Like a Gibson '59 neck contour

[Bruno]

"Always the same questions ...."
Ok, maybe it is true so... forgive me (and help me too if you want :binkybaby
.
I read (and saw) Guitar Neck Back Contours page (http://www.warmoth.com/Guitar/Necks/BackContours.aspx), but I ask you, I want your "real" experience: there is much difference between boat, fat and '59?
I have a Gibson SG Standard Limited Edition (50th Anniversary) and as my other Gibson - Les Paul Standard - has a  '59 gibson neck. amazing neck contour!
Simply, I love it.
Looking for something like gisbon '59 and I'm not sure that  '59 Warmoth contour is "like" my gibson. Maybe FAT? Or BOATt?
My only certainty is the nut.

(NB: I can't measure thickness of my two gibson necks without break Elixir strings ..:-()

 

[Kostas]

There is a big difference in the first frets, check the numbers on the Warmoth site. If you have not played with a Fat or Boat be prepared because there are thick necks. At least the FAT that I have experience but both Fat & Boat have the same dimensions.

Don't trust Gibsons specs, I saw the specs of a regular Les Paul with a 50's neck and the numbers were almost like a Warmoth thin. The 50's profile in Historic/VOS guitars is much thicker and then they have profiles for every year of the 50's.

Unless you have played & like thick necks I suggest the '59 which is not fat in most of the neck until the last frets. A close to '59 but still a little thinner is the old PRS Wide Fat profile. They have changed it now in the American PRS but you can find it in the Korean SE line to check it out.

If you have a tool to measure your necks all you have to do is loosen up the strings and take them aside. To make an accurate measurement you need a tool most techs have.

 

[drewfx]

Also note that the neck width makes a huge difference - a slightly wider nut width makes for a neck that feels much chunkier with the same contour.

 

[Bruno]

Don't trust Gibsons specs, I saw the specs of a regular Les Paul with a 50's neck and the numbers were almost like a Warmoth thin.

Absolutely no.
I've a warmoth neck, standard thin and it's really thin if I compare it to my Les Paul and SG. Much thinner!

 

[bagman67]

I have a boatneck, and compared to the standard thin, it's molto grasso - I mean, it's a THICK piece of wood.


I have played a Warmoth '59 roundback, and found it felt closer to the standard thin than the boatneck - but it's still pretty substantial.

 

[Cagey]

Don't trust Gibsons specs, I saw the specs of a regular Les Paul with a 50's neck and the numbers were almost like a Warmoth thin. The 50's profile in Historic/VOS guitars is much thicker and then they have profiles for every year of the 50's. 

Back in the '50s, they carved necks with sabre-toothed tiger teeth and sanded them smooth with whatever rocks they could find along the trail on their way into work. They couldn't even spell "specification" - too many syllables. Shop rats would fall asleep trying to read a word like that, assuming they knew the alphabet. So, anybody claiming a "'59 profile" is just guessing. Which day in 1959? Was it the day after Bubba's birthday when he was so hung over that he just gave the neck a lick and a promise due to a pounding headache and acute dehydration? Or was it the day after Bubba's wife told him she was pregnant with their 9th child, so he attacked that Maple stick with all his might? There were no such things as CNC machines. Repeatability? Fugeddaboudit. Didn't exist.

Same with pickups. Everybody thinks old PAF pickups are magical. Truth is, there were some that sounded good, but most were pretty iffy. They were wound by look and feel, so you never knew what you were getting. You had to play a couple/few dozen guitars to get one that felt/sounded like something you might like to spend some time with. Not that they had a bad yield out of the shop, but there's no accounting for taste and the things were all different.

 

[Kostas]

I've a warmoth neck, standard thin and it's really thin if I compare it to my Les Paul and SG. Much thinner!

If your Les Paul is from the regular line (no Historic/VOS) the '59 will be ideal for you. I have a '92 SG Special that I consider it to be a medium size neck. The '59 is thicker from the first to the last fret.

Personally I had three FAT necks and gradually I started to get tired from the thickness but mostly from the U shape. Maybe if it was a C it would feel better for me. Eventually I sold one (the thickest of all) and replaced it with a '59. If I ever get another Warmoth neck again it will be a '59. It's not ideal but it's the one I prefer from what they offer.

Know that like most companies Warmoth necks are sanded by hand after the CNC and sometimes the difference can be felt on hand. I remember having a guy at home who knew nothing about Warmoth and he thought my three Warmoths had different neck profiles although all three of them had FAT necks. That's why I sold the thickest of all, it was so thick that I was getting tired after playing for a while.

Like it was mentioned, the nut width will affect how a neck feels, especially in the first frets. All my necks have 1 11/16'' so keep that in mind.

 

[Bruno]

My "ideal neck contour"  is like my Shur classic: nut 1,650,  back 0.810"(I)-0.930"(XII)
:icon_thumright:
A good approximation are necks of my two gibson (similar, not the same)
Among Warmoth one that comes closest, in my opinion is '59 (with 1-11/16" nut).
Previously I ordered a standard thin neck (full pauferro) and I was disappointed by the thickness. Otherwise it is sublime but too thin. More than Jem 7 (in spite of what you think )
(clapton,srv, wolfgang: I don't know them :-()

 

[Kostas]

My "ideal neck contour"  is like my Shur classic: nut 1,650,  back 0.810"(I)-0.930"(XII)

Judging by these numbers I suggest the Wolfgang, not the '59 and surely not the fat ones. Wolfgangs dimensions are close to the Suhr and it has an asymmetric contour, an advantage for me. Personally I loved the feel of the asymmetric contour when I played my friends Warmoth with a SRV profile but it's too thin for me.

 

[swarfrat]

You people with tiny hands or weak grip-fu are gonna be sorry when the zombie apocalypse comes. You'll wish you had your fatback then.

 

[Bruno]

My "ideal neck contour"  is like my Shur classic: nut 1,650,  back 0.810"(I)-0.930"(XII)

Judging by these numbers I suggest the Wolfgang, not the '59 and surely not the fat ones.

It's true but I don't know feel of asymmetric contour
(suhr is a classic C - medium)

As it happens often (too often) "to try" = "to buy", for me

 

[Kostas]

It's true but I don't know feel of asymmetric contour
(suhr is a classic C - medium)

As it happens often (too often) "to try" = "to buy", for me

All my necks have a C profile, I see the asymmetric profile as a more comfortable profile which makes better contact with my hand. I don't think if you order one you will have a problem with your playing, the dimensions are what you like. On the other hand, a FAT profile can be unplayable for someone who is used to much thinner necks.

 

[Strat Avenger]

A neck with a 1-11/16" wide nut feels "thicker" to me than a neck with a 1-5/8" wide nut. Of course the width has nothing to do with the thickness, but my hands somehow perceive a difference in thickness.