Neck profile question

[Ted]

Hi guys, I'm new here and have been obsessively researching on building my own custom SG with Warmoth parts.

One of the last items I cannot seem to work out myself is the neck profile.

I have played fenders and gibsons, but I wonder how these relate to the Warmoth necks on offer.

Would this be a fair assumption

Warmoth Standard Thin = Fender type neck

Warmoth Boat = fender V profile

Warmoth Fat = Gibson 50's neck profile.

Any assistance would be much appreicated.

Ted (London, UK) :icon_thumright:

 

[givememytoys]

first off welcome to the warmoth board youll find alot of grear anwsers here
the standard thin is verry much like a made in usa strat not to thick and not to thin it is a verry comfy neck to play
the fatback is bigger than the gibson i have 2 of these they are really fat and chunky tone makers they are 1 inch thick at the nut and all the way down the neck(love them)
i dont know to much about the vee
hope this helps alittle
  kayle

 

[briny001]

The "Clapton" profile is closest to the Fender "V" profile, not the boatneck.  The boatneck could be considered a very soft V shape, but it is very similar to the fatback.  I recently bought a boatneck, and I love it (I did do a little sanding, though, to suit my needs)

 

[-CB-]

Gibson rounded profile is a point of extreme variability... pre58, 58, 59.... all slightly different.... and even then HUGE variations and the same is true of todays "reissue" and "50's rounded profile" necks from Gibson.

To that point, the SG's I've got, two SG Specials, have "60's slim taper" necks, but are the same as the "50's rounded" profile on my BFG.  The LP Standard has a "60's neck" but is fatter than the BFG neck or the SG necks.  Go figure.  The ES-333's I've got have slim necks, but the ES-135 I gave to Vic had a "60's slim taper" neck that was fatter even than my LP Standard.  I've seen Melody Makers with necks that are like Louisville Sluggers (and I like em!) and I've seen them supposedly with the same neck that is quite thin, about like the SGs. 

So, Gibson is all over the place.  That doesn't help you much, but just be aware of it, in case you go out and try some.

 

[Ted]

Thanks for your help guys.

How would I go about measuring say my favourite guitar neck and comparing that to a Warmoth. Which dimesions should I take and where etc?

Thanks, Ted.

 

[jackthehack]

If you prefer the "60's slim taper" I think probably the closest thing to order would be a Standard Thin with a 1-11/16ths nut, but that's still going to be a little thinner than the Gibson SG neck.

Measure your target neck thickness at the widest point at the 1st & 12th fret and compare that to the neck back contour chart on the webpage.

 

[Ted]

Awesome, I think that answers my question. I do like the chubby necks on SG's but sometimes a little thinner would be better. Thanks! I think I am ready to order!

 

[Simon D]

Ted, having recently taken delivery of a Soloist with a standard thin profile, while also owning a 2006 Fender USA Strat, I can tell you that the standard thin is very similar to the Fender 'C' shape, but slightly thinner all round, which I personally prefer. If you like the slim 60s Gibson necks or the current Fender 'C', you'll be spot on with the standard thin.
Hope this helps

BTW, I think we've chatted on the Bareknuckle board too...

 

[myramyd]

Hello,

I believe the '59 Roundback profile offered by Warmoth is *nearly* identical to the current Gibson SG line. I have a '94 Les Paul Studio with the exact specs of the '59 Roundback profile, which is what Gibson usually refers to as the "rounded" or "50's Rounded" neck. I've been looking into a Warmoth SG and have thought the same thing so, I looked up the stats on the Gibson site. The 60's Slim Taper would be a fraction thinner--I imagine closer to the Standard Thin as the rest are saying. Looks like the SRV & Wolfgang are close to the same thickness as well, albeit with the asymmetrical contour. The Fatback and Boatneck would be a bit thicker than the Gibson rounded neck looks like to me. We are talking fractions of an inch here though...

I think it all depends on the shape of your hand and what you are comfortable with from your experience. I personally get very fatigued by thinner necks (i.e. Ibanez Wizard) and have found my Les Paul to be perfect for long nights onstage--little to no fatigue. I have smaller hands, so who knows. I have an American Strat with the "C" shape I love to play as well, though it does start to fatigue my hand after several hours. Part of that I think is the angle the guitar sits on the body as well. Les Pauls and SG's are easier to hold at an upright angle and the neck is angled back toward you so that helps also, whereas the Strat is straight and pointed down and away from the body (in my case).

So, perhaps the shape of your body and hands are something to consider. But in my own experience, I do like both the '59 Roundback thickness and the Fender "C" quite well, as do most people. Those are the two most commonly appreciated back shapes from what I've heard. I'm sure the Big 2 did some degree of research and arrived at those shapes based on lots of trial and error. The 2 most popular guitars of all time can't be all wrong! I'm sure Warmoth did their homework as well. I think you are safe with the Standard Thin for the most part.

Hope that helps.

Good luck with the SG--post pics when you get it done!

 

[Ted]

Ted, having recently taken delivery of a Soloist with a standard thin profile, while also owning a 2006 Fender USA Strat, I can tell you that the standard thin is very similar to the Fender 'C' shape, but slightly thinner all round, which I personally prefer. If you like the slim 60s Gibson necks or the current Fender 'C', you'll be spot on with the standard thin.
Hope this helps

BTW, I think we've chatted on the Bareknuckle board too...

Hey Simon, Yeah, the bareknuckle board is the reason why I am on here!

I got a Bareknuckle Warpig which I want to dump into a guitar and ordering a MQ neck pickup too. I've been trying out various Gibbo SG's (as I really want an SG), but I don't want to buy a Gibson, because they are, IMO, basically overpriced junk guitars (I'm selling my LP Standard soon). I had been looking at Gordon Smith, but they're difficult to track down and try.

So once I saw a comment on the BKP forum about Warmoth and being an inquisitive soul I did a bit of research and decided a build from Warmoth was ideal project to keep me interested, without being too difficult/technical. I also love messing around with guitar electronics and some people here say this is the hardest part so I'm keen to take one on.

BTW - I'm defo going for standard thin profile, seems to be ideal. Thanks for your reply

 

[Ted]

Hello,

I believe the '59 Roundback profile offered by Warmoth is *nearly* identical to the current Gibson SG line. I have a '94 Les Paul Studio with the exact specs of the '59 Roundback profile, which is what Gibson usually refers to as the "rounded" or "50's Rounded" neck. I've been looking into a Warmoth SG and have thought the same thing so, I looked up the stats on the Gibson site. The 60's Slim Taper would be a fraction thinner--I imagine closer to the Standard Thin as the rest are saying. Looks like the SRV & Wolfgang are close to the same thickness as well, albeit with the asymmetrical contour. The Fatback and Boatneck would be a bit thicker than the Gibson rounded neck looks like to me. We are talking fractions of an inch here though...

I think it all depends on the shape of your hand and what you are comfortable with from your experience. I personally get very fatigued by thinner necks (i.e. Ibanez Wizard) and have found my Les Paul to be perfect for long nights onstage--little to no fatigue. I have smaller hands, so who knows. I have an American Strat with the "C" shape I love to play as well, though it does start to fatigue my hand after several hours. Part of that I think is the angle the guitar sits on the body as well. Les Pauls and SG's are easier to hold at an upright angle and the neck is angled back toward you so that helps also, whereas the Strat is straight and pointed down and away from the body (in my case).

So, perhaps the shape of your body and hands are something to consider. But in my own experience, I do like both the '59 Roundback thickness and the Fender "C" quite well, as do most people. Those are the two most commonly appreciated back shapes from what I've heard. I'm sure the Big 2 did some degree of research and arrived at those shapes based on lots of trial and error. The 2 most popular guitars of all time can't be all wrong! I'm sure Warmoth did their homework as well. I think you are safe with the Standard Thin for the most part.

Hope that helps.

Good luck with the SG--post pics when you get it done!

Hi myramyd - thanks for your post, it seems like standard thin is the way to go. Of course I will post pics of progress!