Official Luthiers Forum!
http://luthiersforum.com/forum/

Is 0.880" too Fat?
http://luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=46345		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  sdsollod [ Sat Sep 12, 2015 12:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Is 0.880" too Fat?
I'm carving a neck on a round shouldered dreadnaught (J-45) and I am now at 0.880" at the 1st fret. [Actually, I am also working on a 000 12 fret that is also now at 0.880".] I have typically gone shallower than that on other builds (around 0.850"). I think sometimes when people try my guitars carved at 0.850" they seem to think they are a little shallow. I thought I might see how a little deeper might be, but I don't want to be sorry. The difference is only 0.030". Doesn't seem like much... I know it tends to be personal preference. Sometimes folks can detect small differences. BTW - these are not commissions...

What's your opinion? Should I keep carving or stay put?
Author:  J De Rocher [ Sat Sep 12, 2015 1:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is 0.880" too Fat?
Players range from hyper hyper particular to couldn't give a rat's behind about neck thickness and profile. If they're not commissions, it seems like you can carve them how you like including giving a thicker than usual neck a try. As points of reference I measured the the thicknesses of the necks at the first fret of three guitars I have with relatively thin, medium, and thick necks. Breedlove Northwest Classic: 0.795, 1951 Gibson L-4c: 0.850, and Gibson Les Paul '68: 0.915. Personally, I'm happy with necks anywhere in that range as long as the don't have thick shoulders. At 0.880, you are still well shy of "chunky" land like the Les Paul. I think you should go for it and decide if you like it. It would also give you a guitar to have on hand for assessing a potential customer's preferences.
Author:  Greg B [ Sat Sep 12, 2015 2:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is 0.880" too Fat?
.880" is totally normal, and probably what most people are used to. It's my understanding that a typical/traditional steel string neck is in the neighborhood of .875". Most custom builders seem go a bit thinner than this, because they can.

I agree it's a personal preference thing, and some people are very picky about it. If you're doing a commission, you can do it to whatever the player prefers. For my own instruments, I'm not terribly choosy about it. I did a couple at .750" and decided that's a bit thin. The neighborhood of .810-.840" is the sweet spot for me.
Author:  sdsollod [ Sat Sep 12, 2015 5:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is 0.880" too Fat?
Thanks guys. I'm usually not too fussy about neck thickness (as a player), but I have to say, I'm not crazy about "baseball bat" necks. Sounds like 0.880" doesn't fall into this category. Another consideration might be tone... Does the mass of the neck effect the tone of the instrument? Most variables effect tone in some way... Not sure if neck thickness could play a roll or perhaps the effect is negligible... Any thoughts on this?
Author:  tysam [ Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is 0.880" too Fat?
I just finished a carve on a spec and I finished at .82. I have to agree with Greg, from .81 to .85 is what I aim for unless specified otherwise.
Author:  Tom West [ Sun Sep 13, 2015 9:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Is 0.880" too Fat?
I'm not a player so don't notice the nuances of small size differences in necks. Some players seem to be able to detect very small changes in dimension. Have had players tell me they like the thickness to increase in proportion to the width as they go up the neck. To them it seemed more important then the actual thickness as long as that thickness was within the perceived normal range. As to your question......a bit thicker then I normally use but not excessive in my mind.......but again I'm not a player.
Tom
Author:  rlrhett [ Mon Sep 14, 2015 12:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Is 0.880" too Fat?
I would notice. Yes, too fat for me. I shoot for .78 and sometimes end up a little closer to .76. I know this is small for acoustic guitars, but not only do I like it I notice my musician friends mostly do as well. I broke a neck on an old box I had and broke my cardinal rule: never fix a guitar when you have an excuse to make a new one! :-P

Still, I liked this little guy so I made a new neck. It was one of the first guitars I ever made, and the neck was pretty chunky. Good friend of mine, an amazing player, picked up the guitar with the new neck. "Wow! I guess I never realized how awesome this little guitar is!" he said. He had played it before. Only difference was the new neck.

Everybody has their personal taste, of course. But as a player I can tell the difference between a 0.880 neck and a 0.800 neck. Most def. One would be a disappointment, the other I would be happy with.
Author:  Rodger Knox [ Mon Sep 14, 2015 2:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is 0.880" too Fat?
sdsollod wrote:
Thanks guys. I'm usually not too fussy about neck thickness (as a player), but I have to say, I'm not crazy about "baseball bat" necks. Sounds like 0.880" doesn't fall into this category. Another consideration might be tone... Does the mass of the neck effect the tone of the instrument? Most variables effect tone in some way... Not sure if neck thickness could play a roll or perhaps the effect is negligible... Any thoughts on this?


There are neck resonances, but they usually don't factor in to an acoustic guitar's tone. If the neck is light and not too stiff, it may become a factor.
Author:  Quine [ Tue Sep 15, 2015 12:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is 0.880" too Fat?
Maybe you could try a more V shaped neck. I find removing volume at the edges....going from a C shape to a V... really makes it feel better. To me anyway
Author:  TonyKarol [ Tue Sep 15, 2015 3:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is 0.880" too Fat?
880 for me is a baseball bat ... anything much over 850 I find way to fat .. I make most of mine around 815-820, with finish. I just had a friend in for a PU install, and he played my two most recent builds, and remarked how nice the necks felt - they played like butter to him.
Author:  Pmaj7 [ Wed Sep 16, 2015 10:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Is 0.880" too Fat?
I've always done .8 which I understand is modern/thin and has always felt good to me.

To those with experience with V's; are they usually taller?
Author:  DannyV [ Wed Sep 16, 2015 2:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is 0.880" too Fat?
.82 for me. I like the feel and so claim my customers. I guess between a V and a C shape. A full on C shape is too chunky IMHO.
Author:  TonyKarol [ Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Is 0.880" too Fat?
The more the neck shape gets v'd, the thicker it can be, or almost needs to be, or it will feel thin .... I would generally add 20-40 thou depending on how much V the neck will have .. so total would be in the 840-860 range.

You need to start measuring necks as they come thru your shop to get a sense ... as you are making a neck, the one thing to remember is that the neck will ALWAYs feel thicker once you fret it, and have strings on. When you find a nice feeling neck shape on a finished guitar, once you measure its almost certain that it thinner than you think it is - because of frets and strings.

I did a repair on a '64 335 recently, and the neck felt big to me, I thought it was in the 860 range .. but it had been refretted with big tall jumbo frets, and low and behold, at the first fret is measured 835 ... at the 14th or so, 945,which is about what I expected - but the first fret measure I would have sworn was bigger, but it was all in the feel with those frets.
Author:  DannyV [ Thu Sep 17, 2015 11:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Is 0.880" too Fat?
If you radius the FB after gluing it to the neck you more than likely find it feeling smaller. I radius and make sure the FB plane is flat just before I'm ready to move up from 80 grit on the final neck finishing. At that point you get a good feel for the neck and it's doesn't take long to remove .020 if need be.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/