2021 Les Paul Standard Neck Angles

[GibbyPauls]

Does anyone know if the Gibson USA’s 50’s vs the 60’s Les Paul Standard models have the same neck angle spec? 
I purchased a 60’s Les Paul Standard through gibson.com and currently going through an exchange process due to excessive neck angle (~5.2 degrees). I understand the neck angles can vary. I have measured another 50’s standard model with ~4.2 degrees. This slight change can change the bridge height quite drastically. 
Is Gibson USA models targeting 5 degrees? Or only for 60’s model with slim taper necks?

Any thoughts or suggestions? 

[merciful-evans]

4 hours ago, GibbyPauls said:

I purchased a 60’s Les Paul Standard through gibson.com and currently going through an exchange process due to excessive neck angle (~5.2 degrees). I understand the neck angles can vary. I have measured another 50’s standard model with ~4.2 degrees. This slight change can change the bridge height quite drastically. 
 

I'm sure your right. Is the problem that the bridge height was beyond adjustment, resulting in action too low?

[GibbyPauls]

With a higher neck angle, it results in a higher sitting bridge getting to the action I want. Which to me is uncomfortable and undesirable.  Of course this is after setting the proper relief. 

Edited November 22, 2021 by GibbyPauls

[merciful-evans]

ok, but is the bridge height beyond further adjustment? 

If not, all you need do is lower it. Sorry if this sounds obvious, but thats the 1st thing to eliminate.

[GibbyPauls]

No, the bridge has plenty (too much) room for adjustment. The bridge is sitting high as a result from the steep neck angle. Lowering the bridge will lower the action to where it would be too low. Im around 4/64 1st and 6th string. 
The problem here is not that i cannot get the action that i want. It ‘s that the bridge will be unpleasantly higher (with the action that I set) than what i have seen on many other Les Pauls. This is again due to the varying neck angles Gibson produces. 
It seems the ideal neck angle for Les Pauls is around 4 degrees. The last one I received had 5+ degrees. This 1+ degree difference can actually cause quite a drastic change in necessary bridge set height. 
So back to the question, does anyone know if Ginson USA set all their neck angles to 5 degrees now? 

[Pat Co]

I recently completed construction of two LP style guitars. This neck angle discussion is quite interesting to me. I bought a set of plans supposedly based on a 59' LP. A very complete 3 sheet set. The plans clearly indicated a neck angle of 3.5 degrees. Not knowing any better that is what I did. I tried to be exact. During my setup I found that proper string height put the bridge and tail stop right down to the wood. In my research I kept seeing bridges much higher than mine. I thought I had done something. More research on other LP Forums informed me that the purists like the older guitars because they have lower neck angle. The bridge resting on the wood is the most desireable position. The mystique  of the older guitars is not just about the pups and pots apparently. I found this to be an issue not commonly discussed. That's my experience for what's it's worth.

[Pinch]

Interesting. I have no idea what the neck angle is on mine, but probably not much, because it's dead straight (relief can be measured if you have the world's biggest magnifying glass) and little to no fret buzz. But lots of tone. I'm with Dan Erlewine as far as this guitar goes. It's tone-o-licious! 

[badbluesplayer]

21 hours ago, Pat Co said:

I recently completed construction of two LP style guitars. This neck angle discussion is quite interesting to me. I bought a set of plans supposedly based on a 59' LP. A very complete 3 sheet set. The plans clearly indicated a neck angle of 3.5 degrees. Not knowing any better that is what I did. I tried to be exact. During my setup I found that proper string height put the bridge and tail stop right down to the wood. In my research I kept seeing bridges much higher than mine. I thought I had done something. More research on other LP Forums informed me that the purists like the older guitars because they have lower neck angle. The bridge resting on the wood is the most desireable position. The mystique  of the older guitars is not just about the pups and pots apparently. I found this to be an issue not commonly discussed. That's my experience for what's it's worth.

Yes.  Supposedly the '59s and "transition" '60s had the lowest neck angles and the lowest bridges.  After that, the neck angles started creeping back up.  If I remember correctly, the transition 60s were where the neck shape got skinny but the neck angle was still pretty flat.  Anyway...

Edited September 4, 2022 by badbluesplayer

[Twang Gang]

How do you measure the neck angle?  I am ignorant as to how to do it.  I am curious about my 2017 LP Standard neck angle.  My bridge is about 1/8th inch off the body (varies from the treble to the bass side).  

Seems the OP can get the action he wants, but is concerned because his bridge "looks" higher than many others he has seen.

[NighthawkChris]

To sort of complement the OP's post from about ten months ago at this time, the way I understand this is that it may be desirable - I'm one of those that like my guitars to be like this too - where if you make the neck perfectly straight, bottom out the bridge to the body, then take a straightedge and rest it on the neck, the straightedge should just "kiss" the top of the bridge.  Basically, if you have a string on the guitar and bridge is at lowest point with perfectly straight neck, you would expect that the string would just lie on the neck. Of course, I don't believe most guitars we buy are checked for this, but their machines or whatever makers use to jig out shapes and colors are just good enough apparently - and this is probably true in so much that people are liking what they get (playable guitar).  This is perfect world stuff...  All in all, this is the whole idea behind why a neck angle is something to pay attention to.  It has a lot to do with how adjustable a bridge can be or where its "steady state" is.  You could only hope that you get maximum bridge "adjustability" if the neck angle is exactly where it should be. 

Now we can get into talking about the tailpiece, because the higher the bridge, the higher the tailpiece is as to not have the strings touch the back of the bridge when the bridge is set at the "best" place.  Comes down to neck angle though when you're talking where the bridge in the first place needs to set...  Hahahaha!  just kidding.  I don't care how you or anyone sets up their guitar.  If they don't like something, I can suggest something that might help, that's all 😀

[Pinch]

On 9/11/2022 at 2:15 PM, NighthawkChris said:

 

Now we can get into talking about the tailpiece, because the higher the bridge, the higher the tailpiece is as to not have the strings touch the back of the bridge when the bridge is set at the "best" place.  Comes down to neck angle though when you're talking where the bridge in the first place needs to set...  Hahahaha!  just kidding.  I don't care how you or anyone sets up their guitar.  If they don't like something, I can suggest something that might help, that's all 😀

Ha ha, I fell for it 😄

[jpu2166]

On 9/3/2022 at 2:50 PM, Pat Co said:

I recently completed construction of two LP style guitars. This neck angle discussion is quite interesting to me. I bought a set of plans supposedly based on a 59' LP. A very complete 3 sheet set. The plans clearly indicated a neck angle of 3.5 degrees. Not knowing any better that is what I did. I tried to be exact. During my setup I found that proper string height put the bridge and tail stop right down to the wood. In my research I kept seeing bridges much higher than mine. I thought I had done something. More research on other LP Forums informed me that the purists like the older guitars because they have lower neck angle. The bridge resting on the wood is the most desireable position. The mystique  of the older guitars is not just about the pups and pots apparently. I found this to be an issue not commonly discussed. That's my experience for what's it's worth.

Apparently the heavy gauge strings used way back in the late 50's caused the original neck angle to lessen due to the strong tension of those heavy thick strings. More can be read about this subject in the book "Beauty of the Burst". Modern string gauges of today are much, much lighter and I would conclude there is far less tension trying to pull on that neck nowadays than with those original 'Bursts. As to the neck angle set at the Gibson factory, a simple email to the factory might give you an accurate answer straight from the horse's mouth.

[Dub-T-123]

I gotta imagine this is a misunderstanding of what you read. The neck angles could vary based on how things were cut and sanded but string tension is not going to shift a set neck

[jpu2166]

7 hours ago, Dub-T-123 said:

I gotta imagine this is a misunderstanding of what you read. The neck angles could vary based on how things were cut and sanded but string tension is not going to shift a set neck

Well. according to the BOTB book, the heavy gauge strings, which were all that was available in the late 50's did in fact slightly change the neck angle. Read the book. Don't shoot the messenger mate. Lighter gauge strings did not appear on the market until the mid-late 60's with Ernie Ball slinky's.

[Dub-T-123]

Yeah well I’m not gonna buy the book to read that lol

 

That bit of information is false or at least misstated regardless of who came up with it