jbear Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I have to decide between the ES-339 30/60 and the 59 neck profiles (I have been offered both). Has anybody played the 137 and the 59 neck 339? I liked the 137 neck quite a bit more than the 30/60 on the 339, and there are no 59 necks locally, so...I am trying to be as diligent as I can given the circumstance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincentw Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I owned both the ES-137 and the ES-339 fat neck. The 339 fat neck was a bit more chunky...but the 137 neck heel makes higher frets difficult to play. All in all...similar necks, but the 339 has the 335 feel when it comes to playing higher frets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brundaddy Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 The 59 neck is rounder. Round/fat vs. slim/flat is a matter of personal preference. The 339 heel is at a higher fret. So, if you're gonna shred some metal, you got that goin' for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guitarzan55 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I have the '59 neck on my 339. I guess I'm traditional to a fault, but when looking at the 339, I didn't even consider the slimmer neck -- didn't even test it out. The fat neck was for me. But a short time ago I had the chance to play a friend's 30/60 neck 339 and I found myself a little envious at the smooth playbility of that guitar. The fat neck is still just fine, but I if I had tried the 30/60 neck, I might have gone with the slimmer neck. the feel is very nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbear Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 I am grateful for the responses. I decided on the 59 neck. I did try the 30/60, and it was nice but just felt a little skimpy for my taste. I find that fatter necks have a tone that prefer over thinner counterparts...provided they're not too fat for me to play comfortably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murph Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Congrats. I've got the 30/60 and it's very fast, but you'll love the ES-339 I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artisan Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 I also have an ES-137 Custom and an ES-339 with a '59 fat neck. There is a lot to look at in choosing between one or the other. Firstly, when choosing my 339 I tried both the 30/60 and the '59 neck. I went back and forth with each one on the same amp and settings. They both had the same strings. At first I liked the 30/60 cause it felt good but the fat neck sounded beefier and had more sustain. I decided on the fat neck. I never looked back! The 137 is a much larger guitar. That takes some getting used to. They both have same pickups but they sound different. The neck profile on the 137 is kinda similar to a Les Paul. It's slimmer and has a velute. It has an ebony fret board and the frets are slightly lower profile. The frets on the 339 are taller and squared off. So what does that mean, well if you're doing a lot of pull-offs and tripples on the first string this guitar is the right choice cause on the 339 the string gets caught on the edge of the frets when you pull-off and makes a nasty ugly sound. Another thing is that the 339 soesn't have as much room for your hand at the bottom of the neck. The cutaway is a little too narrow. So the 339 caters more to a bluesy style of playing where you do a lot of stretching up vs the 137 which caters to a faster style of playing. I do both so I use these guitars according to what I wanna play at the time. However, since the 339 is the perfect size and shape for me I play it a lot more than I play the 137... Good luck!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.