Big chunky necks?

[dallasblues]

It appears to me that most acoustic guitars today come with either a slim taper (Gibson) or a low oval (Martin) type of neck shape. I totally get that from a business sense. I’m sure the major manufacturers know what neck shape sells the best and build the majority of their instruments accordingly. However, I’ve got long skinny fingers and just like a fuller neck. I’m never even opposed to the baseball bat necks we often talk about. Granted, it’s not necessary to have a neck quite that big but I’d prefer it over these skinny little ones on the wall at most music stores. Obviously I could spend a lot more money and custom order something that fits my hand better but I’m just not in that tax bracket. Vintage guitars often have beefier necks it seems. But once again, I’m not in that tax bracket. $2500-3000 is a feasible budget for my next guitar though. Can anyone tell me of a 00 sized guitar that has a chunky neck? I like em thicc. 

[62burst]

Maybe try to find one of the  all-mahogany LG-2 Banner Reissues that Gibson did in 2013 (forum question: is this the guitar that Gibson borrowed to use for measurements from John Thomas  (JT, here on the forum), and almost didn't get back to him?). Irregardless, every time I take that one out of the case, the fullness of the neck, even up the neck, is surprising as much as the guitar's light weight on a full gloss finish.  It might push the definition of what a 00-sized guitar is, with a waist .1875 " greater than the 8.375" of the average L-00. 

Tony P did a reviewed it a while back:

 

[DanvillRob]

My brother plays 12-String guitars with 6 strings removed just for the wide necks.

On some of them he leaves like 3 extra strings, so those are essentially 9-String guitars.

But then....he's somewhat weird!

[Boyd]

That worked really well for Big Joe Williams! 😀 Personally, I like skinny necks, my 1965 J-50 feels very comfortable. Recently got a 2020 J-50 1960's Original with a neck that's a bit more slender than other recent Gibsons. But they also make a 1950's version of the same guitar. You might think the neck would be fatter on that, to be more faithful to the 50's. It is wider than the 60's version, however according to the specs, the nut is 1.72" which is actually a bit more narrow than the 1.725" nut on my 2008 J-50. However, the nut width doesn't tell the whole story, so maybe the carve is actually fatter and it might be worth checking out?

[dallasblues]

I suppose I should be more specific when I say a “chunky” neck. I’m mostly referring to the carve or profile. Obviously nut width and radius are factors as well but I’m looking for something that fills my palm a bit more than the typical slim taper or low oval. 

[zombywoof]

What you consider a Louisville Slugger neck depends on your frame of reference.  To me it is pushing or exceeding a depth of 1.0" at the 1st fret.  My '42 J50 has a neck which clocks in at 1.06" at the 1st.  I have several others including a 1920 Gibson L3, 1942 Harmony H165 Stella, and early-1930s Oscar Schmidt-made Galiano jumbo which are in the 0.99" to 1.03" range.   

The only stock modern Gibson I can think of off hand with a neck which gets you into that territory would be the 1934 Jumbo.

I also own guitars with a depth at the 1st fret around .91" to .93".  While I do not consider these fully "baseball bat" necks I would classify them as being on the bigger side of medium.  This would be typical of 1950s Gibsons as well as Harmonys (which had the advantage of retaining the 1 3/4" nut).

Edited September 10, 2021 by zombywoof

[Leonard McCoy]

I can relate as I too can dig a chunkier neck, also because I like to use my thumb for forming chords. What you may seek in spirit from Gibson is a so-called "Vintage 50s" neck most prominently featured on a Les Paul Special - TV Yellow and perhaps other models as well. Such a neck leaves no space between your fretting hand and the neck and is more on the extreme side but very comfortable. In general I don't think you will have a particular problem with any Gibson acoustic as their necks are chunky, and wide at the nut, no matter what. Gibson acoustic necks are also rather varied even among the wide-spread "Slim Taper" (C-shape) family.  The so-called "Historic V" neck of the 50s LG-2 might be a good fit for you regardless (and also guitar-wise).

Edited September 11, 2021 by Leonard McCoy

[dallasblues]

13 minutes ago, Leonard McCoy said:

I can relate as I too can dig a chunkier neck, also because I like to use my thumb for forming chords. What you may seek in spirit from Gibson is a so-called "Vintage 50s" neck most prominently featured on a Les Paul Special - TV Yellow and perhaps other models as well. Such a neck leaves no space between your fretting hand and the neck and is more on the extreme side but very comfortable. In general I don't think you will have a particular problem there with any Gibson acoustic as their necks are chunky, and wide at the nut, no matter what. Gibson acoustic necks are also rather varied even among the wide-spread "Slim Taper" (C-shape) family.  The so-called "Historic V" neck of the 50s LG-2 might be a good fit for you regardless (and also guitar-wise).

Excellent! I’ve got my eyes on an LG-2 as well as the L-00. The L-00 I tried sounded quite nice and while the neck wasn’t bad necessarily I’d certainly prefer more mass on there. I haven’t tried an LG-2 yet but now I’d really like to pick one up for a test drive! I also a have a bit of interest in a vintage LG-1. Different bracing I know but I wonder if it’s neck would be similar to the LG-2. 

[zombywoof]

10 hours ago, 62burst said:

Maybe try to find one of the  all-mahogany LG-2 Banner Reissues that Gibson did in 2013 (forum question: is this the guitar that Gibson borrowed to use for measurements from John Thomas  (JT, here on the forum), and almost didn't get back to him?). Irregardless, every time I take that one out of the case, the fullness of the neck, even up the neck, is surprising as much as the guitar's light weight on a full gloss finish.  It might push the definition of what a 00-sized guitar is, with a waist .1875 " greater than the 8.375" of the average L-00. 

Tony P did a reviewed it a while back:

 

The L-00 and other Advanced L Body Guitars had a lower bout of 14 3/4" so were closer to an 000 size than 00.  The LG series shared the same body specs as Gibson's classical guitars introduced in the later 1930s.  This is why JT stated he believes while the "L" was the series designation the "G" stood for Gut.  

Edited September 10, 2021 by zombywoof

[egoidealmusic]

The main reason I was interested in the 50's J-45 was the big chunky neck.  I've also got pretty large skinny hands, and just love the feel of the thicker necks.  I don't see that unless you get into the full on historic range ($4500 and up) that there's any other newer Gibson acoustics with that chunky neck.  Not the 00 you want, but maybe the thick girl that you need.

[Hall]

The Banner Southern Jumbo with The C shape at 1.77 has converted me.

[Dave F]

14 minutes ago, Hall said:

The Banner Southern Jumbo with The C shape at 1.77 has converted me.

Same here. I just sold my ‘42 Legend because of the chunky neck. 

[thegreatgumbino]

45 minutes ago, Dave F said:

Same here. I just sold my ‘42 Legend because of the chunky neck. 

Darn.  How much did you sell it for?  I love the chunky necks and have been lusting after a Legend.

I wish they had square shoulder and jumbo options with chunky necks.

Edited September 11, 2021 by thegreatgumbino

[zombywoof]

2 hours ago, Hall said:

The Banner Southern Jumbo with The C shape at 1.77 has converted me.

This is nut width so while part if the equation is a very different thing from neck depth. 

[jt]

On 9/10/2021 at 5:21 AM, 62burst said:

Maybe try to find one of the  all-mahogany LG-2 Banner Reissues that Gibson did in 2013 (forum question: is this the guitar that Gibson borrowed to use for measurements from John Thomas  (JT, here on the forum), and almost didn't get back to him?). Irregardless, every time I take that one out of the case, the fullness of the neck, even up the neck, is surprising as much as the guitar's light weight on a full gloss finish.  It might push the definition of what a 00-sized guitar is, with a waist .1875 " greater than the 8.375" of the average L-00. 

Tony P did a reviewed it a while back:

 

Yes, Gibson got the neck right on that guitar!

I loaned the original to singer Jennifer Nettles nearly 2 years ago and am having trouble getting it back. 🙂

[Hall]

19 hours ago, zombywoof said:

This is nut width so while part if the equation is a very different thing from neck depth. 

Which was my point.  

[Dave F]

5 hours ago, jt said:

Yes, Gibson got the neck right on that guitar!

I loaned the original to singer Jennifer Nettles nearly 2 years ago and am having trouble getting it back. 🙂

Maybe she is secretly working for Gibson 😎

[jt]

3 hours ago, Dave F said:

Maybe she is secretly working for Gibson 😎

🙂

 

I am very pleased to announce that Gibson has embraced the Kalamazoo Gals story. The company's head of artist relations for North America is participating in my event at AmericanaFest in Nashville in a week and a half.

[Dave F]

Looking forward to it. Maybe she works for the old regime 

[jt]

2 hours ago, Dave F said:

Looking forward to it. Maybe she works for the old regime 

The new Gibson administration is far from perfect. Very far. Witness the threats of lawsuits against luthiers who build 3, yes, 3 Gibsonesque mandolins per year.

But current Gibson is embracing the Gals. It's a beautiful moment, imvho, that I hope we all embrace.

[Dave F]

14 hours ago, jt said:

Yes, Gibson got the neck right on that guitar!

I loaned the original to singer Jennifer Nettles nearly 2 years ago and am having trouble getting it back. 🙂

My LG1 doesn't have a large neck. Ledgers show it went back to the factory for some reason, maybe a neck reduction?

 

 

Edited September 13, 2021 by Dave F

[62burst]

1 hour ago, Dave F said:

My LG1 doesn't have a large neck. Ledgers show it went back to the factory for some reason, maybe a neck reduction?

How cool is that- to have the record of your guitar going back- June 23 1944. I felt lucky to find in the case pocket the bill of sale from when my '45 J-45 maple last changed hands- in 1969.

Good of JT to give us a peek at those ledgers.

EDIT: it too, seemed to have gotten a neck slim-down.

Edited September 13, 2021 by 62burst

[tpbiii]

My42  LG-1 -- with an adjustable neck -- doesn't have a small neck, but it is noticeably smaller than my early c 43 SJ and J-45 without truss rods.  I am pretty sure those necks without metal truss rods are the largest Gibsons ever.  At least the largest IME.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2021 by tpbiii

[zombywoof]

6 hours ago, tpbiii said:

My42  LG-1 -- with an adjustable neck -- doesn't have a small neck, but it is noticeably smaller than my early c 43 SJ and J-45 without truss rods.  I am pretty sure those necks without metal truss rods are the largest Gibsons ever.  At least the largest IME.

 

 

Conventional wisdom has it that the Banners without truss rods were the fattest necks to come out of Gibson.  No Banners but I have owned two Gibson without truss rods - a 1920 L3 (which I still own) and a 1935 Capital.  Both had very similar necks - a round shoulder V with a 1 3/4" (or thereabouts) nut and a depth of something just over 1" at the first fret.  For me this remains the most comfortable neck carve I have run across on any Gibson.  It did not hurt that the string spread at the bridge was 2 3/8".  As a fingerpicker I do appreciate the extra room.

[62burst]

On 9/9/2021 at 10:35 PM, dallasblues said:

. . .  Obviously I could spend a lot more money and custom order something that fits my hand better but . . . not.. Vintage guitars often have beefier necks it seems. But . . . not.

 $2500-3000 is a feasible budget for my next guitar though. Can anyone tell me of a 00 sized guitar that has a chunky neck?

Apologies that your thread has gone astray of your initial query.  I've had other contemporary Gibsons with wider nut width specs, but ultimately they turned out to be nothing more than window dressing, as their neck profiles were still on the shallow side. Since the only one that has been mentioned here so far was the one that Tony Polecastro had demo'ed in the post below your original post, the question must be asked: how do you feel about a mahogany-topped guitar?

On 9/10/2021 at 3:34 PM, zombywoof said:

The L-00 and other Advanced L Body Guitars had a lower bout of 14 3/4" so were closer to an 000 size than 00.  The LG series shared the same body specs as Gibson's classical guitars introduced in the later 1930s.

R i g h t . The modern LG-2 lower bout measurement comes in at just a click greater than 14 (5/16)".  And Martin's 00 ? 14 (5/16). So this could work for OP Dallasblues if when he was asking for recommendations of a 00 sized guitar within his price range, he was referring to the Martin 00, and not the Gibson L-00.

Edited September 13, 2021 by 62burst