ChanMan Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I can't even tell the difference. Honestly... in shopping for my LP, I played a '50s neck LP at the Gibson Showcase that had me convinced I'd gotten it wrong and the '60s neck was the thicker neck.... Not much difference between them sometimes, methinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnastynebr Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I cant do really fat necks. Had my eye on an R7 a while back, but could not get passed the thickness of the neck. I can definitely feel the difference between USA 50s and 60s. Strangely enough, I learned on a 60s MM with a huge neck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon S. Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 The fatter, the better!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WahKeen Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I've been playing 50s necks all my life. It wasn't till last year that I got a 60s for the first time. I love the 60s neck, but cut my teeth on 50s. Right now I lean more toward slim, but cannot negate my first love Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damian Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Of my 50 + guitars, I like them both.....IF I had to choose, then fat...............Fat is Phat.... ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brundaddy Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I like a neck so fat it looks like a pack of hot dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 It should also be noted that neck thickness has a significant impact on tone. The effect on tone of a fatter neck is almost entirely for the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Namvet Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I prefer the 50s style fat neck for my short fat fingers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grampa Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 My Gibson is an F-25, an acoustical from the 60's with a big wide classical guitar sized neck, 2" nut and 12 frets, and I would say it is wider than any Gibson electric. I love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Yeah, I think "thin" and such is a term that can be a bit misleading. Overall shape is quite important in perceived "thickness." Which means, I think, that in ways one should play a given instrument to see how the neck fits his/her hands and playing style. Tiny differences can make huge differences in perception. Also the body style of the guitar plays a role in our perception of a neck because it affects how we hold the thing and the geometry of how our left hand has its interface with the neck overall... m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadCase Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Overall shape is quite important in perceived "thickness." +1.... PRS for example. I have not yet found a Gibson neck that was too fat for me. "The fatter the better" I always say... for guitar necks that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon S. Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 My Gibson is an F-25, an acoustical from the 60's with a big wide classical guitar sized neck, 2" nut and 12 frets, and I would say it is wider than any Gibson electric. I love it. I've actually had my eye out for one of those for a while because of the wide neck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metalrulez Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 50's neck= less hand pain for this old man. Aurther is a problem on small/thin/imaginedfast necks.I can play for over an hour on a fat neck before pain starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.