Is "Standard Thin" too thin?

[ptirman]

Do you notice that the Warmoth Thin neck is noticeably thinner than the Fender Modern C?

No. Not at all.

 

[Ace Flibble]

I went through the precise measuremnts and shaping in great detail in another thread a few months ago (just search for threads on neck profiles, it shoudl be easy to find) so I won't repeat everything here, but the TL;DR is that all of Warmoth's reference points for their neck profiles, fretboard radii and fret wire sizes are wrong. The Standard Thin is nothing like a Fender standard C, the fretwires do not line up with the Dunlop numbers they quote, and for some reason they still list 10" as being the radius of a Gibson fretboard...

For my money the closest mass production matches to the Warmoth Standard Thin are things like ESP and Charvel's thin 'U' necks. (Obviously with some slight differences here and there between specific models and years.) Fender's most common C for the last twenty years is noticeably thicker and more evenly rounded than Warmoth's. I do notice a dramatic difference when going from a Warmoth Standard Thin to a Fender standard C (or even a Squier C, which are a little thinner than the Fender versions). My preference with Warmoth necks, to match a common Fender profile, is to order a '59 and then carefully sand it down a little. Even then it always feels like the Warmoths end up with more 'shoulder' than any Fender. (Except the huge U they used for a little while on the Classic series Teles.) The inability to get a 'normal' C profile is the second-main reason I stopped buying Warmoth necks despite continuing to buy Warmoth bodies.

So if you want a normal Fender C, I say shop elsewhere. If you want something more... metal, shall we say, Warmoth's Standard Thin does a fine job.

 

[PhilHill]

After spending years actually working on musician's guitars I have developed the opinion that there is no "right" or "wrong". One of the problems that both Fender and Gibson ran into when they started trying to duplicate their old instruments that everyone liked was the fact that there really wasn't a "standard" size or shape because back then everything was made by hand. Things varied slightly depending on who made it and when it was done. Even after the introduction of controlled machining the finishing work is still done by hand. Things can vary slightly, and the fact that humans can detect minute differences in size and shape means that each neck will feel different to each person. How similar Warmoth's specs are to Fender's depends entirely on when the measurements that were used in the program were taken and what neck they were taken from.
It's no longer as possible as it used to be in our modern world, but there's a reason that folks used to be advised to try an instrument before buying to make sure that they would like the feel of it.                   
Then there's also the fact that "not thin enough" or "too thin" are entirely subjective determinations and will vary widely with each person.

 

[War_in_D]

For my money the closest mass production matches to the Warmoth Standard Thin are things like ESP and Charvel's thin 'U' necks. (Obviously with some slight differences here and there between specific models and years.)

.

This ^^^^^

I've always equated the Warmoth Standard Thin profile to the old made in the USA Jackson/Charvel oiled necks from back in the 80's.

 

[Topdawer]

I agree with others that fit and feel are subjective and that there are too many variables to nail it down easily. I’ve had perhaps a dozen (plus) Warmoth necks and have been impressed with them all. And yet for some reason I keep coming back to the Fender MIM Strat Modern C as the shape that fits me best, and for my manner of playing sounding the best too. Don’t get me wrong — I have an unquenchable Warmoth addiction — but it seems to be a chase for the elusive purple unicorn neck of fable. Meanwhile the grazing cow (the Fender MIM) just winks at me, smirks, and says, “I got your purple unicorn right here buddy”.

 

[Hodgo]

I think that the Warmoth Thin profile is very close to the old MIM Fender neck profile (.800" at the 1st fret). Anyways, the difference of .020" might feel significant given that the human hand and fingers can easily tell the difference of .001" (e.g., the difference between a .010 E string and a 0.009 E string).

Humans can actually detect 13 nanometer wrinkles - to quote this finding, “…if your finger was the size of the Earth, you could feel the difference between houses and cars”

 

[Hodgo]

That said, and I preach this to all who are chasing their guitar dragons, the neck profile itself is one of many elements that dictate feel.

Also important are nut width, heel width, shoulder radius, fret size, action and relief. That’s where the mojo really is IMHO - getting all of those details right.

 

[ghostrider]

You can tell that it is slightly thinner but it’s not a night and day difference.

Standard thin is definitely my preference in profiles. Fender C would be a close second.

 

[Spud]

To answer the original question yes.