Why isn’t there a measurement standard for necks?

darius

Arguably the most important bit of the guitar for personal hand shape, comfort, playing style and yet the best they can do is shitty vague crap like
C-shape
Like a 58
Thin
Not a baseball bat

...if they tell you anything at all. 
Fingerboard radius is spec’d ok, why not the back fo the neck. Eh? Eh?!

Tex Mexico

Because they could literally include multiple photos of cross-sections of the neck profile and it still wouldn't be that helpful in terms of the actual feel.

Guitars are ultimately not intended to be bought mail-order. Tonewood specs and the kind of language used to describe pickups aren't particularly helpful either. Hell, some finishes are almost impossible to accurately photograph.

If you're that picky about neck shape, go to the place and pick up the thing. If you can't or won't, you're stuck with people's descriptions of a tapered half-cylinder.

stickyfiddle

Tex Mexico said:

Because they could literally include multiple photos of cross-sections of the neck profile and it still wouldn't be that helpful in terms of the actual feel.

I don’t buy that argument. For someone without experience of a number of neck profiles then yes, you’re right.

But a picture of the profile at the 1st and 12th frets including width and depth measurements is very helpful once you know what you like. If manufacturers did this for all their guitars it would quickly become a useful reference e.g. “I know I like this C profile on my start which is .83” deep, so I know this other guitar is a little more at .87” and slightly more of a V profile”

darius

You don’t think a good measurement standard of a complex shape would be helpful?

bbill335

so many manufacturers and dealers don't even mention the nut width. buddy, i ain't buying no guitar without knowing i can get my tiny mitts around it.

Tex Mexico

darius said:

You don’t think a good measurement standard of a complex shape would be helpful?

No, I don't.

I work in technical manufacturing. Some things are more work to develop a universal standard for than it's worth.

The current method of thin/fat/narrow/wide C, D, U, V and the width and depth at the nut and the 12th fret, combined with the fretboard radius and fretwire material are plenty for most people to get a very decent idea of what they're dealing with. As I said if they're pickier than that they would be well-advised to handle the item before purchase.

Tex Mexico

stickyfiddle said:

Tex Mexico said:

Because they could literally include multiple photos of cross-sections of the neck profile and it still wouldn't be that helpful in terms of the actual feel.

I don’t buy that argument. For someone without experience of a number of neck profiles then yes, you’re right.

But a picture of the profile at the 1st and 12th frets including width and depth measurements is very helpful once you know what you like. If manufacturers did this for all their guitars it would quickly become a useful reference e.g. “I know I like this C profile on my start which is .83” deep, so I know this other guitar is a little more at .87” and slightly more of a V profile”

But that standard exists and is in use. I accept not all manufacturers bother to supply that information on their product literature, but it is available.

What I'm saying is that beyond the standards in use, any additional technical refinement will be irrelevant to people who aren't that fussy, and not good enough for people who are so fussy the current system isn't adequate.

Boromedic

I can pretty much get used to any neck although I know I'm not keen on V shapes or wizard necks as they hurt my hand after a while. Anything else is good with me, plus most of them are hand finished so they always vary anyway.

darius

Tex Mexico said:

darius said:

You don’t think a good measurement standard of a complex shape would be helpful?

No, I don't.

I work in technical manufacturing. Some things are more work to develop a universal standard for than it's worth.

If you work in technical manufacturing I am now worried about the stuff you technically manufacture.

stickyfiddle

Tex Mexico said:

stickyfiddle said:

Tex Mexico said:

Because they could literally include multiple photos of cross-sections of the neck profile and it still wouldn't be that helpful in terms of the actual feel.

I don’t buy that argument. For someone without experience of a number of neck profiles then yes, you’re right.

But a picture of the profile at the 1st and 12th frets including width and depth measurements is very helpful once you know what you like. If manufacturers did this for all their guitars it would quickly become a useful reference e.g. “I know I like this C profile on my start which is .83” deep, so I know this other guitar is a little more at .87” and slightly more of a V profile”

But that standard exists and is in use. I accept not all manufacturers bother to supply that information on their product literature, but it is available.

What I'm saying is that beyond the standards in use, any additional technical refinement will be irrelevant to people who aren't that fussy, and not good enough for people who are so fussy the current system isn't adequate.

Exists, yes. In use, no. At least not outside the Warmoths and Musikrafts of the world. Life would be easier if Fender, Gibson, PRS etc all published the same measurements. 

Kittyfrisk

darius said:

Arguably the most important bit of the guitar for personal hand shape, comfort, playing style and yet the best they can do is shitty vague crap like
C-shape
Like a 58
Thin
Not a baseball bat

...if they tell you anything at all. 
Fingerboard radius is spec’d ok, why not the back fo the neck. Eh? Eh?!

Good luck with your enquiry. I (and possibly others) didn't get very far when I tried.
 https://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/175295/describe-my-neck-with-accuracy#latest

Tex Mexico

darius said:

Tex Mexico said:

darius said:

You don’t think a good measurement standard of a complex shape would be helpful?

No, I don't.

I work in technical manufacturing. Some things are more work to develop a universal standard for than it's worth.

If you work in technical manufacturing I am now worried about the stuff you technically manufacture.

Probably because you don't work in manufacturing.

Standards are for QA. For design you explicitly avoid setting standards because you don't want to waste a lot of time defining something you might then choose or need to change.

Let me rephrase the question: why do YOU think there isn't a standard chart or graph or whatever that says "this is the precise neck shape you will get when you buy this model from this manufacturer"?

darius

Tex Mexico said:

darius said:

Tex Mexico said:

darius said:

You don’t think a good measurement standard of a complex shape would be helpful?

No, I don't.

I work in technical manufacturing. Some things are more work to develop a universal standard for than it's worth.

If you work in technical manufacturing I am now worried about the stuff you technically manufacture.

Probably because you don't work in manufacturing.

Standards are for QA. For design you explicitly avoid setting standards because you don't want to waste a lot of time defining something you might then choose or need to change.

Let me rephrase the question: why do YOU think there isn't a standard chart or graph or whatever that says "this is the precise neck shape you will get when you buy this model from this manufacturer"?

Is this that scene from "The 40 year old virgin"?

guitars4you

PRS have pretty much nailed down 'boutique' on a larger manufacturing scale with key attention to the set up on a CNC machine - They were certainly instrumental on raising the QC amongst many other builders/companies - Yet they still produce marginal variation on 2 necks of the same profile - ie wide/thin etc 

The CNC will produce the same size/profile on each run, be it x's 100 or 1000 - But the neck will leave the CNC with cutting blade marks that need sanding out - Often by hand - This is were marginal variations come into play - many players can feel such marginal differences when they compare 2 'identical' necks 

Furthermore - Many guitars are influenced by the past - Take an 58 LP or a 62 Strat - They were effectively built on a line by a number of workers - Me and you sat next to each other chatting away, are meant to craft the same neck, but there is always a  difference - Such variations can now be copied and programmed into a CNC, and player A might want a 58 that is full and player B might want a 58 that is marginally slimmer

We all have different size hands - In many ways, regardless of how good your existing guitar is, it is the bench mark by which you may well often judge your next purchase

I don't think necks should be an engineered 'mold' as such - By I would agree that it makes it awkward to accurately describe a neck profile - On the web site I will generally quote a depth at the 1st + 12th fret, but it doesn't really tell you the shape and how much meat is on the shoulders 

rico

darius said:

You don’t think a good measurement standard of a complex shape would be helpful?

Please explain how you propose to do this. 

darius

rico said:

darius said:

You don’t think a good measurement standard of a complex shape would be helpful?

Please explain how you propose to do this. 

Dimensions

rico

darius said:

rico said:

darius said:

You don’t think a good measurement standard of a complex shape would be helpful?

Please explain how you propose to do this. 

Dimensions

Do go on...

darius

darius said:

You don’t think a good measurement standard of a complex shape would be helpful?

Please explain how you propose to do this. 

Dimensions

Do go on...

I don't know what you want me to say? I'm not the neck building guitar industry

rico

darius said:

darius said:

You don’t think a good measurement standard of a complex shape would be helpful?

Please explain how you propose to do this. 

Dimensions

Do go on...

I don't know what you want me to say? I'm not the neck building guitar industry

I'm curious to know how you think it may be possible.

Philly_Q

Kittyfrisk said:

Good luck with your enquiry. I (and possibly others) didn't get very far when I tried.
 https://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/175295/describe-my-neck-with-accuracy#latest

I was going to say, there's something familiar about this question.

It seems to me you could only have a "standard" by requiring all manufacturers to choose from a limited number of standardised neck shapes, programming their CNC machines and barely touching what came out.  Then periodically you could have "no-one expects the Spanish Inquisition" surprise inspections, where they'd be rapped over the knuckles for too much hand-sanding or rolling of fingerboard edges.

darius

I'm curious to know how you think it may be possible.

OK, well. Someone has decided necks are C's and D's and U's and V's so they already have vague unhelpful standard descriptions. Every guitar manufacturer has decided their own version of neck shape description. Why not define an international standard C, D, U, V blah blah, with actual dimensions. Why does the fingerboard get the (apparently) impossible to define shape dimension but not the neck?