Neck Dilemma - Standard Thin or Wizard with 12-16?

[alexreinhold]

Hi forum,

I'm new here - very happy to join this awesome community!

Here's my dilemma (and it's been driving me nuts). I just love the speed of unfinished Charvel necks (Wizard width) but Strats (Standard thin width) are my instrument of choice. When I play my Strat for long, the Charvel necks feel too skinny but, boy, so good to play. When I play my Charvel too long, the Strat necks feel clunky and hard to play - but then again somewhat more powerful (which I really like).

But if I had to pick one, it would be Charvel. So maple, 12-16 compound, jumbo frets and a very subtle finish are no brainers at this stage. Now, the idea of blending this with a slightly thicker neck seems very appealing in theory but I do worry about practicality.

Long story short - has anyone made an experience with 12-16 compound Standard Thin rather than Wizard? And if yes, how much of a difference does it make. I'm leaning towards the Standard Thin but I'm somewhat worried that I might underestimate the role width plays when it comes to the comfort Charvel-type necks offer. What are your thoughts?

Cheers,

Alex

 

[Ace Flibble]

Not with the 12-16" compound, but I've used both the Standard Thin and Wizard with the 10-16" compound and to my hands there is a huge difference. Warmoth's Wizard actually caused my hands to cramp—a problem I also have with most Ibanez guitars—while the Standard Thin is, aside from the width, a near-exact match for a Jackson 7-string I have is about as thin as I can tolerate. Apparently I'm more sensitive to these things than most players. But there you go, that's my personal experience with the two profiles.
As it happens, I had a Charvel San Dimas Style 2 for a while but sold it because I got a similar-spec Fender super-Tele shortly after and much preferred the Fender's slightly thicker and rounder-shaped neck. Again, that's just me, YMMV.

But there's a spanner in the works here: Warmoth's profiles don't match up in the way you seem to expect. Charvel's necks are thicker than Warmoth's Wizard profile, and the same goes for Fender's standard profile compared to Warmoth's Standard Thin. In addition, Warmoth's Standard Thin is a slightly squarer 'D' or 'U' shape (depending on the nut width, see below), with more 'shoulder', than the smooth 'C' that Fenders have. The Warmoth Standard Thin is in fact almost an exact match for Charvel, ESP, and Schecter's standard necks.

So on the neck profile alone, it sounds from what you describe that you'll like the Standard Thin most.

Just bear in mind the nut width and fret size can also have a major effect on how a neck feels in thickness and shape. A wider nut results in a flatter feel to the shape of the back of the neck and if you have bigger frets the total depth of the neck (top of the fret wire to the very back of the neck stock) is going to feel deeper. So a Standard Thin with 6100 frets and a 44mm nut might feel bigger than you're expecting, while a Standard Thin with 6130 frets and a 41mm nut might feel smaller than you expect. You need to consider the whole spec together, not just the profile alone.
Since you say you want "jumbo frets" and Warmoth has two fret wires that are referred to as "jumbo", I'd say you might want to consider the Wizard profile if you are going for the 6100 wire. But if you're going for 6150 then I'd still expect the Standard Thin to be the best fit for what you describe. 

For reference, Fender's modern C necks are .820"-.870" while Charvel's standard neck is .790"-.840". So you can see how Warmoth's Standard Thin .800"-.850" is a better match to Charvel than it is to Fender, even regardless of the nut width and fret size.

 

[TBurst Std]

While I can’t comment directly on those, I will echo Aces observations that thinner necks cause my hand to cramp. Most of mine are 59s, with a few Std thins and Boatnecks. 
Actually I prefer the boatneck from feel alone. And yes I can still do D/F# and A/C#
I pickup some speed with the 59s. I start to lose both as I go smaller.
Here’s a test, separate your thumb from your palm. Now spread your fingers. At what point is the optimum spread of your fingers ? That will offer direction to profile.

 

[alexreinhold]

@Ace Flibble, thanks so much for the detailed response - i appreciate it a lot! In my strive to re-create the "feel" of the Charvel neck as much as possible, I chose the following specs:

Maple
Subtle Finish (as close to no-finish)
12-16 radius
22 frets
6100 frets (jumbo)
Nut width 42.86mm (1.6875 inch)

So far, this would be a 1:1 re-create of the Charvel neck. Now, from this point, I'm deciding between Wizard and Standard Thin. From what you say, it sounds like Standard Thin seems to be the best choice if I'm leaning towards a slightly thicker neck, right? What I love most about the fell of Charvels (as compared to American Standard Strats), is the very flat radius and the jumbos - at least that's what I think. What do you reckon?

@TBurst Std - your methodology probably leads me more to a thicker neck. Interesting one

 

[Ace Flibble]

The 6100 frets are a fraction taller than Charvel's frets, .058" (Warmoth) vs .051" (Charvel), so that with the Standard Thin will be .017"-.017" deeper than an actual Charvel neck. The Wizard would be .033"-.013" shallower than the Charvel in total. So on average the Standard Thin will feel closest to what you're used to, both in thickness and also the rate of taper, and I would be very surprised if a constant .017" difference slowed you down.
The 43mm nut should ensure the shaping feels as flat (D/U) as Charvel uses, it definitely won't feel like the round C of a Fender. Of course the exact shaping of the neck can vary very slightly from neck-to-neck but I've had enough Warmoth Standard Thins with 43mm nuts to be surprised if you felt any roundness to the back profile.

If you want a flat neck with big frets at a size like-Charvel-or-slightly-thicker... then I don't think you're going to get any closer than what you've got there. 6100 wire, 43mm nut, 12-16" fretboard and the Standard Thin profile should be the formula you're after.

 

[Rick]

You can adapt to anything but a too thin neck is worse than a too thick neck.  It's like you're always pinching.

 

[DangerousR6]

I have both, but they are the 10-16 Warmoth radius necks. I'm a huge Jackson fan, I have many of them and have always been more favorable of the thin necks. I do however like a beefier neck, but it depends on what mood I'm and what type of music I'm playing as to which neck. But as to the Warmoth necks, i prefer the Wizard over the standard thin. However the Wizard isn't the same shape as the Jackson/Charvel "D" shape. To me it just feel more like a thinner Standard thin.

 

[alexreinhold]

@Ace Fibble you have convinced me to get a standard thin. Your reasoning makes total sense - I'm confident now that the standard thin is closer to what I want. Thanks so much for the amazing help! I also think @rick2 makes a point.

@DangerousR6 - the thing is I don't love skinny necks per se. For example, Jacksons (or Ibanez for that matter) are not my thing compared to Charvels (for some reason).

 

[T89Rex]

I hope nobody minds me jumping in on this thread, but something Ace Flibble said really matched with my own experience and I was hoping to get some advice.

The squarer feel of the Warmoth standard thin has always been the one thing I'd change with the neck I have here. I've never heard anyone else mention it so Ace's comment has finally convinced me I'm not crazy.

The thing is, I don't want the neck to be much fatter than it is, just a little rounder. I had been planning to try the 59 profile on my next build so I was wondering if anyone could comment on whether they're any closer to a Fender C, without starting to feel too baseball bat-like. What's giving me pause is that I recently had the opportunity to play a Warmoth neck at a local luthier that was enormous and he called it a '59 fatback'. I assume he meant the fatback because it was just huge, but if it was the 59 then it's way too big for me.

My favourite non-Warmoth neck is probably my mid-2000s '62 reissue Jazzmaster if that's any guide. Thanks.

 

[Ace Flibble]

^As I said somewhere up before, if you get a narrower nut then the back of the neck will feel more rounded. It can be surprising how different the neck profile with a 42mm nut feels to a 43mm nut, even when the profile is meant to be the same. So check the widths of the necks you've been trying, as it may be you've been ordering Warmoth necks that are slightly wider than the Fender you like. (In fact until recently Warmoth didn't offer a nut that matches the standard Fender 1.650".) That said, yes, even with a smaller nut the Warmoth profile is still thinner and flatter/squarer than a Fender C.

With that out of the way, the Warmoth '59 is almost as thick at the 1st fret as Fender's standard C is at the 12th fret. It definitely is a much rounder shape than the Standard Thin but it could be too thick, depending on your definition of "baseball bat". (Personally I reserve that term for necks over 1" thick, which is roughly what the first Teles and Les Paul Jrs had; in Warmoth terms, even bigger than the Fatback.) Warmoth's '59 is thicker than the neck on a Gibson VOS '59 reissue Les Paul I used to have, but not quite as thick as a Musikraft LP profile which I also own and is definitely close to "baseball bat" territory. There's no mistaking Warmoth's for a thin neck, but it's not the thickest, is the point. And again, it does have that roundness. 

However, if you're handy with sandpaper then you can fix a too-thick neck. (Obviously bigger tools are required for majorly reshaping something like a Fatback.) I've got a Gibson LP Jr that had a ridiculously thick (and extra-wide) neck when I first got it, but an hour with some sandpaper in front of the TV sorted that out. In many ways it's better to always go for something a little bit too thick, since you can always make a big neck smaller but you can't make a small neck bigger.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the Warmoth purists, I will point out that if the rest of the neck spec you want is quite standard then there are other parts companies who offer more neck shapes and thickness, many replicating Fender's much more closely. Nobody else offers as many fancy woods, inlay, and fretboard radius options as Warmoth do, though, so obviously if you want something exotic but still with a round back then getting a Warmoth '59 or Fatback, and being prepared to shape it down, is going to be your best option.

 

[T89Rex]

Thanks for such a detailed response - plenty to think about!

I was planning on going down to the 42 mm nut width anyway so it's encouraging to know that will help a little. This is the first build I'm planning to do entirely on my own, so I'm not sure how confident I feel about sanding down a neck to reshape it. I think in the interest of fulling understanding how each factor contributes to feel I might make the nut width the only change this time and make further changes next time around if necessary.

Thanks so much!

 

[alexreinhold]

After doing some more research on frets, I noticed what most of you know - the Warmoth fret sizes are quite off as compared to Dunlop. Now I'm thinking to do the above but with 6115 - focus on performance on the neck. Any experience when it comes to 6115 vs 6100? 6100 just seems a bit too big for me. This would be the full final setup

Roasted Maple
No finish
12-16 radius
22 frets
Nut width 42.86mm (1.6875 inch)
6115 frets

 

[WindsurfMaui]

let me make two recommendations for you to consider. Roasted maple neck with no finish and stainless steel frets. Roasted maple will give you a very slippery feel. I have never felt anything better and it has ruined me to all my guitars with finished necks. You will be able to sand and shape that neck little by little without worrying that you need to refinish it before it is damaged. So you can sand as you please over months as you get confident and as you see how good it feels as you reshape it. Plus read Cagey's thread on burnishing a roasted neck. Second, stainless frets are a miracle. I can't say enough about stainless frets. My guitar with a roasted maple shaft and ebony fret board that has stainless frets calls to me all the time. It is the only guitar I want to touch.

 

[alexreinhold]

WindsurfMaui, exactly what I ordered. And changed fret size from 6100 to 6115 today. Stainless Steel of course.. what do you reckon?

 

[WindsurfMaui]

Sounds like the perfect set up. The beauty of Warmoth is we can individually customize our guitars so they are perfect for us. I like the SS6115 frets but I got fret envy and so ordered the SS6100 on my current neck order. Maybe they will be too big but I had to try them once.

 

[rauchman]

After doing some more research on frets, I noticed what most of you know - the Warmoth fret sizes are quite off as compared to Dunlop. Now I'm thinking to do the above but with 6115 - focus on performance on the neck. Any experience when it comes to 6115 vs 6100? 6100 just seems a bit too big for me. This would be the full final setup

Roasted Maple
No finish
12-16 radius
22 frets
Nut width 42.86mm (1.6875 inch)
6115 frets

I've got 2 Warmoth necks with the SS6115 frets.  I like them a lot.  With the 6100 frets, in the upper register they feel clunky to me.  I like the slightly narrower width of the 6115's.  They are tall though, and it's forced me to develop a slightly lighter touch in my playing.  It's sort of like a light scalloping.  I can pull a note sharp pretty easily if I'm not focused.