pressure is always beneficial. Originally Posted by GuyBoden
Your preferred neck shape may depend a lot on your thumb position.
A good practice exercise is trying to play with little and no thumb pressure on the back of the neck.
-
Are people familiar with this? This helped me get more specific with my neck preferences. I found that I like the large c shape and the 66 oval c shape the best from this. The only thing I prefer is the Gibson 50s shape(s), which is usually .9 or greater at the first fret and tapered. I also found that I like a taper. I think a lot of people think too much about neck depth at the first fret. How much time are jazz guitarists really spending down there? I’m more interested in depth in the middle of the neck.
-
You also need to take account for the nut width when looking at above specs. 1&11/16” vs 1& 5/8” nut width makes a huge difference on how much larger the same shape can feel.
-
I just don't care, maybe because I used to own a music store and played, probably, hundreds of guitars in a month's time. Since I can rarely play instruments before I buy them, I'm, fortunately, able to adapt fairly quickly. I don't think I've ever found a neck that was uncomfortable for me to play. I really don't think there were different neck profiles until the interweb and guitar forums started talking about them (same thing with picks and strings - we were just glad to have some). I'm more interested in body size - I've never been able to bond to full sized archtops (and I've had them all) and stuck to Teles for many many years but recently got an Ibanez GB10 which is extremely comfortable sitting or standing, so the G.A.S. is pretty much gone.
-
They existed, but far fewer people paid attention. Same thing with fretboard radius and fret size LOL. Originally Posted by Skip Ellis
-
Of course, before the interweb and forums we had Usenet and BBSs (and mailing lists) ... with far fewer people on them because connectivity wasn't as normal as it's now. No neck-specific newsgroup though (or at least not that survived to this day) Originally Posted by ruger9
alt.guitar.* newsgroups:
alt.guitar
alt.guitar.amps
alt.guitar.bass
alt.guitar.lap-pedal
alt.guitar.tab
-
So true about first fret. Knowing that just helps us gauge how much taper. My Lehmann is only about 1/32 thicker at 9 than the Borys. But it only tapers about 1/32 down to fret 1 and feels much much thicker in the middle. Originally Posted by omphalopsychos
That's another thing: you can't measure any of my guitars at 12 because the neck heel is well underway.
I hear you on the olden days Skip. I think we're talking before usenet. Even before personal computers! Like all the info about pickups and speakers: way back when there was only Fender and Gibson where I lived. I found I liked Gibson pickups and Fender amps, and that was about the end of it!
-
I always care about neck shape and size being somewhat ambidextrous,and writing with my left hand. Playing a right handed I’m sensitive to the feel, and having a large enough shape to feel comfortable.
I can play thinner necks so long as they are wider and have enough shoulder D Shape
-
On a daily basis I’m often switching from classical/flamenco necks with wide FB’s to my Tele, with a moderately full C, to the full D of my Martin, to my archtops which have a moderate D. Plus, the scale length differs pretty significantly on many of my guitars. So, I think I have learned to adapt.
-
Were you able to play a GB10 before you bought one? Originally Posted by Skip Ellis
-
About 10 yrs ago and another in the early 80s. Not a lot of that sort of thing in my area. The one from 10yrs ago had 9s on it - yuck!
-
Usenet was created from its precursors in 1980, "personal computers" in 1981 if you consider the original IBM PC to be the 1st of that class though there were already "home computers" by 1977 (TRS-80, Apple-II, Commodore PET). Originally Posted by ccroft
But how many on here had one of those AND a way to go online, at home?
-
My first was an Apple IIE in 1981 - lease-purchased it to keep the books for my store but ended up playing games on it and ended up sending it back. I remember this very complicated game called "Adventure" that was all text - no graphics. Became a CAD drafter in about '87 and haven't stopped since; I still have an old copy of AutoCad LT that has to run on Windows XP so I've got a couple of old laptops for that. The things have come a looooong way since then. Originally Posted by RJVB
-
Your XP and A'Cad will run (probably) much better in a VM on modern hardware, I still have a clone of an XP computer I had at one of my last jobs that certainly hasn't become slower from going virtual
My "own" first was a C64 my dad bought for his work back '82 or so, which I quickly adopted to do my math homework on. Apple IIe's were still being used to run experiments when I arrived in the lab where I did my PhD, in early 1990, but I got a brand spanking new IIx with a 2-up (17"? 21"?) screen.
Funny thing is I just learned the other day I'm apparently into "retro-computing" because my newest laptop is now 5 or 6 years old (my Mac going on 13) and I don't run the latest possible OSes either
Meanwhile, to circle back to the original topic ... all that computer work has very likely had its effect on my own neck profile!
Reply With Quote
Roman Dodecahedron (12 sided) die discovered,...
Today, 11:16 AM in Everything Else