View Full Version : Q: How "fat" is a 50's neck on an ES-339? BIG difference from the 60's profile?
11-09-2011, 09:46 AM
Guys and gals,
I've never played one but wondered: how fat is the 50's neck profile on a ES-339? I have smaller hands and am looking at a 339. Haven't had a chance *yet* to play one in person. Is the nut and string spacing different on the 50's neck vs. the 60's neck?
Is there something in the Fender world that you could roughly compare it to?
Descriptions and thoughts please!
11-09-2011, 09:57 AM
The closest thing I have seen in the "Fender" world is the nocaster tele neck.. and it has more of a "C" shape than the Gibson "33x" guitars.. which seem to be a bit more of a "D" shape. I am pretty sure the string spacing between the 50's and 60's is the same, and the 60's neck is just "flatter".
Basically the fatneck is similar to an R9 neck, so if you are familiar with those.. kind of the same deal.
11-09-2011, 10:02 AM
The '59 339 neck is pretty damned fat; fatter than the one on a R9 LP I played. It's also my favorite neck in the world. Really fills your hand, and IMO, adds a lot to the tone.
11-09-2011, 10:26 AM
I played the 60s and then the 50s and bought the 50s profile...I have a 1" boatneck tele and the 50s profile is nowhere near 1" from front to back...it is closer to .90" (+/-) thickness from front to back...
String spacing...nut 1 11/16" and radius...12" are the same you just get more shoulder with the 50s neck...
fwiw...I also have small hands and in general usually prefer larger necks as they support my hand better and are less fatiquing to play...
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.