Gibson Banner LG-2 1942 nut width

[MikeInBethesda]

Hello all, I have been hearing really good things about the new custom Banner 1942 LG-2 and am considering purchasing. The one concern I have is the nut width which is 1.69 inches which I suppose is comparable to 1 11/16 on a Martin. I normally prefer 1.75 inch and believe the J-45 has a nut width closer to this. Is it typical for a 00 size guitar to have a narrower nut width? Anyone play one of these Gibson’s that can speak to the tone and playability and the neck in particular? Thanks a lot, Mike

[Kh1967]

Sent you a PM, Mike.

[MikeInBethesda]

Thank you Kori! I will respond shortly.

[zombywoof]

No it was not typical for a Gibson 00 size guitar to have a narrower nut width. Because you had different hands fashioning necks and a part was considered finished when it looked "close enough" width and depth did vary. As a rule of thumb though all Gibsons built prior to 1947 clocked in around 1 3/4". In 1947 they went with the 1 11/16" nut. Why Gibson would not go with their standard 1.72" nut is beyond me. As to the neck carve given the specs I would class it as a Vintage/Fat C or what I call a Mid-Century Modern C. Essentially this model is voiced to capture the characteristic Gibson sound but not come off as raw sounding as the originals. Not a good or a bad thing - just different.

[MikeInBethesda]

Thanks, very helpful info. I wish that they had at least the 1.72 width as I know I can handle that. I won't be able to try one out before buying so am worried that I won't be able to abide the nut width, which is too bad as everything else about what I'm hearing is very appealing.

[Martin_F]

There are tons of examples of guitars with 1 11/16's nut widths. If you can play them, you should be ok with the LG-2. I have a Martin 000-15m with that size nut and I find it's ok to play. But, my fingers aren't huge. It definitely feels a little different than my regular 1.72" Gibson's, but it's not bad. I can still do everything that I need to do.

You can get used to pretty much anything within reason if you play it enough! I have played some classical guitars from the 1800's and they had extremely narrow necks. They were still playable back then! They would take some getting used to, but still not outrageous.

I'm also not sure why they didn't just use the standard neck. To me "Vintage" matters more in the build of the body and the look vs the nut size of the neck. There are good reasons not to play antique guitars and why guitars have changed over the years - not all of them were comfortable to play.

My opinion...
Martin

[zombywoof]

Originally Posted by Martin_F

I'm also not sure why they didn't just use the standard neck. To me "Vintage" matters more in the build of the body and the look vs the nut size of the neck. There are good reasons not to play antique guitars and why guitars have changed over the years - not all of them were comfortable to play.

My opinion...
Martin

While I have never found any Gibson neck, even those without truss rods, too formidable if there is a place where those reproducing old guitars are likely to take liberties with original specs it is going to be in offering neck carves which are considered more user friendly. The thing about Bozeman is like all builders they have their own ideas as to what sounds and feels best. So with the exception of the Legend Series guitars and the occasional Custom Shop build, they will stick to these ideas resulting in instruments which are more vintage inspired than dead bang copies. So you are not going to get say a stock L-00 or J35 with the non-scalloped bracing the originals had in the 1930s but with Bozeman's either forward or rear shifted standard scalloped bracing.

[BluesKing777]

That is very diplomatic, Zombi!

What does it mean? 1 11/16" instead of 1 3/4" nut on a supposed 'Historic reissue'?????? Did they build Banner LG2s with 1 11/6" nuts? Maybe a couple, but generally the object of desire for me is the (real) Gibson Banner LG2 from 42 - 45 with fat V necks and fat 1 3/4" nut.

Everything else is a confusion of specs....BUT my first Gibson acoustic (still have it) is my 2007 Gibson Blues King L-00 which had sat in the corner of the music shop for a couple of years before I went there with the Purpose! So it is Bubinga back and sides and 1.72" nut and pickguard wrong, tuners wrong and just really - generally shaped something like an original L-00 from the 30s. Of course, I didn't know any of this when I bought it - only made these disappointing discoveries after joining......forums!

But with some wear and play since and while it is not a thing like my real 37 Gibson L-0, it has turned out to be a very classy and nice sounding guitar. And like the real 1959 Gibson LG3 I also later bought online with of course, 1 11/16" nut, a good capo on the 3rd or 4th fret can just transform everything.

BluesKing777.

[jt1]

Originally Posted by BluesKing777

That is very diplomatic, Zombi!

... but generally the object of desire for me is the (real) Gibson Banner LG2 from 42 - 45 with fat V necks and fat 1 3/4" nut.....

No V necks during 42-45.

I share your notions about modern Gibson's "confusion of specs."

[BluesKing777]

Ha! Really?

It is not a new thing either, you can remind us, JT...this confusion of specs.....it is not because of the new owners because all the owners have done it!

And then Bill Collings came along and made my Waterloo X and Ladder! I was doing some specific techniques for about an hour on the ladder and then I just played and improvised and really laid into that thing.....Wow....Tone, specs, playability etc, etc. Game over, thanks Collings and Co. Don’t care anymore about skinny neck reissues! (sorry to the OP, Mike, I remember he had trouble with Waterloo V necks?).


BluesKing777.

[Woolbury]

My vintage '46 LG2 is 1 3/4, with the big fat neck. Love the feel and playability. My Martin M36 is 1 11/16 and I rarely play it. I get unintended matings on simple chords at the neck. I know its technique, but still. My Collings is 1 13/16 and I can play things on that guitar that I can't play on the others. For me, 1 11/16 is a deal breaker, but I know that's a personal thing depending on your style. I played 1 11/16 for years and never knew the difference, but as I strummed less, finger picked more, the idea neck became important to me.

[jt1]

Originally Posted by BluesKing777

Ha! Really?

Yeah. The V shapes ended circa 1940. The Banner models all had big, fat, C-shaped necks.

Originally Posted by BluesKing777

It is not a new thing either, you can remind us, JT...this confusion of specs.....it is not because of the new owners because all the owners have done it!

Strange, isn't it? I no longer think of the inaccurate "reissues" as mistakes. At this point, it's apparently central to Gibson's corporate culture.

Originally Posted by BluesKing777

And then Bill Collings came along and made my Waterloo X and Ladder! I was doing some specific techniques for about an hour on the ladder and then I just played and improvised and really laid into that thing.....Wow....Tone, specs, playability etc, etc. Game over, thanks Collings and Co. Don’t care anymore about skinny neck reissues! ...

Agreed! Those Waterloos are fabulous.

[BluesKing777]

Originally Posted by jt1

Yeah. The V shapes ended circa 1940. The Banner models all had big, fat, C-shaped necks.


Strange, isn't it? I no longer think of the inaccurate "reissues" as mistakes. At this point, it's apparently central to Gibson's corporate culture.


Agreed! Those Waterloos are fabulous.

And, and, and.....

Let us hope that someone there will read this and work on some small Gibson reissues with 1 3/4" nut to match the new 'chunky' necks.

And why isn't a decent L-00 reissue in the new Historic Series? Don't forget the 1 3/4" nut if you make one, Gibson!

Yep, flabbergasted is the old word that comes to mind....

Don't get me wrong - I am a fan of the Gibson acoustic sound. but not so sure of the recent geometry. The only Gibson I have with a 1 3/4" nut is my 1937 L-00....


BluesKing777.

[JMoto]

Originally Posted by BluesKing777

And, and, and.....

Let us hope that someone there will read this and work on some small Gibson reissues with 1 3/4" nut to match the new 'chunky' necks.

And why isn't a decent L-00 reissue in the new Historic Series? Don't forget the 1 3/4" nut if you make one, Gibson!

Ugh, hoping to find one like the 1942 reissue but with the wider nut as y'all have said. Just noticed the 50's reissue which solves the nut width but then they screwed it up by not having the same torrified woods, boo! What a drag.