Shanks first impressions, neck carve question

[indravayu]

A used Shanks popped up at a local store, so I decided to check it out today (never played one before). I brought my R8 to compared against it, as well as a 2013 R9 at the store.

The first thing that jumped out at me was how flat and thin the neck is on the Shanks - it way more resembled a '60 profile than a '59 - is this how it's supposed to be? I thought the Shanks neck carve was supposed to be closer to a '59?

The second thing that jumped out at me was that the Shanks was a little hard to play. I have big hands, so R8s are super comfy for me and R9s tend to be OK, though some are a little too small for me - but I found myself working way harder to play the Shanks, while my R8 and the R9 played like butter. Beyond just the neck carve, the aged finish felt way stickier on the Shanks than the (now glossy) VOS finish on my R8, and that slowed down my playing. Maybe the Shanks just needs some polishing.

Tonally, the Shanks sounds great - definitely has the edge over my R8, but not by leaps and bounds. The Shanks was a bit brighter, with more note clarity - but I think the difference in the pickup winds could account for that as much as the thinner neck.

As far as body/neck resonance and note sustain, there was no difference between the Shanks and my R8.

I thought hard about trading in the R8 for the Shanks, but balked at the end because the store wants a bit too much for it (about $700 more than what I am seeing guys sell their for on here and on Ebay). I was also a little thrown off by the fact that the rosewood board is way, way too light - my R8's board is much darker.

Maybe I should forget about the Shanks and just need to send my R8 to HM?

 

[Sct13]

Firstly it is a 1960....with supposedly made with the 59 necks left over, so a transitional neck to be more specific. (its serial is 0 0289) so its an early 1960...

every one of them CC#7's is going to be slightly different,

I'm an R8 guy....large hands etc....but what I found most appealing was its broken in feel compared to my others at the time.

Was this a first run or a second run? Because they are different....

Mine is a first run...

But its all really subjective, they are your hands....

 

[Fiftywattmafia]

Dude no brainer keep your guitar. You didn't jive with the shanks no biggie. Just because that guitar is loved around her and people rave about it doesn't make it for you. Good for you for walking out with what you have. No need to upgrade when it would not have been an upgrade.

 

[indravayu]

I believe it's a first run - the tag says 2013 and the serial number is in the 90's.

I did really like the guitar (the aged finish is awesome, even if the neck was sticky, haha) - I was very close to trading in my R8 for it + cash, but I know if I am patient I can get these for much less either here, or on Ebay. They were willing to knock a few bucks off the sticker price, but not nearly enough to make me not hesitate.

I guess I have a really nice R8, though, because the difference in tone, feel and playability between the two guitars does not feel like it's worth the $1800 price difference (actually, $2800 difference, as they only wanted to give me $2700 for the R8 on trade). I might just send the R8 to HM and have them age it and throw in some boutique pickups.

 

[Sct13]

Fiftywatt is right, if the CC7 didn't gel with you straight away then don't bother...

If your making music with the R8 then keep it as is too....HM will do a great job, but it will be changed forever...no going back.

I didn't HM several awesome guitars because it wasn't really needed.

My last one (in progress) is because the finish was rubberlike compared to others and I wanted a CC7 like feel to it

Don't buy on emotion or looks if you have access to it...wait a few days and go back....then see what you think.....but only if it calls to you...

I played two CC7's before I bought mine....then one right after....then another about six months ago....mines the best one out of all of them...

Also if you were listening to the pickups; they are reversed, the higher output one is up front (neck) so that may have played with you a bit as well.

 

[indravayu]

You'd think that in a city like Los Angeles, there would be plenty of CCs around for me to try out, but for whatever reason they are hard to come by. I was really surprised when I saw the Shanks on the rack! This is the first one that I have seen at the stores out here. The store also has a couple used Gabbys (totally out of my price range), a used Whitford burst (ditto), an Ed King (ditto), and a couple other interesting ones, but apparently they all were bought from a single collection a few months - otherwise they probably wouldn't have any CCs in stock.

I did know already about the swapped output values on the pickups - was actually surprised that they were pretty well balanced - I guess the previous owner dialed in the height just right.

 

[Sct13]

he might have swapped them...

Who knows?

Yea there are very few places I can go and play historic's let alone CC's I got lucky...

One store had a bunch of stuff....A Perry aged, A CC4, A CC7, Tom Schultz CC (forget the #) a CC3 and a few others, all within a period of about 8 months....then nothing...They had a 13 and a 15 recently.

More Recently I played a CS9 ....very nice but for close to 6k? and a short tennon? forget it.

 

[dwk302]

Was this at the Hollywood GC? They had a Shanks last time I was there for $6k. It played well but it was heavy.

 

[IRussell]

Dude no brainer keep your guitar. You didn't jive with the shanks no biggie. Just because that guitar is loved around her and people rave about it doesn't make it for you. Good for you for walking out with what you have. No need to upgrade when it would not have been an upgrade.

+1. Sounds like the R8 should stay.

Indravayu ~ love my Shanks but the neck is both smaller and with less shoulders than your typical R8. But I would not describe it flat and thin (as in the historic reissue SGs). Neck on mine is .890 - .985 with very soft shoulders, great for me but I prefer R9-R0 necks over R8s.

 

[indravayu]

Was this at the Hollywood GC? They had a Shanks last time I was there for $6k. It played well but it was heavy.

Yep. It weighs pretty much the same as my R8 (which is a little under 9 lbs) - maybe just a hair more.

GC has another used one in Florida for $5199.

 

[indravayu]

You know, the weird thing with me in regards to neck carves is that I have no problem with thin carves on other types of guitars - my 63RI ES335 has a thin neck, for instance, and I am totally at home with typical Custom Shop SG 60's necks - but on LPs, for whatever reason, my hands feel like they are working overtime on anything smaller than a chunky R9 carve. I don't understand why.

 

[Sct13]

you are reassigning muscle memory, your fingers (brain) remembers where your fingers land and what it takes to make that note, you may have noticed that you made more mistakes and it just felt weird.....that takes some energy and getting used to.

my thing is this...if I can "write" a riff in a few minutes and really get into what I am playing from the guitar, get lost in that moment...then I will return to that guitar over and over. Then it has the potential as a keeper.

If I don't feel it with in a few sittings then Its out the door. And that's after a string change and a setup that I do....

You cant accomplish this in a store...at least I can't

And on the other hand I can cross it off the list in a few minutes in the store....Which it kind of sounds like you did...

You will PLAY a guitar you love.

One other thing...the aesthetics can lend playability and feel as far as the neck goes. but ti sounds to me like you want checking and aging....that's fine...but don't sacrifice the music...
it wont make you play better.

I did this once with an 03' R9...bad move....I still miss it.

But the above is just me.....

others may differ....

 

[indravayu]

Oh, yeah, I am all about the tone and playability of a guitar first and foremost - I actually don't care at all about aging, but since everyone raves about HM's refinishing vs the stock Gibson finish, I thought it might be worth it to have them refinish my R8 someday. I don't think I'd go for the full RDS. I'd probably only have them do light distressing and maybe have them shave down the neck slightly and redo the top carve on the cap.

I am intrigued by the Shanks pickups though - would love to get a set from a boutique builder with a similar tone - do you guys have any recommendations? What are the average output measurements on the Shanks Custombuckers? They have Alnico IIIs, correct?

 

[Sct13]

I think so....actually.... I'm not sure.

 

[jamman]

Agree that NOT buying a guitar you found difficult to play was a good move . Just because others like it , don't mean it's right for you . CC means nothing if it's not right in the hand .

IIRC the Shanks I had measured about .880" at the 1st fret. Which compared to Original LP's is on the smaller end of the spectrum of '59 necks . Late '60 necks are thin , .800 thin and in the range. That's a big difference , imo.

I didn't find the Shanks flat necked at all , so it may have been the 1 you tested . Or Just what the difference felt like compared to your R8 . That's the 1st time I've read anyone call a Shanks that .

 

[indravayu]

I didn't find the Shanks flat necked at all , so it may have been the 1 you tested . Or Just what the difference felt like compared to your R8 . That's the 1st time I've read anyone call a Shanks that .

It could be just this one (and maybe why the original owner sold it to GC?)...it was too flat for me - the width wasn't all the bad (though thinner than my R8 - or at least less shoulder), but not having enough wood underneath the fretboard made my hands cramp a bit when I played.

At first I just chalked it up to me being more used to the R8, but then I tried an R9 in the store and it was noticeably thicker than the Shanks. The R9 actually had an amazing neck - I thought about trading my R8 in for it, too, haha.

Another issue with this particular Shanks was the rosewood board is super light - it almost made my R8's board look like ebony in comparison!

If I was made of money, I would have probably snagged it, because it sounds great - but because I am looking for a deal and would need to replace my R8, which is a great sounding and feeling guitar, it really needed to be significantly better than the R8. Tonally, it was there, but not in playability (for my gorilla hands).

 

[Sct13]

I thought you meant flat at the fret board radius.....you mean flat on the back side...no.... mine is not like that at all....its not a V neck by any means....perfect C shape at .900 and 1.00

aesthetically I don't like a light colored fret board....

Mine is Brazillion

 

[jamman]

^ That's because Gibson has conditioned it's buying public to believe (and a lot want a fatter neck also) Is Vintage like . They ain't

Of all the 53's 54's '55's GT LP's and other vintage (later 50's) Archtop Gibson I've played . The Shanks was ,imo , very close to those in size, shoulders and rounded shape of the neck .
When Gibson changed the neck shapes in ~ mid 1960 it was because Gibson thought enough players didn't like how fat the necks were . Even that failed .

 

[GearHo]

Big necks are a property belonging to historics, most 59's no.


I had a 54 Les Paul, which according to historic specs, should have one of the biggest necks of all, my R4 did, my vintage guitar, no.

When it comes to neck size most people describe the neck, not that their hands don't fit, but the neck. Crazy.

If you have itty bitty mitts, and the next guy has goalie gloves for hands...

Lil guy says "neck to big", Goalie, neck too small.

Gibson says true historic, no 2007, no wait CC, no uhm vintage, no, wait, next year it will be so accurate, you will sell your soul.

I have a Shanks, (thank you Steve), I had about a ten minute window to buy it before it was going somewhere else. I made the deal and glad I did.

At first I didn't bond with the top, I hated it actually, and almost flipped it.

Then I played it for a couple of days, that's the best way to hate a top, play the guitar, and if it isn't dead nuts perfect, boom, its gone. The guitar was just killer for what I do, and I all of a sudden fell in love with the subtle nature, yes vintage nature of this beautifully simple flame, and grain.

I dare not say its the best guitar I have ever played, because I have said that hundreds of times when I purchased a new toy. But it sure is close, time will tell. My testing ground lasts about a year, if you make it past that time frame, I probably am keeping you.

My neck carve on #204 is not 60's like at all, nor the historic ball bat configuration either, a comfortable size it is, and it plays effortlessly.

OT, but interesting....when it comes to ANY CC model, I look at the top, the color, and the aging in that order. Because that's what sells if I don't like it. We buy with the eyes on the interweb.

I had no idea who John Shanks is, nor do I care. I loved the color, and the aging of these models, the tops like EVERY CC or any run that Gibson produces will never be consistently looking like the original or many of the others in that line.

My limited arsenal in today's time consist of a Montrose, Shanks, Rossington, I care very little if at all for any of these guys, although I still love these models.

Don't think if you buy a CC that its a guarantee the top will look like the original, its impossible. Shanks below, very subtle

Montrose, not like Ronnies eh?

[/URL][/IMG]

Rossington, no Berniece here either.

[/URL][/IMG]

And last but not least a 30th anniversary goldtop the original run of what is now the "historic" line. This recreation celebrating 30 years of the les paul, looks nothing like the 52 goldtop it was made to emulate. Gibson proving that there is always something left on the table to improve....and generate another layer of sales.

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[lowmach]

Bad ass collection GearHO!!

My Shanks has a nice rounded profile that is .880 at the first fret. One of my favorite features of the guitar. Finding an R model with this neck profile was not easy.