Reverend Gallery

[GreenTea]

Originally Posted by Glenn_K

A comment on the new headstock for the set necks... looks nice to me. Some others have said they don't like it, but I think it's very well done.

Anybody know if the new Reverend set-necks have fat necks :AOK or are they not so fat ?

This one looks pretty sweet
http://www.harmony-central.com/Produ.../000007905.jpg

I'd love to see a guitar like this with a fat neck!

[Jon Silberman]

Not sure what you mean exactly by "fat." If you mean Nocaster-type fat, I can't see that happening with a Rev (nor would I like it - those necks fatigue my hands after hours of playing) but if you mean Eastpoint fat, I love those necks so much. They're just a tad fatter than their non-Eastpoint counterparts but sometimes a tad is all that's necessary to make a big difference.

[Rebel-Guitars]

There's a cool Hitman on Ebay right now for 750.00.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Reverend-Hitman-...QQcmdZViewItem

[Joe Naylor]

Originally Posted by GreenTea

Anybody know if the new Reverend set-necks have fat necks :AOK or are they not so fat ?

This one looks pretty sweet
http://www.harmony-central.com/Produ.../000007905.jpg

I'd love to see a guitar like this with a fat neck!

The necks are the same thickness as the Bolt-Ons, which are a little chunkier than the last "Reverend USA" necks. I wouldn't call them fat, but they're definitely not skinny. Very medium.

[Jon Silberman]

Originally Posted by Joe Naylor

Very medium.

You sound like my brother when he orders his steaks, Joe!

[Paul Conway]

I'm not fussed about the 'G#bson-esque' set-necks, but I'm sure they'll go down well. Maybe this is Joe's 'Schechter moment' when planet-wide budget guitar success finds him. I hope so. RIP Michael Brecker.

[martyncrew]

Originally Posted by Jon Silberman

Not sure what you mean exactly by "fat." If you mean Nocaster-type fat, I can't see that happening with a Rev (nor would I like it - those necks fatigue my hands after hours of playing) but if you mean Eastpoint fat, I love those necks so much. They're just a tad fatter than their non-Eastpoint counterparts but sometimes a tad is all that's necessary to make a big difference.

I agree with Jon, the Reverend neck is not fat in the same sense as a Nocaster neck. Much more of a chunky 60s Strat profile. Very comfortable, playable necks witn excellent fret-work.

BTW, the import neck profile is so close to the Eastpointe profile that I can't tell the difference - YMMV.

[Secret Ingredient]

Originally Posted by martyncrew

I agree with Jon, the Reverend neck is not fat in the same sense as a Nocaster neck. Much more of a chunky 60s Strat profile. Very comfortable, playable necks witn excellent fret-work.

BTW, the import neck profile is so close to the Eastpointe profile that I can't tell the difference - YMMV.

I've been GASing for a Rev for a while. These imports could be the ticket, and, coming from a guy with small hands, I don't want a baseball bat neck. I love the neck on my G&L. I hope the rev is not much bigger.

[john1056]

Originally Posted by SwirlCrazy

I've been gassing for a Rev for a while. These imports could be the ticket, and, coming from a guy with small hands, I don't want a baseball bat neck. I love the neck on my G&L. I hope the rev is not much bigger.

I had a G&L and the neck was very thin and flat, but I don't think all G&Ls are like that. Reverend necks are definitely not baseball bats, but they aren't Ibanez Wizards either In my experience, when I hand my Reverend to another guitar player chances are one of the first things they say is "nice neck". It’s almost uncanny. The next of last of the U.S. Reverends were thinner than the Retro-Pros which use the same neck as the imports. Earlier Reverends are a bit thicker. The prototypes of the bolt-on-series are a little thinner too.

[Jon Silberman]

Joe, will you be attending Summer NAAM this year (I may have an opportunity to go)?

[Joe Naylor]

Oh yeah, we'll be there. And Austin ROCKS!

[Secret Ingredient]

Encouraging to know the necks are not huge. I think some of the current fascination with big guitar necks is an ego thing. Some guys just can't admit to themselves that a smaller "anything" might be better for them.

Originally Posted by john1056

I had a G&L and the neck was very thin and flat, but I don't think all G&Ls are like that. Reverend necks are definitely not baseball bats, but they aren't Ibanez Wizards either In my experience, when I hand my Reverend to another guitar player chances are one of the first things they say is "nice neck". It’s almost uncanny. The next of last of the U.S. Reverends were thinner than the Retro-Pros which use the same neck as the imports. Earlier Reverends are a bit thicker. The prototypes of the bolt-on-series are a little thinner too.

[Jon Silberman]

Originally Posted by Joe Naylor

Oh yeah, we'll be there. And Austin ROCKS!

Excellent!

P.S. I can't believe it - while I slept, we shot over 100,000 views and no one woke me.

[Jon Silberman]

Originally Posted by SwirlCrazy

I think some of the current fascination with big guitar necks is an ego thing. Some guys just can't admit to themselves that a smaller "anything" might be better for them.

SwirlCrazy, I really do believe there's a lot of truth to what you just said (and the same for heavier gauge strings, too).

[Mike Duncan]

Bigger is better in my case...not to open a potential can of worms, but I can say without a doubt that ego has nothing to do with my choice in guitars. I have a Stratocaster that has a very small neck and it cramps my rather large hands. With the combination of my playing style and hand size, a larger neck just works better.

As far as strings, I'd say that the same applies, 11 to 50s WORK for me with my comfort level and playing style. I do not care for the slinky feel of lighter gauged strings. Once the "feel" is compromised, enjoyment and playability start to follow.