Heritage Super Kenny Burrell Signature at Wolfe Guitars

**Bill Eisele** · 03-07-2021, 01:14 PM

Here's another Heritage Super Kenny Burrell Signature, this one at Wolfe Guitars:2008 Heritage - Super Kenny Burrell - Antique Sunburst. Looks like a beauty in the Antique Sunburst. Priced at $7850, but Jay also has it listed on Reverb accepting offers. Much more than the blonde at Gryphon with the thin neck for $5650 (2009 Heritage Guitar Super KB Antique Natural - Guitar - Gryphon Stringed Instruments), but less than another one that has been up on Reverb forever at $9999: Heritage Super KB Kenny Burrell 2017 Chestnut Sunburst | | Reverb. No mention on Jay's website about neck thickness, but I'm sure he would provide those measurements to compare to the Gryphon blonde. I can't speak to the pricing on all of these. Would love to own one, but too big for me, plus I already have a Heritage Golden Eagle.

**2bornot2bop** · 03-07-2021, 02:52 PM

That guitar only has a 3” depth. Anyone who plays a 17” guitar can play an 18” because of its thin 3” depth.

Those prices are asking prices. No one reasonably expects to pay $8k for a Heritage guitar. That’s just nuts.

**Greentone** · 03-07-2021, 03:57 PM

That's right. Playing a Heritage 18" x 3" archtop guitar is no more uncomfortable than playing a Gibson 17" x 3-3/8" archtop.

They are very comfortable, in fact.

**Bill Eisele** · 03-07-2021, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by 2bornot2bop

That guitar only has a 3” depth. Anyone who plays a 17” guitar can play an 18” because of its thin 3” depth.

Those prices are asking prices. No one reasonably expects to pay $8k for a Heritage guitar. That’s just nuts.

Haha! I’m coming up with every reasonable excuse to not get one and now I am being tempted. Actually not really sure whether the size of these 18” lower bout guitars would present a problem for me because I play using a classical guitar position rather than resting the guitar on my right thigh. A larger guitar might actually make it easier to play with the guitar on the thigh because you aren’t crouching down to play it.

And, yes, I have to assume these prices are negotiable but again I don’t want to be tempted!

**Bill Eisele** · 03-07-2021, 04:08 PM

I guess the other question is how different the Golden Eagle would be from the Super KB from a tonal and volume perspective? I think I read on the forum somewhere that 18” archtops are considered to be “quiet giants” because they don’t put out as much volume because there is more mass to the top that needs to be moved. So, for example, for the same amount of force striking the strings, a smaller archtop (I guess within reason) will be louder. Not sure if that translates to the real world in terms of a perceptible difference.

**2bornot2bop** · 03-07-2021, 04:30 PM

I’ve owned Golden Eagles that weren’t tone canons, while many were. Same for the 8 or so Super Eagle and the Super KB I previously owned. Heritage guitars in general are unique in that they were built to a buyers personal spec request. This is revealed by the number of GE’s with skinny necks while others have full sized necks. There is no one size fits all with heritage guitars.

**HeyNow** · 03-07-2021, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Eisele

I guess the other question is how different the Golden Eagle would be from the Super KB from a tonal and volume perspective? I think I read on the forum somewhere that 18” archtops are considered to be “quiet giants” because they don’t put out as much volume because there is more mass to the top that needs to be moved. So, for example, for the same amount of force striking the strings, a smaller archtop (I guess within reason) will be louder. Not sure if that translates to the real world in terms of a perceptible difference.

1) the larger guitars came out to compete with louder instruments e.g. the larger 18 or even 19” archtops for the big bands, the dreadnaught to compete with banjos aka “banjo killer”

2) you could have a top on an 18” guitar that is less mass than a 17” - generalizing volume/mass on lower bout width is not a good correlation in isolation

3) mass would only be part of the volume equation e.g. vs bracing, construction, the species/subspecies of wood (Adirondack vs Sitka), the particular piece of wood

4) analogy: an 8” speaker is going to move less air than a 12” speaker (given otherwise similar construction); if you’ve messed around with guitar amps/cabs, this is quickly evident

**jads57** · 03-07-2021, 05:56 PM

I have only played one Heritage with a full sized 1950's shape neck out all of the hundred I've tried. And that was a 535.

People say they have them. But please show me one with a neck of at at .90" depth at first fret and 1" depth at the 12th.

**Gitfiddler** · 03-07-2021, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by jads57

I have only played one Heritage with a full sized 1950's shape neck out all of the hundred I've tried. And that was a 535.

People say they have them. But please show me one with a neck of at at .90" depth at first fret and 1" depth at the 12th.

Three of my Heritage guitars have the thicker, so-called 50's neck profile (H-137, H-535 and H-525). They were each custom ordered with those specs, and their necks are very similar to Gibson CS reissue models. Marv Lamb did his 'Marv carve' on the 535 and 525. The 137 was done last year by their master builder, Pete Farmer. They are my favorites, fitting my large hand perfectly.

The Heritage builders would do whatever customers wanted during their first 30 years. Many had slim to medium taper necks as their standard carve, unless otherwise specified by the dealer or purchaser. Currently, under their new ownership, they'll do almost anything, but the high cost will cause immediate nose bleeds.

**Bill Eisele** · 03-07-2021, 07:59 PM

My Golden Eagle has a thick neck carve and I really like it. I haven’t measured it yet but will do so at the next string change and post it. I find that it’s much easier for me in general with the left hand and particularly for bar chords. Must have something to do with leverage.

And was there ever an established standard top thickness measured at the f-holes for the Heritage archtops so you could determine whether your guitar has a thin, thick or standard top?

**jads57** · 03-08-2021, 01:14 AM

It's not just bias for Gibson's without just reason. Again I have owned several Heritages Roy Clark,H 535, Millenium, H 550. Only the 550 had a moderately larger profile. These were all 1990s guitars.

I have played near a Hundred different Heritages as well as looked on line at Dave's Guitars in Lacrosse Wisconsin, CME, Music Zoo, etc at their neck specs.
Never see anything but std med carve

Unless a special order was made , they all have very slim feeling necks with no shoulder to them. And this is especially true of the Eagles, Super Eagles and Sweet 16 models.

**Gitfiddler** · 03-08-2021, 02:10 AM

@Jads57: I get what you are saying and it is true. Some of us early adopters tried to get Heritage to thicken up their neck carves back in the 90's. It didn't happen, and they lost many potential customers. But there are exceptions.

Speaking of Dave's Guitar Shop, he currently has a plain Jane 2016 H-150 with a neck profile of .88" - 1.00" and only 9.2 lbs. If I were in the market for another H-150, that would be the one. Too bad that neck isn't on a Heritage archtop or I'd be in serious trouble with the little lady.

H-150 '16 - Dave's Guitar Shop

**Hammertone** · 03-08-2021, 03:55 AM

Originally Posted by jads57

...People say they have them. But please show me one with a neck of at at .90" depth at first fret and 1" depth at the 12th.

I agree that, for many years, it was hard to find a Heritage jazz guitar with anything other than a slim neck.
I passed on many lovely Heritage guitars for this very reason. And, sure enough, the Heritage guitars that I have found with decent-sized necks were custom ordered.

For jazz guitars with a 14th fret neck/body joint, neck depth at the 12th fret is not useful because of the curvature of the heel. Here's one with a neck that I like - the "Super Patrick" custom-ordered by Patrick Amato and finished in 2015.

A few relevant measurements:
.9063" | 29/32" - 1st Fret
1.031" | 1 1/32" - 9th fret
1.094" | 1 3/32" - 10th fret

I have another one as well, custom-ordered with a big neck - a GE from 2016. It's a few hundred miles away for now, waiting for me. I'll post measurements once I have it my hands.

**Marty Grass** · 03-08-2021, 09:24 AM

You can find the 59 carve on Heritages. The configuration of the carves varied according to the customer's or dealer's order usually.

A few years ago I was at the Heritage plant and saw all of these carving guides from the Gibson days. Each guide had the target shape for three spots in the neck. The Les Paul pile has neck guides with the years written on them. You could see the evolution. The same was true for L-5s, which went back to pre-war.

The thin neck carves Heritage had in its early days was for the practical reason of throwing your thumb onto the fretboard for chord melody. Laminated necks and truss rods added stability that allowed thinner necks. Over the decades, particularly the early 60s, thin was more in. Luthiers are traditionalists in general, probably because their customers tend to be. Enduring change seems to be slow.

Most guitarists can adapt to different neck shapes. There usually is not a biological barrier.

Imagine this guy saying the neck doesn't fill my hand. It's too small. I just can't do this.

I agree that it's your money and you should get what you want. I'm just surprised at the number of people who gripe about a millimeter or two difference in neck thickness and shoulders. For some reason those things didn't really bother me. Maybe I'm lucky. Maybe I'm just a hack.

**jads57** · 03-08-2021, 11:41 AM

Funny thing it's only .10"to .20" diferrence at the first fret. But for me at least its a huge difference. Also the shoulders are very important to the overall feel.
I'm somewhat left handed, at least at writing. Maybe I'm just overly sensitive to feel.

Probably I'm just NUTS! LOL

**Stringswinger** · 03-08-2021, 12:13 PM

And here I am, unlike most here, a fan of slim necks. I am not happy that in this century, the 59 neck seems to be the thing (I love the Gibson necks from 1960-1963). But like MG, I can adapt to most necks. The square necks found on some Selmer style guitars are a bother as is the 1 9/16 nut found on late 60's Gibsons. My Heritage 535 (long gone) had a slim neck as does my Heritage built D'Angelico replica (that guitar has the best neck ever for me). But my 59 reissue 175 has a fat neck and I am fond of her in spite of that. It is not her fault after all.