NECKS!

tony_carey · Post by **tony_carey** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 11:32 am

Not width, but depth! Does any one know if the new 300 series necks are all the same now a days? And if they are, when was consistancy achieved? There is a tremendous difference in the depth (thickness) of necks in my experience, so much so, that some have been unplayable from my personal specs & makes the possibility of buying without trying a no go. There is nothing worse than pulling your new gtr out of it's case & realising within one minute that you will never be comfortable with it...it's happened to me on three occasions.

This isn't critisicm BTW, it's just that apart from my '90's gtrs (the best feeling necks of all), my '03 330 feels good & I'm just wondering if a brand new 330 would have the same neck profile?

rickm · Post by **rickm** » Mon Nov 21, 2005 5:03 pm

I'm interested in this also. I had a 2001 330 that measured about .935" from the back tangency of the neck to the top of the fretboard between the nut and first fret, which was really too chunky for my taste. My 2000 "1997" had a neck thickness of .890" at the same location, and I found this to be very comfortable. Most guitars that I own or have owned are in the .820-.850" range. I'm thinking about getting a new 330, but the potential chunkiness of the neck is making me have second thoughts. Rick

jwargowski · Post by **jwargowski** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 9:47 am

I was surprised to see that this isn't a spec listed on the Ric website. I was considering a 660 over my 370, because of the neck width issue. Upon playing one I found the neck depth of a 660 to be more uncomfortable for me than the narrow width of the 370. Since then I've learned to adapt to the 370, but I don't think I could ever get used to the depth of the 660, it's just too different than the rest of my guitars.

rickm · Post by **rickm** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:36 am

If the necks are cut with CNC (which I don't know if they are or not), then I would think it would be relatively easy to take the CNC file and do a 2D plot of the profile, say at the first fret. I know that just the measurement from front to back doesn't tell the whole story, because the profile itself has a big impact on comfort, but if we could see the profile, then that would be good information. Martin has something like this on their site where they show cross-sections of various neck profiles. Rick

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:24 pm

So, Rick, you say that the old neck at .890" at midway between nut and first fret was just right, whereas .935" was too large.

That's a difference of .045", or slightly over 1mm.

How is a cross-section diagram going to give you enough information to choose between the two when they are too close?

Ya gotta play it, IMO.

But, Rickenbacker has one of the most comfortable, sleekest necks I've played. Even my 660 is nice, although it has close to a Gibson solidbody feel.

Everytime I play one of my other guitars (usually Gretsches) for awhile, and pick up one of my Rick 6 strings, the ease of playing jumps out at me. And, in the case of the '81 325 it feels like a friendly old toy.

kcole4001 · Post by **kcole4001** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:25 pm

Neck profile is probably the most subjective physical feature of any production guitar or bass model. It's a wonder people haven't tried to spec the curve they want when they place their orders. That would surely slow down production further.
Just my opinion, of course.

kcole4001 · Post by **kcole4001** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 12:27 pm

I think JH said that the body blanks & major routs were CNC'd, but the rest was hand worked.

rickm · Post by **rickm** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:19 pm

Hi Paul; A cross-section diagram is not going to give me enough information to choose between two guitars, but as I stated, "that would be good information" to have. Being nowhere near a RIC dealer here in Southwest Virginia, I don't have the opportunity to play before buying. The more info that I can have, the more informed of a blind decision I can make

. You are 100% correct that you need to play a guitar to be sure you like it, but that's not always an option. From having owned lots of guitars over the years, I have a pretty good idea of which neck profiles and thicknesses I like, and if I had that info in front of me, I'd have a better inkling of whether I'd like it or not.
Kevin; If the necks are indeed hand worked, then that would explain the variation of neck thicknesses through the years, which makes buying sight unseen & neck unfelt more difficult. Rick

ben_hall · Post by **ben_hall** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 1:29 pm

On 300 Series necks the back of the neck is not done on CNC.

The very intensive sanding done to the necks AFTER the radius is cut would explain the variation.

kcole4001 · Post by **kcole4001** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 2:14 pm

And there's the OFFICIAL word on the subject.
None of my 3 Ricks (4 necks) have the same profile. It's just part of their personality. I love 'em all!

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:16 pm

Did somebody say "intensive sanding"?

Here's two separate heel and volute sanding steps being done by hand...

Try to imagine the "eye" and judgement it takes not to screw up these critical and complex areas...

winston · Post by **winston** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:19 pm

Look how clean that shop is. That's incredible.

jwilli · Post by **jwilli** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:27 pm

Those hose looking things are ......vacuums.

circles · Post by **circles** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 8:01 pm

I set up a recent 330/12 that felt almost like an SG with a baseball bat neck. It surprised me, but it still played well.
Even I thought my reissue 1997 had a slim neck until I bought my '67 360!

tony_carey · Post by **tony_carey** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 9:14 pm

I ordered a 330-12 from a shop & when it arrived, it too had a 'baseball' bat size neck. I couldn't play it comfortably & luckily, the shop had a couple more that I could choose from instead. This is the only neck that I have tried that was THAT thick, but I have had a couple of others that were too uncomfortable for my liking.