Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Neck Size Changes


letsgoaz

Recommended Posts

Forgive my ignorance if this is more common knowledge to others,

but I was interested in why Gibson (or Fender) changed the size/shape of their necks in the late 50s into the 60s?

 

What was the motivation for producing a thinner "60's" neck instead of a "50's" neck?

Where players seeking something smaller?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Farnsbarns

Forgive my ignorance if this is more common knowledge to others,

but I was interested in why Gibson (or Fender) changed the size/shape of their necks in the late 50s into the 60s?

 

What was the motivation for producing a thinner "60's" neck instead of a "50's" neck?

Where players seeking something smaller?

 

Yes. I think the drive was probably musical. More lead guitar going on and faster paced generally. Not to say speed never featured before that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much was actual change and how much is modern day marketing?

I've only played 3 '50s and a couple of mid-'60sGibson electrics and, believe it or not, they did all seem to fit with the current 'Baseball-bat; Chunky; Slim' descriptions.

The '55 was the fattest; the '57 & '58 had slightly less heft and the '60s (both SGs) had slimmer necks than the others.

 

The '55 felt very like my '93 R9; the '58 (in particular) felt most like my '95 R0 and the '95 '1960 Classic' and both the SGs felt like my '91 '1960 Classic'.

The '57 was a bit different from the others as it's neck felt as thick as the '58 but there was a bit less shoulder which made it feel smaller but not slimmer in the hand than the '58.

 

I know full-well that a sample of just five instruments is hardly representative of Gibson's VAST output over a fifteen year period but, still,.........

 

FWIW out of all of them the '57 was - for me - the perfect shape.

 

Pip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...