Jaguar vs. Mustang Necks

cobascis · Post by **cobascis** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:37 pm

I've been really liking my new 65RI neck, it is a lot deeper and chunkier than the Jag neck, which is very thin.

What type of neck shapes are these? I just realized I know nothing about necks other than scale length. Are all the MIJ Reissue Jags the same neck, all the RI Stangs?

honeyiscool · Post by **honeyiscool** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:45 pm

I just tried wrapping my hand around my MIJ Jag and my MIJ Stang and they feel pretty much the same, but huh, I never realized this before but the Jag might be slightly thinner.

Yeah, the '65 RI is kind of a perfect guitar except for the $939 price tag. Everything about it feels right except having to pay $939 for one. At its former price of $699, it was a great value, though.

Fran · Post by **Fran** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:52 pm

I think the 69RI has a thinner neck than the 65 but im not positively sure.

Tough call but i think the Mustang/Jag-Stang neck is my all time favorite.

Thom · Post by **Thom** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:06 pm

The Jag RIs all have the same neck I think and it is marginally bigger than the 69 RI Stang/Jagstang necks.
Sounds like it goes: 65 RI Stang > Jag RI > 69 RI Stang/Jagstang.
Jagstang is definitely my favourite neck of all time.

taylornutt · Post by **taylornutt** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 8:07 pm

After reading the responses I went and picked up my AVRI Sunburst Jaguar (basically new) and my 78' Musicmaster that has a 1972 Musicmaster B- Shaped neck. (vintage no finish)

The Jag neck is thinner and little bit wider (1 5/8" nut) where as the MM neck is slightly narrower (1 9/16" nut) and chunker, though not as much as later 70's necks I believe. The smaller nut width helps the MM neck not feel too thick. I really like both. The chunkier MM neck helps it not feel too small in your hand. The Jag neck feels wider and more room to operate. I have heard from many sources about the amazingness of Jag-stang necks and I hope to confirm that one day.

lorez · Post by **lorez** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 8:10 pm

my CP Jag neck was thicker than the 69RI neck but I think in dimensions there were the same (radius, nut width, 12th fret width). I prefered the 69RI neck for chugging out chords and the Jag I felt was better for lead lines/single note riffs

taylornutt · Post by **taylornutt** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 8:16 pm

lorez wrote:my CP Jag neck was thicker than the 69RI neck but I think in dimensions there were the same (radius, nut width, 12th fret width). I prefered the 69RI neck for chugging out chords and the Jag I felt was better for lead lines/single note riffs

I think all the CP Jags/Jazz were 9.5" radius were the 69RI is 7.25" I believe.

lorez · Post by **lorez** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 8:24 pm

taylornutt wrote:
lorez wrote:my CP Jag neck was thicker than the 69RI neck but I think in dimensions there were the same (radius, nut width, 12th fret width). I prefered the 69RI neck for chugging out chords and the Jag I felt was better for lead lines/single note riffs
I think all the CP Jags/Jazz were 9.5" radius were the 69RI is 7.25" I believe.

I thought they were both the same but that would explain why chords felt better on the 69RI and leads better on the Jag then.

serfx · Post by **serfx** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:48 pm

lorez wrote:
taylornutt wrote:
lorez wrote:my CP Jag neck was thicker than the 69RI neck but I think in dimensions there were the same (radius, nut width, 12th fret width). I prefered the 69RI neck for chugging out chords and the Jag I felt was better for lead lines/single note riffs
I think all the CP Jags/Jazz were 9.5" radius were the 69RI is 7.25" I believe.
I thought they were both the same but that would explain why chords felt better on the 69RI and leads better on the Jag then.

taylor hit it on the head.
the 9.5" radius is really what keeps my cp from becoming my main guitar

rlm2112 · Post by **rlm2112** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:53 pm

I've been wondering this too lately. I have come to hate the neck on my CP Jag. It is too thick, especially at the heel. Even after replacing the tune-o-matic bridge with a jag bridge, the action is still too high. I also think I'd prefer a 7.25" radius.

So what's the thinnest 7.25" radius 24" neck? If I understood the earlier posts right it's the 69 RI Mustang and Jagstang necks? I'm in the market for a different one.

Lucamo · Post by **Lucamo** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:57 pm

I have a Classic Series Mustang from the 90s, which I think has the same neck as the 69RI, it is smaller then the 65Ri, but not sure about fret board size.

endsjustifymeans · Post by **endsjustifymeans** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 10:39 pm

Lucamo wrote: which I think has the same neck as the 69RI, it is smaller then the 65Ri, but not sure about fret board size.

My favorite neck ever.

honeyiscool · Post by **honeyiscool** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:01 pm

*shrug* I think the '65 RI neck is the best neck.

I had a '69 RI and hated most things about it.

rlm2112 · Post by **rlm2112** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:31 pm

honeyiscool wrote:*shrug* I think the '65 RI neck is the best neck.

I had a '69 RI and hated most things about it.

Would you mind explaining why? How do they differ?

Fran · Post by **Fran** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:37 pm

rlm2112 wrote:
honeyiscool wrote:*shrug* I think the '65 RI neck is the best neck.

I had a '69 RI and hated most things about it.
Would you mind explaining why? How do they differ?

I remember robroe saying they are completely different guitars, could'nt comment myself as i've only had a couple of 69RIs.

honeyiscool · Post by **honeyiscool** » Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:39 pm

A few reasons:

1. Basswood is just not right for a Mustang. The tone is off, and it gets easily stripped over time and dings easily. I like basswood on basses and hardtail guitars, but on a Mustang, no. Poplar's cheap and correct. Use that. The '69 has basswood, the '65 has poplar.

2. Neck just doesn't feel quite right like the '65 does for me. This is a purely personal thing, though.

3. The saddles are undersized on a '69, and the saddles move from side to side. The '65 has the full sized saddles and they don't move. Given that one of the great things about a Mustang vs. a Jag/Jazz is the stability of the bridge, undersized saddles ruin that solid feel.

4. The control plate and the pickguard are fit flush on a '69, and over time, this can cause some issues with fit as the plastic invariably warps a bit. Although the slight gap on a '65 might look odd to some, it actually helps with fit.

5. The '69 is not shielded. The '65 has excellent shielding on all the cavities.

I think out of the box, it's not completely clear why the '65 is much superior to the '69, but to me, the '65 RI looks like it can survive 50 years. The '69 looks like it'd be lucky to make 20 years.

I so wanted to love the '69, since it has the contours that I love so much. However, I just couldn't fall in love with it. It's just made to a lower quality in my mind, and there was just a lot more random buzzing and extra noise than on a '65, which was perfect out of the box and even more perfect with a pickup change.

Lucamo · Post by **Lucamo** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:16 am

endsjustifymeans wrote:
Lucamo wrote: which I think has the same neck as the 69RI, it is smaller then the 65Ri, but not sure about fret board size.
My favorite neck ever.

Every guitar I play feels like a peice of shit compared to this... neck wise atleast.

Lucamo · Post by **Lucamo** » Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:18 am

honeyiscool wrote:A few reasons:

1. Basswood is just not right for a Mustang. The tone is off, and it gets easily stripped over time and dings easily. I like basswood on basses and hardtail guitars, but on a Mustang, no. Poplar's cheap and correct. Use that. The '69 has basswood, the '65 has poplar.

2. Neck just doesn't feel quite right like the '65 does for me. This is a purely personal thing, though.

3. The saddles are undersized on a '69, and the saddles move from side to side. The '65 has the full sized saddles and they don't move. Given that one of the great things about a Mustang vs. a Jag/Jazz is the stability of the bridge, undersized saddles ruin that solid feel.

I can't comment on the other points... but of these, (and I am going to assume I have a 69RI because the classic series is close enough.) The paint chips that are to be blamed on the litereally .5 of a mm of paint on this guitar. Basswood is light, and wood has never played a big role to me.

Maybe the classic series has a different bridge but all the saddles on mine doonot move.

BUT THE NECK. Is the Tits, no way around it. Perfectly thin and narrow just like a tiny beginners shortscale shouldbe!

PS! Isent the 69RI not sold in the US market? Or was it before? I know it is sold in Japan.

mtotallywired · Post by **mtotallywired** » Fri May 06, 2011 5:14 am

After selling off my 64 poo brown stang I had the option of picking up a minty vintage white/creamy colored 69 reissue stang for $500 or hold my horses and wait around for a deal on a 65 RI in any color. I'd played examples of both, briefly, and while the 69 was pretty nice, the 65's I'd played were SOLID. I held out and within a day found a 65 RI on ebay for $550. AMAZING guitar. Will definitely be holding onto this for a while, although I have had the kind of luck where I've been able to turn 500 guitars into $1800 ones within the course of a year, and a couple of crafty trades