Neck Measurements from a Real '59... 9 0844

[brockburst]

Thought this was very interesting.....especially the nut width....but felt like a Fat vintage C with low shoulders and rolled FB edges...very smooth, very fast...
absolutely nothing like any historic on the market....

Someone mind taking these measurements on their D shaped historic R9?


neck front to back

1st fret - .870
7th fret - .906
12th fret - .970

nut width - 1.720

12th fret width - 2.095

12" radius

frets are .110 wide

all measurements are measured in hundred thousandths of an inch.

[NowGibson]

with a dial caliper Mitutoyo
12 fret width 2.088
nut 1.723
frets .110

strings still on guitar but will measure neck widths when I change them.
Marks Guitar Loft has some measurements listed.

avg. from MGL seems to be 1rst fret neck width .92
12th fret neck width 1.029

[Exluthier]

That pretty much jives with what I've always heard. Not sure what the historics are now but they used to be .9 at 1 and 1.0 at 12. I haven't played a real 58 or 59 but I played a guitar whose neck was copied from one and the biggest difference I found wasn't the thickness of the neck but the amount of "cheek" in the profile. I'd call it more of a soft V rather than the big full C shape the historics have.

[brockburst]

Thought I would post it since I had the opportunity to, and if anyone wanted to copy theirs, they could do so.

[Exluthier]

You didn't happen to copy the profile did you?

[brockburst]

I would say that historics today have a D shaped neck, then turn the letter D right 90 degrees, it feels the edges of the letters of the D are very firm and noticeable. Which is where its bound and the frets are.

The vintage is more like a fat C, the back is very rounded and you can feel the way the fingerboard is more rolled with lower shoulders where the frets hit the neck, its much more of a joy to get around and playing each for 30 minutes....i quickly grew an aversion to the historic.

If you need more information or measurements I can take them as I have access to the 59, although I don't own it...sure wish i did.

[Exluthier]

Well if you could get a profile guage on it that would be awesome. It sounds like a great neck, and at least the raw dimensions fit with one I've been meaning make in the near future.

[Liam]

Originally Posted by brockburst

I would say that historics today have a D shaped neck, then turn the letter D right 90 degrees, it feels the edges of the letters of the D are very firm and noticeable. Which is where its bound and the frets are.

The vintage is more like a fat C, the back is very rounded and you can feel the way the fingerboard is more rolled with lower shoulders where the frets hit the neck, its much more of a joy to get around and playing each for 30 minutes....i quickly grew an aversion to the historic.

If you need more information or measurements I can take them as I have access to the 59, although I don't own it...sure wish i did.

+1. I had my R9 neck shaved to match a '59 J160E neck that I like. Depth didn't change much at all, but he took a lot of wood off the "corners" of the D, and rolled the binding. Weirdly enough it's now almost identical to my '55 Junior in feel and measurements. Fat C (slightly vee'd on the Junior), comfy, fast enough for a slow-coach like me...

1st fret is 0.894" for the R9 and the 55 Junior
12th fret is 1.012" for the R9 and 1.008" for the Junior (yes folks, a whole 0.004" different)
Both are 1.697" wide at the nut, and about 2.090" at the 12th

Before the neck shave on the R9 all the above measurements were pretty well identical, but the neck felt totally different.

I have checked both necks against a profile gauge taken from a '59 Les Paul Standard and they match extremely well. Consequently I've not seen a great deal of evidence that the massive neck variations people talk about for 50s Les Pauls were ever real. I don't think they varied as much as the Historics have tended to.

Having said all that, I've now tried 3 2009 Historics (R7, R8, R9) and they are a lot more like vintage Gibsons than previous years' Historics have been.

Liam

[brockburst]

Agree with Liam.

I also will say that the closest neck I have felt in terms of "vintage accuracy" is the pearly gates neck on the Gibbons LP RI. Closest Yet anyway. But I can't imagine paying the price tag when their are enough old growth replicas floating around for well under that. The difference is in the wood.

Bloomfield was way off as were most of the 50ths I have tried. Even my BOTB Brockburst which was 1 of 2 had the fat D.

[Liam]

Forgot to add...

Brockburst, are you sure the frets are original? I thought '59 Standard frets were a little narrower than that.

Liam

[brockburst]

Not positive, i think so.

[Mick51]

Originally Posted by brockburst

all measurements are measured in hundred thousandths of an inch.

Pardon me, but that's hard to believe. Thousandths of an inch, maybe. ( E-03 ) But, hundred-thousandths? ( E-05 ) I've never seen a micrometer, much less a vernier caliper, that can go that fine.

I've measured to tens- or hundreds- of millionths of an inch, or less, but that's using interference fringes in a lab setting.

[brockburst]

Originally Posted by Mick51

Pardon me, but that's hard to believe. Thousandths of an inch, maybe. ( E-03 ) But, hundred-thousandths? ( E-05 ) I've never seen a micrometer, much less a vernier caliper, that can go that fine.

I've measured to tens- or hundreds- of millionths of an inch, or less, but that's using interference fringes in a lab setting.

Clearly thousandths of an inch...a typo. I feel confident no one was really confused by it.

.001 thousandths
.00001 hundred thousandths

not to mention measurements to the hundred thousandth would be completely useless.

[tomaseriksson]

thx for the measurements. Im gonna compare it to my standard when I get it back from the tech.

[gtrmaker]

Since the shape of the neck profile seems to be where the vintage LP's are so much better, it would be nice if some members who own or have access to the real thing would make some tracings at the 1st and 12th fret with a profile gauge. How about it?

[Danelectro]

My profile gage is kind of crappy, but this still gives a good comparison of the difference in neck profiles.

[Exluthier]

Yep, that's the difference right there. Thanks!

[gtrmaker]

Thanks Danelectro for posting the photos. It would be great to see similar photos showing the difference between a '58, '59 & '60 'Burst neck other than the little drawings in BOTB. Maybe someone like Mike Slubowski will contibute these!

[markguitar]

Those fret width measurements look to be off. I just checked 3 original 1959 guitars and on ALL 3 the fretwire measures .095 - .097 wide. Historics measure right around .100 and are considered to be just a bit wider than originals. So I don't know where the .110 is coming from. Dunlop 6100 fret wire which is the wire used on Jackson and Ibanez '80's guitars is much wider than original '59 wire and it is .110 wide.

[Exluthier]

Yeah I was going to guess Dunlop 6100s myself. I would think that you'd be able to tell if it was refretted though from the lack of the binding tabs, even on the real deal models I can't imagine anyone trying to save the binding blend into the fret.

[Liam]

Originally Posted by markguitar

Those fret width measurements look to be off. I just checked 3 original 1959 guitars and on ALL 3 the fretwire measures .095 - .097 wide. Historics measure right around .100 and are considered to be just a bit wider than originals. So I don't know where the .110 is coming from. Dunlop 6100 fret wire which is the wire used on Jackson and Ibanez '80's guitars is much wider than original '59 wire and it is .110 wide.

Thanks for clearing that up Mark. I thought it seemed wide.

Liam

[5F6-A]

cool

[Rock Johnson]

On another forum (TGP) a poster was talking about the nut width on 59s. He said:

Feel: The originals compared to the Reissues-
1. Nut width! The nut width on the originals was at least 10% less than the reissues. Originals had smaller necks, more rounded backshapes but on a smaller scale the Shape of an R9 compared to a real 59 isn't the same, too much shoulder on the R9, too big in comparison. Gibson "Epic Failed" in this area imho, they could have easily made the neck more acurate.. The reissue feels great but real 59' was way more comfortable to play..


Now, 10% can't be right, that would mean a nut width of only 1 1/2". However, might it be possible that the nuts are closer to 1 5/8" than 1 11/16" ???

[River]

You guys might be interested in this. Please check the link to see how these measurements are being taken. Not ultra-precise as yet, still playing with the concept. But they seem a good indicator of "feel" that thickness alone doesn't convey.



Measuring a Neck for "Feel"

[Rock Johnson]

Originally Posted by Danelectro

My profile gage is kind of crappy, but this still gives a good comparison of the difference in neck profiles.

Interesting that the Junior has an asymmetric profile...

[Liam]

Originally Posted by Rock Johnson

On another forum (TGP) a poster was talking about the nut width on 59s. He said:

Feel: The originals compared to the Reissues-
1. Nut width! The nut width on the originals was at least 10% less than the reissues. Originals had smaller necks, more rounded backshapes but on a smaller scale the Shape of an R9 compared to a real 59 isn't the same, too much shoulder on the R9, too big in comparison. Gibson "Epic Failed" in this area imho, they could have easily made the neck more acurate.. The reissue feels great but real 59' was way more comfortable to play..


Now, 10% can't be right, that would mean a nut width of only 1 1/2". However, might it be possible that the nuts are closer to 1 5/8" than 1 11/16" ???

50's Gibson electrics (and many acoustics I've picked up) have 1 11/16" wide nuts. You won't find any anything like as small as 1 5/8" from that era. Check BOTB, you'll need to do some metric conversion, but they are the same width as Historic nuts. The guy's just plain wrong I'm afraid.

Liam

[Rock Johnson]

Or are the reissues slightly wider?

[BrianGT]

But they seem a good indicator of "feel" that thickness alone doesn't convey.

I can really relate to that statement.

I had a 59 replica made with a big neck profile...it's the biggest neck on any guitar I own. I don't know how it actually relates to a real 59 but I do know it feels great.
It fits my hand perfectly so I find it hard to describe the shape.....I can tell you that my Strat has a large C shape neck and my Tele has a D shape neck but the 59 neck just disappears in my hand.
I know that sounds odd but it's because it just "feels" right.

[Exluthier]

Uh I hate the terms c-shape or d-shape etc. Those got misused because of an alphabetical nut width designation Fender used in the 60's.

[geochem1st]

Originally Posted by BrianGT

I can really relate to that statement.

I had a 59 replica made with a big neck profile...it's the biggest neck on any guitar I own. I don't know how it actually relates to a real 59 but I do know it feels great.
It fits my hand perfectly so I find it hard to describe the shape.....I can tell you that my Strat has a large C shape neck and my Tele has a D shape neck but the 59 neck just disappears in my hand.
I know that sounds odd but it's because it just "feels" right.

You should make the measurements of your 59, as outlined in Rivers link and add them to the database and see where your neck lies in comparison to others that are posted.