Thin v fatter neck - musings

TADodger

Following on from the question about variation in neck size on the R8 thread, yesterday I found myself wondering how different neck sizes might affect longer term playing.

I have what I consider to be small hands and shorter fingers, so, playing a few R9 and R0's yesterday, I was expecting that the slimmer R0 neck would suit me more. I was pleasantly surprised by the fatter R9 neck which I found was actually more comfortable in some areas e.g. bar chords from 3rd to 12th fret and I think it has to do with less pressure on the thumb side of the hand as the fingers / thumb are positioned more open on a fatter neck (badly explained) and I wondered if this may actually make it a better long term guitar?

The slimmer R0 was easier for thumb over and high fret access with less finger stretch but the R9 was far from impossible. The extra 'pinch' between thumb and fingers on bar chords on the R0 was noticeable. 

In the end I found an R9 that seemed to be somewhere in between the two necks and hopefully is a good compromise.

Has anyone considered the reasons some necks may be better or worse to play, other than just feeling better, and is there any correlation with guitars that end up being keepers?

StanleyAccrington

Interesting. I too have small hands and short fingers and I always had the the concept that any guitars that I would get would need to have slimmer necks. Dunno what shape neck that is but I reckon it is the "C" contoured neck. It's never occurred to me that some other sized or shaped necks may actually be better to play on.

I seem to have gotten a rather blinkered approach to viewing and trying guitars now. Always seeking out the thin neck ones and maybe not trying enough other sized ones.

Maybe that Vintage Tele that I recently tried with the chunkier neck and weird fretboard radius might have taken a liking to me.....over time.

grungebob

The profile and the width matter more to me than the depth of the neck. I’ve got average hands and below average talent but I find musicman necks, Gibson slim 60’s then fender modern C’s to suit me the best. 

ICBM

I have small hands too, and I really don't get on with 'fat' necks. But even given that I genuinely don't understand why they've become so fashionable, after decades when the accepted neck profiles settled on something not too far away from a standard modern Fender/Gibson profile.

I also don't understand the hatred for something like the Fender Modern C on the basis of it being 'bland' - surely a good neck is one that you just play, without it affecting what you play or you having to think about what you do? In which case 'character' is bad, and 'bland' is good...

hyperben

I also have small hands. I went through a period of “adjustment” when I bought my first Reissue Les Paul. The neck was much bigger than I was used to. Before this I played USA standard telecaster type small C shaped necks. Once I got used to the big neck I could not go back to the small necks, though this took a few hours of playing. Small Fender necks now feel extremely uncomfortable to me. I’ve since played loads of Reissue Les Pauls and find the most comfortable neck for me is the R9 type profile. R0s I find too small (even though they’re bigger than what I used to play). Most R8s are ok too from the 2017 range. Even though I now prefer larger necks occasionally I come across a Les Paul with a neck which I really find too big so I’ve now learned what my ideal neck feels like. Much to my surprise it wasn’t the R0 neck, it was the R9 neck. I think I would’ve naively purchased an R0 in the past and later regretted it before I went through this experience. So I would suggest to think it through very carefully before dropping some serious coin on a guitar.

TADodger

@hyperben - I would have been in the same boat re naively purchasing slim necks and it made me wonder whether that naivety may have resulted in a future painful playing experience that would see an otherwise good guitar moved on.

@ICBM - not sure if it is the fender neck profile that you mean, but I also have an Elite telecaster that has the compound radius neck and I find that one of the nicest necks to play. 

guitars4you

Thin v Fat - I'm spoilt as I handle so many nice guitars on a day to day basis - I personally don't get to hung up on the size of the neck, so much so that I certainly don't have a favourite that does it all for me

The biggest issue I have with any guitar is a poor set-up - As such, no matter what size the neck is, if it is badly set-up then they all feel crap - I find a big neck, be it an R8 or a 50's Black Guard Tele, with a flatter radius and chunkier frets, then I have no problem handling either - And again I have relatively small hands - I almost judge the guitar, not by the size of the neck, but how easily it is to fret the note and can I play it, set up, with a slick action that responds to a light touch - As such very little effort required to produce the actual notes required - With this type of set-up then I can easily handle a larger neck

As it happens, the necks I least dislike are the Ibanez 'waif' style speed machine thin necks

Again, no one guitar does it all - So for me I'd expect a big neck black guard Tele to handle differently to say a PRS Modern Eagle - As such I'd use each guitar for a different job

CloudNine

Sufficient girth is extremely important. Your wives, girlfriends, significant others will be able to verify this.

Seriously though, I used to be obsessed with finding the fattest necked guitars out there, definitely less so these days. I would say though, would definitely rather it was too fat than too thin. I have a J45 Legend which I have seen commented on as one of the fattest necks on any production guitar (no idea whether that is true, but it is huge), and whilst I remember it being a little shocking at first, over time it has become extremely comfortable. For me if it is too thin, there is a bit of fatigue if playing for long periods. With a fat neck your hand just seems to be stuck in that shape, palm filled, and I think the reduced movement maybe lessens the fatigue.

Dominic

It's simply a case of what you get used to

roberty

Just leave this here...

Skinnyhead45

Flat profile, 100%. Width doesn't matter. Fender Modern C, Schecter Thin C and some Epiphone Slim 60s necks.  have average sized hands and the fat, 50s style reissue, Fender soft and hard V necks don't do it for me. 

Dontgiveupyourdayjob

grungebob said:

The profile and the width matter more to me than the depth of the neck. 

+1 for that. I have small hands and stumpy fingers but never really been too bothered by the depth of the neck, it's wide necks/fretboards that cause problems for me. Especially as I like to use thumb-over in rhythm stuff a lot, wider necks are a no-no. 

Wasn't a fan of the "wide fat" neck on a PRS that I tried, and I tried a 2015 Les Paul which felt damn near unplayable with my chipolata fingers! Biggest restriction with having small fingers is upper fret access. I'm not a fan of double-cuts in general as a result, and would take a 335 or an SG over a LP any day.

I'm sure there's also a lot of truth in the fact that a lot of it comes down to familiarity. If you've always played a chunky old-school baseball bat 7.25 fretboard Telecaster neck, I'm sure an Ibanez shred machine would feel awful. And vice versa of course.

jeztone2

I have very big hands, Fender Modern C gives me cramps. I prefer the 60’s C. 

But my main preference is Jumbo frets with a higher action. I love how that feels. 

Also the tech types will say its nonsense, but from gigging experience. My fatter neck guitars seemed to have better tuning stability. I rarely touched a tuner onstage when my Kotzen Tele was my main guitar. Nowadays I do find I'm having to check my tuning after 3 or 4 songs. 

Th only time I felt the neck was too fat was trying out one of those Gitane copies of a Selmer Maccafari. That was like playing the hull of a boat. 

Rebar

I too have small hands and I'm also a big Brian May fan, so I keep toying with the idea of going for a replica build. However, I have heard that Brian's Red Special has an absolutely huge neck and this always stops me from pulling the trigger. It's reassuring to read here that people with small hands can, in some cases, find chunkier '59 style necks comfier than thinner Fender C necks. 

ICBM

jeztone2 said:

Also the tech types will say its nonsense, but from gigging experience. My fatter neck guitars seemed to have better tuning stability.

No, I wouldn't say it's nonsense at all. A thinner neck will flex more - assuming the same wood and construction - which will mean more small string movements over the nut and more chance of sticking.

thermionic

Necks are a strange thing. I also have small hands but like fat neck on my Classic 50s Tele. I used to think it was fat like a Nocaster but I doubt that by now. I’ve had two Classic 60s Strats which were totally different in feel. I measured the depth and there was only a mm in it. I preferred the chunkier one but I also like the thinner one. I like different guitars and the shape of the neck is only one factor - the fretboard radius, frets, finish, position of the bridge, height of the strings above the body, and several other things contribute to my perception of a guitar. I can’t say any neck is better, just different.

Dontgiveupyourdayjob

Rebar said:

I too have small hands and I'm also a big Brian May fan, so I keep toying with the idea of going for a replica build. However, I have heard that Brian's Red Special has an absolutely huge neck and this always stops me from pulling the trigger. It's 

Problem solved, my local shop has one of these in, fill yet boots...

https://www.facebook.com/995023967190730/posts/2296258483733932/

  

TINMAN82

I’ve gone through this process, probably still am. I agree with those who say width (incl nut width) and profile are more important than absolute depth.

I think the best illustration of this is acoustic guitars. The larger nut widths on most acoustics (eg Gibson’s 1.725 standard) would be too much of a handful for most at R8 depth. I have an R8 which is pretty deep. My Hummingbird is only 0.830 at 1st fret, so virtually “modern c” in comparison but plays comfortably due to the added width.

Likewise, the thickest neck I’ve ever handled was a custom shop nocaster. It was only manageable because of the slim 42mm nut width and excellent set up. Set up so well in fact that I had to double check it was in fact a 7.25 radius.

TTBZ

I have small hands and don't like thin or wide necks, or even fender scale lengths usually. The one on my SG is about right, or could go a little thinner. I think it's a Gibson 50s style, D shaped. Fatter than a lot of other Gibsons I've played. I actually don't mind the fender modern C. V shaped is actually one of my favourites but not common on anything Gibson. Just feels so comfy.

Schnozz

I wish there was more deep narrow profiles 

All I can find is ESP's 'deep U' and it's excellent (really reduces fatigue for me)

I hate wide thin

Veganic

I used to think this was important until I had a relative chunky one, a modern c and a slimish c. I found that I was the problem not the neck. 

Although the slim one was horrible as it seemed to slice into my hand.
I play slightly differently on each one but the end result is more or less the same. Changing from one to the other always feels good no matter which way I go. High cut nuts seem to be more of an issue.