difference between gibson´s slim taper and historic V necks

[Klimmer007]

hey folks,

I ´m woundering what the different is, in feel with small hands on the neck of a acoustic gibson LG-2 50´s (historic V) vs a J-45 (slim taper)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5YeL2Rr8Z4

If you hear him, he says the LG-2 feels better in the hands?
Anyone has expirience in

thanks in advance,

andre pellecom
belgium

[BOOSE]

For me there is a massive difference, i have reasonably small hands and i can't play any guitar with a V neck no matter how good it sounds, they just put my hand in an awkward position and after ten minutes my hand aches, i've sold a few great sounding guitars for that reason, the Gibson slim taper is a perfect shape for me and if i'm buying a new guitar then the first thing i check is neck shape. But i might add a lot of people like them, for me i think you need to play one for a good hour or so to see if you have any problems.

[mcduffnw]

Hi Klimmer007

It is a massive difference as member BOOSE says...BUT...even with small hands...it just depends on YOU, YOUR HANDS, and how it feels to you to hold and play.

I have small hands like you, and I hate small or rather thin necks, and LOVE big thick necks, especially big thick V shaped necks. I have arthritis/tendinitis in my hands...a little bit, just starting...and thin necks cause my fretting hand,left hand, to cramp up and/or hurt in the palm and especially in that muscle pad between the left thumb and index finger. So I can only play slim necks for a sort while before the pain begins.

When I was younger, I am 60 now, I could play any neck shape no problem...though I still preferred the feel of a big C, D, or V neck...but from my mid 40's on, as the tendinitis/arthritis started to rear it's crabby head...I started having the comfort/playing issues, which have only gotten worse with advancing age....common problem here on the AGF.

But...give me a big, fat, thick neck, either a big rounded C or D shape...or especially...a big thick V shape, like the old vintage Gibson acoustics and acoustic arch tops had back in the 30's and 40's and 50's, and all that extra neck meat fits very nicely and very comfortably into, and supports, my palm, and especially that muscle pad and "gap" area between the thumb and index finger, and I can play for hours with no pain. Plus I like the prominent "spine line" on a V neck...he middle of the neck where the V shape comes together...as it makes...for me...a perfect anchor spot, and position memory line, for my thumb when doing bar chords, especially up the neck.

Now, the one problem a big neck causes my small hands is that it makes the "thumb over" low E string grab pretty tough, but I can work through and around that and either make it work or figure out another chord shape to work, and again, the playing comfort way way overrides that one issue for me.

So it just all comes down to you and your hand and wrist anatomy and how a big V neck would feel to you. If at all possible, you need to see if you can find a guitar with a big neck and play it for a bit...20 or 30 minutes ought to work...and see how you hand feels and responds.


duff
Be A Player...Not A Polisher

[Markvdw]

Originally Posted by Klimmer007

hey folks,

I ´m woundering what the different is, in feel with small hands on the neck of a acoustic gibson LG-2 50´s (historic V) vs a J-45 (slim taper)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5YeL2Rr8Z4

If you hear him, he says the LG-2 feels better in the hands?
Anyone has expirience in

thanks in advance,

andre pellecom
belgium

That video is referencing the 50's J-45 Original. Which I believe has a thicker neck than the J-45 Standard in the Modern line.. I know, all these models are confusing. The Original Series 50's has a "rounded" neck profile, while the Modern Series Standard has the Slim Taper you mentioned.

I have the Modern Standard, and I have small hands. I'm very happy with it. It does feel thicker than my Les Paul with slim taper neck, but I think that is because of the nut width and not the actual neck carve. What I mean is, if I took a caliper and measure the thickness it would probably be same. But the fretboard is wider.

In regards to smaller hands, I wish I had paid attention to scale length sooner in my life. I spent most of my life playing 25.5 scale guitars. My electrics were Fender, and my main acoustic was a Martin D-18 with a V-neck. I played fine all those years, but then I bought my first Gibson Electric with their 24.74 scale when I turned 40. It was eye opening! Songs that required reach were suddenly easier to play. That led me to wonder about acoustics, which ended in me selling my D-18 for a J-45. And now I'm on the hunt for a short scale Martin.

[Steve DeRosa]

Originally Posted by mcduffnw

...It is a massive difference as member BOOSE says...BUT...even with small hands...it just depends on YOU, YOUR HANDS, and how it feels to you to hold and play.

I have small hands like you, and I hate small or rather thin necks, and LOVE big thick necks, especially big thick V shaped necks. I have arthritis/tendinitis in my hands...a little bit, just starting...and thin necks cause my fretting hand,left hand, to cramp up and/or hurt in the palm and especially in that muscle pad between the left thumb and index finger. So I can only play slim necks for a short while before the pain begins...

I have just the opposite problem: in spite of the fact that I have long fingers and a wide span it's a rare neck over 1-11/16" that I can handle comfortably, and forget about anything with a pre-1960/prewar profile (had to pass on some incredible-sounding guitars for that reason, including one of the very first '37 D-18 Authentics - which sounded so good it wound up in the late Stan Jay's personal collection - and a whole bunch of Big Band-era archtops); seems I'm not alone - had a 225-lb. ex-bandbud with ham-size mitts who swore by those 1970's 1-5/8" Westerly Guild necks, and was on a never-ending quest for a late-1960/early-1961 "A" neck Strat. I'll agree with the above - it's what works for you, and it's just a shame that the "1-3/4-or-death" mentality has shut down a lot of the former manufacturer-distinctive options when it comes to high-quality production instruments...

[zombywoof]

The 50s Original LG2 neck generally clock in at the .86" to .90" range. It sounds like they have an Advanced Response neck which has a slight V carve to it.

The slim taper neck is a rounded C with an average a depth of .820" at the 1st fret (they can run anywhere from .80" to .84"). As the name implies they do not thicken up much going to the 9th fret.

Both have the standard Bozeman 1.725" nut width.

My favorite Gibson necks remain the old round shoulder Vs with nuts generally is a hair over 1.76" and a depth of around 1.02" at the 1st fret . The fattest Gibson neck I own though is on my 1942 J50 - a rounded C measuring 1.06" at the 1st fret.

[Macpage]

Originally Posted by zombywoof

The slim taper neck is a rounded C with an average a depth of .820" at the 1st fret (they can run anywhere from .80" to .84"). As the name implies they do not thicken up much going to the 9th fret.

Both have the standard Bozeman 1.725" nut width.

My favorite Gibson necks remain the old round shoulder Vs with nuts generally is a hair over 1.76" and a depth of around 1.02" at the 1st fret . The fattest Gibson neck I own though is on my 1942 J50 - a rounded C measuring 1.06" at the 1st fret.

I am just a member reading and want to say thanks for the detailed info. I really appreciate the numbers. I haven't anything to add as I haven't handled a Gibson acoustic in ages. However, it looks a slim taper and 1.725 nut might be worth exploring. I would never have put Gibson on my list if I didn't see the OP's post and your response. I just assumed they would all be larger since the lineage of that hoss sized 1.02" you mention.

Originally Posted by Steve DeRosa

I'll agree with the above - it's what works for you, and it's just a shame that the "1-3/4-or-death" mentality has shut down a lot of the former manufacturer-distinctive options when it comes to high-quality production instruments...

Couldn't agree more. Far fewer options for 1.69 today than when looking some years back with a lot of brands custom only.

Best,

Mac

[davidd]

I used to be part of the baseball bat brigade but the last few years I've come back to appreciating a slim comfortable neck. It's the same with strings. Why fight the guitar with heavy strings? How many people at home need their guitars to be loud? I'm all about ease and comfort these days... low action, lighter strings and comfy necks.

[llew]

I'm not that familiar with the Gibson neck profiles but have owned a few. Currently my CS Advanced Jumbo has a relatively thin shallow C neck profile while the SJ-200 I used to own was a more rounded full C profile. Much thicker. There doesn't seem to be a rhyme or reason as to what model receives what neck profile but I'm not that well versed with Gibson as many here are.

[pg60]

I've played both of these and have small hands/short fingers.

"Historic V" is more comfortable (by far) for me than "slim taper" (too shallow). love that neck! I can thumb-wrap it.

Beware of the 50's Original "rounded" neck profile on j-45, j-50. I found that one painful to my left hand, no V, round baseball bat.