2014 R9 necks on the small side..

[peanutavalon]

Has anyone noticed how small the newer R9's are feeling. The ones I've tried are .87, .88 at the first fret.. This is just my observation. I prefer larger and fatter necks and R9's from past years seemed to have them. Even the R8's are feeling small. I wonder why Gibson has chosen this route? Any others notice this?

 

[buckwild]

I don't think it's necessarily the thickness as so much the profile. The newer models seem to be more rounded and less "D" shape IMO. I tend to like the new profiles.

 

[shrigg]

+1 I too prefer nicely rounded vs. big-shouldered "D" shape. But I know a lot of guys who like a chunky neck… If we all liked the same thing life would be pretty boring, right?

 

[Studio10]

I think the trend of the smaller necks started early 2013. Personally, though I like huge necks I also like the newer smaller ones. Usually the biggest difference is in the shoulders fro what I've seen. The 55 Hot Mod necks seem to have been a big hit so I think they decided it was time to get a little closer to a real 50's profile.

 

[jamman]

A lot of Vintage guitars have an under .900 neck . I like 'em better like that . Opens up more guitars for me to pick from . Those big fat necked R9's with great tops , I always had to pass on . I happen to like the "D" shape more also . But that's just preference

 

[7gtop]

!'tz the shoulderz


reference :

 

[JMB1984]

I have noticed this on the 2014 R9s as well, but the shoulders are more important to feel in my opinion and they can't really be measured well for comparative purposes. Also, you might find that the change in measurement from the 1st fret to the 12th fret make a difference as well.

For example, take two of the 2014 R9s that I played recently with measurements of .912 (1st)-1.023(12th) and .894(1st)-.982(12th). Even though I really appreciate the chunkier necks on my 57 and 58 RIs, I found the R9 with the slightly thinner neck and less drastic change going from frets 1-12 to be more comfortable than the R9 with the slightly thicker neck.

 

[pauljcat]

I really think the new necks are the best, and the most vintage accurate to date. I like big necks and have had some beefy ones before but I have gravitated to the more medium necks now, just way faster and easier to play. I have a played a few59s though that were too slim at the 12th fret, just too thin. I just bought a CC #7 and to me that neck really nails the feel of the 59 I once played.

 

[Stoj]

I really think the new necks are the best, and the most vintage accurate to date. I like big necks and have had some beefy ones before but I have gravitated to the more medium necks now, just way faster and easier to play. I just bought a CC #7 and to me that neck really nails the feel of the 59 I once played.

+ 1 Totally agree Paul, when I bought my CC#7 It took me a while to bond with the neck as I was used to the chunkier profile of my Bloomfield & R7 but the newer guitars are lot more vintage accurate at least the vintage guitars I've played

 

[Sct13]

I'm about to find out....I measure the hell out of em'

And thanx for reminding me of that data sheet....

 

[Ryan Givhan]

as gibson always does, the get more and more vintage correct every year. so at the pace they are going, we will have an exact burst replica in 2110 . . . hopefully, they also tend to change things that were right, back to wrong

 

[strat1701]

!'tz the shoulderz


reference :

Boy Gibson royally F'd up goldie. Mine is .933 first and if that's correct, the original is .870 WTF gibson.....You forget how to use a digital CNC lathe? That's fuggin bad.....really bad...I know you WILL get variance, but that's lot of wood difference....Variance of .905 to .920 is fine and unnoticiable but .63 difference?

 

[7gtop]

I getcha strat...


they've gotten better... closer... and st!ll at times...

so far away

 

[goldtop0]

Back in '03 I liked the slim taper necks but with shoulders.....a D shape and now I like a fatter neck with some shoulder.........you just can't win

 

[rockinlespaul]

Since I prefer the fatter necks, at least now I know I won't be jonesin' for a new Gibby. I learned my lesson with the 2013 Oxblood. If I would have known the neck profiles changed so much I would not have bought one. Cool, I can buy the cheaper older used ones.

 

[peanutavalon]

Boy Gibson royally F'd up goldie. Mine is .933 first and if that's correct, the original is .870 WTF gibson.....You forget how to use a digital CNC lathe? That's fuggin bad.....really bad...I know you WILL get variance, but that's lot of wood difference....Variance of .905 to .920 is fine and unnoticiable but .63 difference?

I feel your pain..if you can't live with it I'll take it off your hands lol...My Goldie Gloss was no .870....it was .912.

Anyway, I'm blaming my liking for thick necks on my Fender Nocaster which is a huge neck as you may know. I have been gigging that guitar for many years and I think I've just grown used to that fat size. I like the girth and really like holding onto something on the lower frets which is why I hunt for big neck Les Pauls.. I also think they sound bigger (more low end)...but thats just my opinion.

 

[pauljcat]

Nocaster are awesome!!!

 

[Studio10]

Since I prefer the fatter necks, at least now I know I won't be jonesin' for a new Gibby. I learned my lesson with the 2013 Oxblood. If I would have known the neck profiles changed so much I would not have bought one. Cool, I can buy the cheaper older used ones.

I'm guessing you'd love many of the 2000-04's I've had. Seems like a period of hugeness at least from the ones I owned.

 

[strat1701]

I feel your pain..if you can't live with it I'll take it off your hands lol...My Goldie Gloss was no .870....it was .912.

Anyway, I'm blaming my liking for thick necks on my Fender Nocaster which is a huge neck as you may know. I have been gigging that guitar for many years and I think I've just grown used to that fat size. I like the girth and really like holding onto something on the lower frets which is why I hunt for big neck Les Pauls.. I also think they sound bigger (more low end)...but thats just my opinion.

I can play it, but it's my extreme limit. It's saved by having just enough shoulders taken off, or else it would have been sold long ago. But since I can play it, it will not be sold...ever....

 

[tdarian]

I'm comfortable with a .900 1st fret D, but in a C make that at least .925.

Every so often I see new R9s listed with 1st fret depth measurements @ .920+