2011 Les Paul 57' RI Spec Sheet
- Thread starter Jeff_H
- Start date
Jeff_H
Dean Hardtail Fanologist
Re: 2011 Les Paul 57' RI Spec Sheet
Turns out my wife has a set of digital calipers she uses for her jewelry making; who knew?
So, my 57' is .885" at the 1st fret, .976" at the 7th fret and 1.031" at the 12th fret. By comparison, the "average" of known 1959 burst necks measures .883" and .970" respectively. But, the shoulders of the neck make all the difference. A big fat C profile will make that neck feel huge, while small shoulders more like a D or soft V can make it feel extremely comfortable.
I was surprised that mine measured as large as it does, given how small and comfortable it feels in my hand.
Turns out my wife has a set of digital calipers she uses for her jewelry making; who knew?
So, my 57' is .885" at the 1st fret, .976" at the 7th fret and 1.031" at the 12th fret. By comparison, the "average" of known 1959 burst necks measures .883" and .970" respectively. But, the shoulders of the neck make all the difference. A big fat C profile will make that neck feel huge, while small shoulders more like a D or soft V can make it feel extremely comfortable.
I was surprised that mine measured as large as it does, given how small and comfortable it feels in my hand.
Last edited:
YeRedHouseOverYonder
New member
Re: 2011 Les Paul 57' RI Spec Sheet
Wow, kudos to you. It's definitely slimmer than expected. Just for reference, my R8 is .925" at the 1st and ~1.03" at the 12th. It's comfortable to play, but you can feel the difference. I also have an early '60 Melody Maker that has a LP neck profile. .895" at the 1st. I think you for sure found yourself a keeper. The profile and finish set her apart.
Sent from my LG-H931 using Tapatalk
Wow, kudos to you. It's definitely slimmer than expected. Just for reference, my R8 is .925" at the 1st and ~1.03" at the 12th. It's comfortable to play, but you can feel the difference. I also have an early '60 Melody Maker that has a LP neck profile. .895" at the 1st. I think you for sure found yourself a keeper. The profile and finish set her apart.
Sent from my LG-H931 using Tapatalk
Jeff_H
Dean Hardtail Fanologist
Re: 2011 Les Paul 57' RI Spec Sheet
Gibson is so all over the place on necks, especially on historic's. Your measurements are larger at the 1st than I would have guessed and smaller at the 12th. That's not much of a change actually, which could be a great thing if your hand works well with the .925" 1st fret size, which is what it sounds like. I've learned a lot about neck shape and size vs. playability lately, which only helps me buy better moving forward.
In reality and for historical accuracy, necks should get smaller as you move through historic time frame from R7 to R0.....not even considering R2 - R6. Even though the real deal Lesters varied in size, they did fall within a defined range that is well documented among surviving original 50's examples. It doesn't seem too hard, to me, for Gibson to CNC a neck at the upper end of the average for each given year and then leave room for the hand shaping and sanding, like the originals, which would end up mostly within the average range. But, what do I know? Look how well Gibson is doing right now.
I do feel fortunate to have an R7 in a very unique finish with a neck more like an R9, which fits my hand better. It just so happened that luck or fate worked in my favor this time. I could have easily ended up with a dog that had a baseball bat neck, since I couldn't play it first. That normally doesn't work out for me.
Gibson is so all over the place on necks, especially on historic's. Your measurements are larger at the 1st than I would have guessed and smaller at the 12th. That's not much of a change actually, which could be a great thing if your hand works well with the .925" 1st fret size, which is what it sounds like. I've learned a lot about neck shape and size vs. playability lately, which only helps me buy better moving forward.
In reality and for historical accuracy, necks should get smaller as you move through historic time frame from R7 to R0.....not even considering R2 - R6. Even though the real deal Lesters varied in size, they did fall within a defined range that is well documented among surviving original 50's examples. It doesn't seem too hard, to me, for Gibson to CNC a neck at the upper end of the average for each given year and then leave room for the hand shaping and sanding, like the originals, which would end up mostly within the average range. But, what do I know? Look how well Gibson is doing right now.
I do feel fortunate to have an R7 in a very unique finish with a neck more like an R9, which fits my hand better. It just so happened that luck or fate worked in my favor this time. I could have easily ended up with a dog that had a baseball bat neck, since I couldn't play it first. That normally doesn't work out for me.
Last edited:
YeRedHouseOverYonder
New member
Re: 2011 Les Paul 57' RI Spec Sheet
Yeah, it's like ~1.03 - 1.103" at the 12th. I don't quite remember the measurements and don't have calipers on me (storage). I remember it not being too much of a change tho. I definitely agree with you on the necks being not so "historic" for most of the reissues. Doesn't make sense, but at least the consistency of the RI guitars are good. Less duds and QC problems with them. Congrats again on the guitar! \m/
Sent from my LG-H931 using Tapatalk
Yeah, it's like ~1.03 - 1.103" at the 12th. I don't quite remember the measurements and don't have calipers on me (storage). I remember it not being too much of a change tho. I definitely agree with you on the necks being not so "historic" for most of the reissues. Doesn't make sense, but at least the consistency of the RI guitars are good. Less duds and QC problems with them. Congrats again on the guitar! \m/
Sent from my LG-H931 using Tapatalk
Similar threads
- Featured
