I'm assuming the Wide/fat necks on McCarties are the same shape as those of the other PRS guitars, right? A PRS Wide/Fat neck on a CU or CE model PRS fits my hands perfectlyGearjoneser said:Yep, I just took a thin strip of paper, and wrapped it around my 2000 McCarty wide/fat and my 2001 LP Std. 50's neck. The 1'st fret and 12th fret, measured around the back of the neck are identical. The only difference is the shape of the neck carve, which is a little more like the bottom of a boat, on the McCarty. It's an intriguing subject, since they're both the most perfect necks in my hands.
Hot _Grits said:Just played a '50s neck' 56ri Les Paul this lunchtime.
It's a fat C shape neck, one of the fattest you'll come across. You definitely know you've got a lump of wood in your hands. I like fat necks, but I'd personally want to gig one just to make sure it wasn't too unwieldy or fatiguing, in the same way ultra thin necks are.
It's definitely bigger and fuller than PRS wide-fat.
I'd say it would suit player with large hands and/or long fingers. My friend, who has smaller hands than me, played the same guitar I did and couldn't handle the neck size.
slightly_rude said:A word of caution here. Gibson's Custom Historic RI necks are fatter than the current "50's" LP Standard necks. Gibson still sizes their necks by hand. I have found that the pre 2002 LP Standards have bigger necks than the current 50's Standard necks. If this is new LP you may be disappointed with the neck size. You should physically try it before making a decision.
Falstaff said:+1. The Historic necks are generally much beefier than the 50s necks. The 50s necks are on the bigger end, for sure, but the first time I played a Historic, I said "woah" when I felt the neck for the first time. The Historic necks are very different from most of the stuff out there.
JeffB said:SG necks are more similar to the Gibson "60s profile" neck. Not as fat/deep and flatter on the back.