Gibson Les Paul neck thickness

MtB

So, from a question that's been asked about my 2002 LP Std for sale in the classifieds, is there a definitive table of measurements that exists for a 50's / 60's / R9/ R8 / etc neck?

Perhaps we can start a FB list...!

1st off is my 2002 with a measurement adjacent to the 1st fret of: 0.84" and at the 12th fret of: 0.985" and I understand that to be a 50's neck.  

Xsmnmy

Some measurements taken from Gibson forums.
Neck Thickness – (measurements taken at nut end of 1st fret)
R8 —————————– .925″
R7 —————————– .920″
R9 —————————–  .910″
50s Early ———————  .900″ (from Gibson Custom Shop)
50s Rounded  —————-  .870″ (from a 2008 SG)
50s Rounded  —————-  .818″ (from Gibson Custom Shop)
60s Slim taper —————  .765″
50s Early 1st fret ———— .900” 12th fret – 1.00”
50s Rounded 1st fret ——-  .818” 12th fret – .963”

more info + detail from https://skindley.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/neck-profiles-gibson-50s-60s/

MtB

Thanks for that @smnmy, kind of verifies the 50's profile neck on my Les Paul.

Danielsguitars

50's vintage necks are generally around 22-23mm at the first to 24-25mm at about the 12th

They're not as big as people seem to think

Most modern Gibson's have too much shoulder and that's why they feel big 

siraxeman

not all 50's neck LP standards/traditionals are the same! The old belt sander by hand is responsible for this I believe. My Trad is a 50s and is slimmer than my bandmates Trad from the year after. I actually prefer the thicker neck of my bandmates but not the extra weight...his is none weight relieved. Doesn't sound any better just heavier on the strap. Anyway - taking the neck pup out (easy only 2 screws) will reveal the neck stamp in the cavity...50s or 60s is written in black felt tip pen!

richardhomer

I think it's a fallacy that 50s necks were huge.

I recently played an original '57 Strat - the neck was noticeably smaller that on my 56 CS Strat. It felt surprisingly mainstream (though with small frets/vintage radius).

I've played a '54 GT, a '56 LPC and a '59 Standard - admittedly a long time ago - but none struck me as being as big as a modern reissue.

xscaramanga

What tool do you need to measure this accurately? Calipers?

I've got a Joe Perry Les Paul with a bigger-than-50s neck, and I'm selling an R4 Historic with a neck that feels if anything even chunkier. I'd be curious to know what they are.

impmann

richardhomer said:

I think it's a fallacy that 50s necks were huge.

I recently played an original '57 Strat - the neck was noticeably smaller that on my 56 CS Strat. It felt surprisingly mainstream (though with small frets/vintage radius).

I've played a '54 GT, a '56 LPC and a '59 Standard - admittedly a long time ago - but none struck me as being as big as a modern reissue.

THIS.

MtB

@jonnyscaramanga - any one of these: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=thickness+caliper&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQ-OnYiI_QAhWYHsAKHaasAvEQsAQIigE&biw=1920&bih=990 The cheapest way being a caliper without a gauge, and use a rule to make the measurement

Skipped

richardhomer said:

I think it's a fallacy that 50s necks were huge.

Correct. Gibson woke up one day and realised that there was a mythical baseball bat neck that everybody desired. And they gave it to the public on the R7 model.
The measurements were taken from an actual guitar. In a Cartoon.

Most of the necks on 52 to 59 Gibson Les Pauls are in a range that most people would call "nicely round" and "hand filling".
To be fair.....the most recent Gibson product suggests that they are now actually measuring the guitars that the re-issues are based on.

Xsmnmy

The OP only really wanted to confirm that the neck on the gtr he is selling conforms to what Gibson now calls a '50s neck', and it pretty much does. in reality 50s necks had quite a lot of variation as they were shaped and finished by hand.

I think it's interesting that at the upper end of the market Gibson now produce copies of individual well-known gtrs - the burst shade etc as well as the neck contours etc, which in a sense is acknowledging that the R reissues are tidy codified versions of the 50s gtrs that give a false impression of what the real ones were/are like.

FWIW I have a vintage Les Paul Jr (no serial number due to refin, but judged to be '56-7) and it has a thinner rounder neck than the 2007 set neck Epi 57 Reissue Junior that I had before, but a slightly thicker neck than the on the Bartlett build plans based on a '54 Junior...

fretfinder

jonnyscaramanga said:

What tool do you need to measure this accurately? Calipers?

I've just bought this off eBay to see if it works for measuring guitar necks. It's cheap as chips and if it doesn't work on guitars at least I'll be able to measure how fat I am! I'll report back when it's arrived, it's coming from China so will take a couple of weeks to get here.

Digital Body Fat Caliper Skin Fold Thickness 50mm 2inch TS-BFC Test Tool 

Philly_Q

smnmy said:

50s Rounded 1st fret ——-  .818” 12th fret – .963”

Those seem to be the standard numbers the Gibson website quotes for anything with a 50s or "rounded" profile nowadays.  I find it a bit hard to believe that Gibson work to thousandths of an inch...

ArchtopDave

impmann said:

richardhomer said:

I think it's a fallacy that 50s necks were huge.

I recently played an original '57 Strat - the neck was noticeably smaller that on my 56 CS Strat. It felt surprisingly mainstream (though with small frets/vintage radius).

I've played a '54 GT, a '56 LPC and a '59 Standard - admittedly a long time ago - but none struck me as being as big as a modern reissue.

THIS.

I agree. If you look in the back of the book "The Beauty of the Burst" the author listed detailed measurements of Fifty 1950'5 and 1960's Les Pauls. The difference between Necks of these two groups of guitars is small, and there is considerable overlap in terms of thickness. The "60's ones, as a group, tended to be slightly thicker than the'50's. Not surprising really when you consider that they were handmade back in the day.

What has happened is that the terms '50's Neck and '60's Neck are now used to imply a certain degree of thickness with '50's Necks being the thicker of the two. You may have noticed that references to '60's Necks also include the words "Slim Taper".

richardhomer

ArchtopDave said:
I agree. If you look in the back of the book "The Beauty of the Burst" the author listed detailed measurements of Fifty 1950'5 and 1960's Les Pauls. The difference between Necks of these two groups of guitars is small, and there is considerable overlap in terms of thickness. The "60's ones, as a group, tended to be slightly thicker than the'50's. Not surprising really when you consider that they were handmade back in the day.

What has happened is that the terms '50's Neck and '60's Neck are now used to imply a certain degree of thickness with '50's Necks being the thicker of the two. You may have noticed that references to '60's Necks also include the words "Slim Taper".

The neck on my '64 335 is really thin (front to back) by the nut - but 59 Les Paul-like at the octave.

I've no idea if this is typical for the period but it doesn't fit neatly into the '60s thin/50s fat' categorisation that is the 'accepted' wisdom.

Iamnobody

richardhomer said:

ArchtopDave said:
I agree. If you look in the back of the book "The Beauty of the Burst" the author listed detailed measurements of Fifty 1950'5 and 1960's Les Pauls. The difference between Necks of these two groups of guitars is small, and there is considerable overlap in terms of thickness. The "60's ones, as a group, tended to be slightly thicker than the'50's. Not surprising really when you consider that they were handmade back in the day.

What has happened is that the terms '50's Neck and '60's Neck are now used to imply a certain degree of thickness with '50's Necks being the thicker of the two. You may have noticed that references to '60's Necks also include the words "Slim Taper".

The neck on my '64 335 is really thin (front to back) by the nut - but 59 Les Paul-like at the octave.

I've no idea if this is typical for the period but it doesn't fit neatly into the '60s thin/50s fat' categorisation that is the 'accepted' wisdom.

That sounds very much like the carve on my 63 reissue 335. Although I wouldn't say it's really thin at the nut it definitely fattens up at the octave.

ChuckManual

Are "60's slim taper" and "R0" necks the same?

Xsmnmy

the whole concept of a single profile or depth being a '50s neck' is something Gibson dreamed up in the 90s i think - the reality is more varied:

Some measurements taken from Gibson forums.
Neck Thickness – (measurements taken at nut end of 1st fret)
R8 —————————– .925″
R7 —————————– .920″
R9 —————————–  .910″
50s Early ———————  .900″ (from Gibson Custom Shop)
50s Rounded  —————-  .870″ (from a 2008 SG)
50s Rounded  —————-  .818″ (from Gibson Custom Shop)
60s Slim taper —————  .765″
50s Early 1st fret ———— .900” 12th fret – 1.00”
50s Rounded 1st fret ——-  .818” 12th fret – .963”

more detail  + info from https://skindley.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/neck-profiles-gibson-50s-60s/