Shortscale Acoustics

Cymbaline · Post by **Cymbaline** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 7:41 pm

Well I've searched far and wide and this is the only one I could find. I'm trying to get my cousin who's a petite girl to start playing guitar and I thought this one would be perfect for her:
http://www.fender.com/products/newporte ... th-gig-bag

I looked at other ones that had fewer frets and thus are more of childrens guitars than small guitars.

I didnt find any that have a 24" scale. Anyone else have a shortscale acoustic?
I'd even get one of these little Fender Newporters and turn it into a "Nashville Tuning" guitar. It is pretty cute. And perfect for a chic. So now all the girls I want to teach guitar to, I'll tell them to get one of these babies.

Leisureclub · Post by **Leisureclub** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:24 pm

I've owned the entry Yamaha, a baby Taylor, a Taylor GS Mini and a Gibson LG-2.

The small yamaha is better than the baby taylors and little martins. Other than that they get better as they get more expensive(as you'd expect).

I have no experience w/ the Fender.

MMPicker · Post by **MMPicker** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:37 pm

From what I've observed, in my own extended family which includes three 5'1" - 5'3" guitar-playing female relatives, short scale vs. long scale for acoustics doesn't seem to be that a huge an issue for them. To the extent they play "short" it is not short like an analog to mustang/ jaguar short, it is short as analog to regular Gibson-scale short. Between them they've had a couple guitars with 25.4" scale, and I guess more with the also-common 24.9" scale. But none of them have owned anything with shorter scale than that.

What they seem to care more about is body size. They tend to prefer the 000/OM size to the larger bodied guitars. (Though they have had some of those too.) Also, their guitars have the 1-11/16" nut width, probably because they have small fingers. Whereas I personally tend to prefer 1-3/4" nut width for acoustics.

They are mostly playing "cowboy chords" in support of their singing efforts, they are not worried about their lead work getting
slowed down. For them the scale length has more to do with how they deal with the tension for playing open chords.

Also, because maybe it's not really that important to them, the scale length tends to follow from their other preferences. Most 000 body size guitars with 1-11/16" nut widths are 000s that have the 24.9" scale. It's kind of a package deal.

I take it back, partly, when one of them was younger she did play the family's Baby Taylor. But as soon as she could, she switched to a 000. We still have the Baby Taylor , it was supposed to be mostly a travel guitar, though basically we never used it, once she got a 000. I'd say something that size could be useful for a young teenager or younger to play, but once they get to 5'1" or so they can easily handle one of the regular size small body guitars, and prefer them because they sound better.

Cymbaline · Post by **Cymbaline** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:49 pm

Well I don't know what I was thinking, the little martins seem to be really nice, probably a nicer sound than my fender acoustic.
I just have to get her fired up about playing guitar she's kind of ambiguous.

Yeah I get where youre coming from with the scale length not being an issue, my friend has smaller hands than me but he can still shred and solo way better than me.

I've tried now to get no less than 3 ladies to get serious about playing guitar maybe I'll just keep one of these on hand as a loaner guitar. I want some groovy chics in my band

And what better way than to teach them myself.

Dave · Post by **Dave** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:01 am

I have tiny hands for a 5'11" dude, as in my first girlfriend who was 5' had the same size hands. No really every one of my friends takes the piss: they are small with short fingers and my little fingers are tiny and bend in at the the end. What I'm saying is my hands are the anti- ideal for playing guitar. It's what led me to shortscales in the first place.

What I've found is that a shorter scale does help, sure, but the biggest help is actually the nut/nfretboard width. That acoustic has a 43mm nut which fills me with horror. I have a 90s squier Duo which, despite the very short scale, has a wide nut width and for chords its no easier than full size guitars. Playing lead lines that involve my pinky reaching the bottom string is a night mare. Short fingers need a slim fretboard width and preferably all the way up at the neck. Scale is totally secondary to this as a factor in my experience.

mixtape · Post by **mixtape** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 5:48 am

MMPicker wrote:From what I've observed, in my own extended family which includes three 5'1" - 5'3" guitar-playing female relatives, short scale vs. long scale for acoustics doesn't seem to be that a huge an issue for them. To the extent they play "short" it is not short like an analog to mustang/ jaguar short, it is short as analog to regular Gibson-scale short. Between them they've had a couple guitars with 25.4" scale, and I guess more with the also-common 24.9" scale. But none of them have owned anything with shorter scale than that.

What they seem to care more about is body size. They tend to prefer the 000/OM size to the larger bodied guitars. (Though they have had some of those too.) Also, their guitars have the 1-11/16" nut width, probably because they have small fingers. Whereas I personally tend to prefer 1-3/4" nut width for acoustics.

YES. I'm 5'1" and this is absolutely right. The Ovation bowlback works well for me for this reason. If I had my druthers, I'd want a narrower nut width on it as well (probably why I'm more at home on my Super-Sonic than anything else), but I manage. The biggest advantage of a shorter scale length is that it makes me look less like a six-year-old when I'm, say, playing bass.

Cymbaline wrote:I've tried now to get no less than 3 ladies to get serious about playing guitar maybe I'll just keep one of these on hand as a loaner guitar. I want some groovy chics in my band And what better way than to teach them myself.

Honestly, I don't know if you can "get" someone playing guitar and expect very promising results. To get serious about playing an instrument--and live through a year or two of sucking ass at it when you first start--you have to be passionate about music for yourself, whether that means having your mind blown by some album that makes you want to be a rock star (mine was The Wall when I was 10), or trying to match the sound of what you're hearing in your head, or whatever. Peer pressure might get someone started, but it's not going to carry them through. There's a world of difference between aspiring to be a groovy chick in someone's band and aspiring to be a dedicated musician. I wish you all the best, but at the end of the day, your cousin will play guitar--and eventually figure out what specs suit her best--if she genuinely wants to play guitar.

wadeaminute · Post by **wadeaminute** » Sun Nov 11, 2012 5:40 pm

I have the Dick Dale Malibu. Small body, thin body, (reverse) strat neck. 24.75" scale. I play a bunch of Super-Sonics, a VM Jag and a Comp Mustang (24"), and I go back and forth quite comfortably. By far my favourite acoustic.
Fender's site: DD Malibu

onedaycloser · Post by **onedaycloser** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:13 am

I recently picked up an Epiphone FT-120 acoustic, it's an old Japanese model that's 24.75 scale. Sounds lovely for such a cheap acoustic and I've got very little invested in it. Traded in a few strat type guitars that were in the closet at my Mom's, so far I'm only in those and a new bridge/strings.

MMPicker · Post by **MMPicker** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 6:56 pm

There are many guitars around with 24.75-- 24.9""scale lengths. These were the traditional standard scale lengths for Gibson acoustics and Martin 000 size acoustics. These classic models became de facto standards to which most other acoustic guitars that came after were/are modeled, to at least some extent. The other standard acoustic scale length is the 25.4" scale length featured on most of the classic Martin dreadnaughts. These became yet more common in the post WWII era, probably because they were louder. In more recent times, as everyone can "plug in" now for their volume, 24.75"-24.9" scale guitars had a resurgence and they are quite readily available these days.

George · Post by **George** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 7:05 pm

Parlours

so cool

taylornutt · Post by **taylornutt** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 7:58 pm

Taylor guitars are my favorite acoustics and they have several Shortscales.

Baby Taylor and GS Mini are both shortscale and sound great. I also have played limited edition shorter scaled full size acoustics and they played really nice. really fun to play.

paul_ · Post by **paul_** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:20 pm

MMPicker wrote:There are many guitars around with 24.75-- 24.9""scale lengths. These were the traditional standard scale lengths for Gibson acoustics and Martin 000 size acoustics. These classic models became de facto standards to which most other acoustic guitars that came after were/are modeled, to at least some extent.

This.

24.75" is not shortscale

MMPicker · Post by **MMPicker** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 4:35 am

paul_ wrote: [ This.

24.75" is not shortscale

Well it's shorter than 25.4", anyway. And in acousticland people refer to it as shortscale. The same way that people call Gibson electric scale as shortscale, as compared to [most] Fender electrics.

But, like Gibson electrics, such acoustic guitars are very common. My intended main point was, if people are going to post all the individual models they personally know about that happen to have that scale length, this will be one really long thread.

honeyiscool · Post by **honeyiscool** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:20 am

GS Mini is fantastic. I've wondered why 24" is impossible to find in acoustic, but 23.5" of the GS Mini is not far. I also think that to really improve playability, you can go for just a smaller body guitar rather than the usual dread shape, at the expense of volume reduction (not always a bad thing). A Grand Concert style guitar with lighter strings will help things greatly, but you lose a lot of sound (overall volume and bass) that way. Or really, since a GC shape looks way too much like one of those things that Kaki King-alikes would have, a Grand Auditorium style guitar is probably a better choice for many and sounds better, too (IMO). (But then again, you might as well then take it up the next notch to the Grand Symphony, like I did.)

Anyway, regarding scale, I think the Gibson scale is a good compromise for an acoustic. My Seagull Entourage is really easy to play for my tiny hands despite being a full sized dread shape. If you want playability at the expense of acoustic tone, the Yamaha APX series is a great choice.

taylornutt · Post by **taylornutt** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 3:08 pm

I really want a GS Mini, but I already have a Baby Taylor so I don't see the point for me. The GS Mini have lots of punch and volume the Baby taylors don't. I would want the GS mini with Rosewood back and sides like my Baby Taylor.

MMPicker · Post by **MMPicker** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 2:02 am

honeyiscool wrote:GS Mini is fantastic.

To each their own, but I don't find that any of these smaller boxes sound fantastic, played acoustically, compared to a good full-size guitar.

honeyiscool · Post by **honeyiscool** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:28 am

Maybe in a campfire setting, it doesn't, but in a setting where you don't need full dynamics, I think GS Mini sounds beautiful. It holds up really well in a recording, as do all Taylors, by the way.

MMPicker · Post by **MMPicker** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:56 am

It's not just a matter of full dynamics, these guitars are lacking in bass, IMO. for one thing. Anyone interested just go on Youtube and look up some examples of 000s and OMs vs. the little guys and compare yourself.

JohnnyTheBoy · Post by **JohnnyTheBoy** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:00 pm

Dave wrote:What I've found is that a shorter scale does help, sure, but the biggest help is actually the nut/nfretboard width. That acoustic has a 43mm nut which fills me with horror. Scale is totally secondary to this as a factor in my experience.

Gotta agree with you on this Dave..scale does seem to make it easier for me to play, but fingerboard width and nut width seem to be more important factors on how it plays and feels to me..I tried a New squier mustang recently and the neck felt like a baseball bat compared to my cyclone which has a slighty longer 24.75" scale , but my cyclone neck feels thinner and easier to play...

honeyiscool · Post by **honeyiscool** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:35 pm

MMPicker wrote:It's not just a matter of full dynamics, these guitars are lacking in bass, IMO. for one thing. Anyone interested just go on Youtube and look up some examples of 000s and OMs vs. the little guys and compare yourself.

But that's partly also the Taylor sound, too. Most of their guitars have that bright sound.