Are fatter necks becoming extinct?

[lhrocker]

I was playing a whole bunch of Les Paul's this weekend and it seems that other than the regular "Traditional" and the historic line of Les Pauls, all the other models seem to be 60's slim or variation. While the traditional and trad plus are nice, it would be cool to have 50's necks for some of the other models.

[Mr Insane]

I don't know. They better keep the '50s neck if they want me to be a repeat customer.

[AxeBuilder]

No worries - Historics are here.

[Zack]

i cant stand those thin necks, and im not going to spend double the price to get an r8...

[bdubbs]

You can just get a traditional... Its not like there were more fat neck options last year.

[92Standard]

It's about time there were more 60's options. Seems like the last couple years, the majority were all 50's rounded. Traditionals, Studios, Tributes (originally 50's) etc. It would be awesome if every model had both neck size options.

I don't understand when Gibson does stuff like when they introduced the Traditional with P90's. I was so upset as I loved the Gold Top Trad with P90's but it only came with a 50's rounded neck and the Ebony only came in 60's. I think that's just a terrible decision by Gibson. Why not just offer both colors with both necks?

[Chadd]

Originally Posted by 92Standard

Why not just offer both colors with both necks?

because that doubles the number of SKUs that they need to build and raises costs.

[kestrou]

You know what they say about guys with big hands, don't you?

They wear big mittens!

kestrou

[Dino Velvet]

We need to do a poll. I always liked the 50's -and bigger historic- necks better. When they first offered the choice in the Std's in 2002 the 50's all sold first and then a lot of stores only had 60's to sell. Maybe now more people prefer the 60's necks. A lot of it is also misleading, forum people think 60's means pencil and 50's means bat. This is not the case at all.

[MeKevin]

No poll is necessary. I can tell you definitively that 60s necks are far superior.

[Dino Velvet]

Originally Posted by MeKevin

No poll is necessary. I can tell you definitively that 60s necks are far superior.

By all means, post a picture of you and all your 60's neck Gibsons. Go ahead, we'll wait.

[LauriPaul]

The neck of my Trad+ that is so called 50's round neck feel like a 60's tappered if I play it just after an hour playing my R8.. And as a fat neck lover, the R8 feels much, much better.

[bubba steen]

[DrewGR]

I love the fat necks. Very personal though...

[SGguy]

I agree with the people saying there need to be more 60's neck profiles. From my observation, there are WAAAAAAAY more 50's necks than 60's necks. I played a guitar with a 60's neck and loved it.

[Crotch]

Maybe it's because I have been playing for less than a year, but personally the neck makes no difference to me. I've played my traditional (50's), strat (prob considered a 60's), my 335 (feels 60's), and the 2008 LP and new 2012 LP (asymetrical and new asymetrical). I really can't say I favor one over another. I could see old school LP players being used to 50's and some faster players maybe looking for a thinner 60's profile. But for me it is irrelevant.

[brokenarrow5]

60's

[EasyAce]

Originally Posted by zack268

i cant stand those thin necks, and im not going to spend double the price to get an r8...

The only thin neck guitar I've ever been comfortable playing is my Classic Antique. I have two historics with fat bats (though my R9's neck is only slightly less than my R6, but still, a bat is a bat!) and I love them both for that.

By the way, the new Classic Customs offer options---you can have one in either a 50s or a 60s neck, and if you're not inclined to spend for something like an R8 you can get one of those for about half the dough-re-mi . . . I rather liked the look of this one myself:

[politenessman]

for some strange reason i think i will go with small necks on this one.


fat_neck_2 by politenessman, on Flickr

[Zack]

Originally Posted by bdubbs

You can just get a traditional... Its not like there were more fat neck options last year.

traditionals only come in 3 crappy colors for leftys, ebony (boring and dull) clownburst (stupid looking) and wine red (dark and depressive)

[axepilot]

There are too many players out there that prefer beefier necks than the 60's versions.

I'm sure Gibson will always offer them, but on which models?

[thexmadxtopxhatter]

I think slowly eliminating the 50's necks is just another way for Gibson to convince people to pay the extra for Historics.

[92Standard]

Originally Posted by bubba steen

Nice pic!!! It's the "shoulders" that I have a problem with. If the fatter neck just filled up more of my palm, it wouldn't be too bad. You can see by the pic above that the biggest difference is in the "shoulders", not the center of the neck.

Someone else said it as well......60's necks are certainly NOT pencil thin. My new LP Special has one and I have the 60/30 neck on my ES 339 and they're not super thin....at all. My 92 Standard is thinner (and so F'N easy to play). Unfortunately I have pretty small fingers. I even notice a difference playing in G minor pentatonic (box 1, 3rd fret) on a 25.5" scale vs 24.75". When you have a small pinky, you really notice the 4 fret stretch.

Again, it's all about the "shoulders"!!!

[AxeBuilder]

Originally Posted by 92Standard

Again, it's all about the "shoulders"!!!

I'd say it's all about the shape of your hand........

[Thumpalumpacus]

I love the shoulders. It feels like I get better leverage for bending and vibrato. Color me a 50s guy, mostly, but I'll play a slender neck with no problem, too.

[92Standard]

Originally Posted by AxeBuilder

I'd say it's all about the shape of your hand........

I agree.......more specifically, for ME, the issue is the shoulders because it causes me to have to spread my hand wider therefore losing any ability to stretch.

[92Standard]

Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus

I love the shoulders. It feels like I get better leverage for bending and vibrato. Color me a 50s guy, mostly, but I'll play a slender neck with no problem, too.

I certainly can see that as a valid argument, especially if you have large hands. Those large necks compromise my ability to play using certain techniques. ie.....wide string skipping stuff (ala Paul Gilbert) is out of the question.

[kahauna]

Originally Posted by AxeBuilder

I'd say it's all about the shape of your hand........

Yep. Since I have small hands, fat necks are not an option for me.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Originally Posted by 92Standard

I certainly can see that as a valid argument, especially if you have large hands. Those large necks compromise my ability to play using certain techniques. ie.....wide string skipping stuff (ala Paul Gilbert) is out of the question.

Well, my hands aren't that big, but (especially when chording) I'm diligent about using good technique, centering my thumb on the back of the neck. Plus, I've played acoustics since day one, and I've owned a couple of 12-strings and a classical guitar. Big necks are simply what my hands are used to.

And a skinny neck sure ain't gonna have me playing like Paul Gilbert, unless it comes with a talent adjustment.

[92Standard]

Originally Posted by Thumpalumpacus

Well, my hands aren't that big, but (especially when chording) I'm diligent about using good technique, centering my thumb on the back of the neck. Plus, I've played acoustics since day one, and I've owned a couple of 12-strings and a classical guitar. Big necks are simply what my hands are used to.

And a skinny neck sure ain't gonna have me playing like Paul Gilbert, unless it comes with a talent adjustment.

Oh and don't get me wrong, I ain't playing like PG either. I just wish I could do those large stretches just once so I could REALLY see how much I suck at it. Now, I just ASSUME I'd suck at it cause I can't even try! haha