anyone know the neck profile for 70s mustangs?

astrozombie · Post by **astrozombie** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 3:47 pm

id like to find out what it is, every time i pick up my 78 stang and then play my jaguar special, its like switching from a baseball bat to a guitar with a ruler for a neck. i like the chunkier neck.

Mages · Post by **Mages** » Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:17 pm

there's some discussion about it in this thread:

http://shortscale.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40323

Phil O'Keefe · Post by **Phil O'Keefe** » Sun Jun 05, 2011 4:27 am

Yeah, I don't think you can make any across the board rules about Fender necks from the 70s; they're a bit inconsistent. I've had (and played) several 70s era Fenders, and some had relatively thin and (IMO) very comfortable necks, and others had much bigger necks. Four neck widths were available: A-D. An A is 1.5" wide, and they go up in 1/8" increments from there. The 1 5/8" B Width necks are by far the most common.

Then there's the neck profile, which can have a big influence on how it "feels" too. The most common profiles are C, V and U shaped. My '71 Mustang is not a super-slim necked guitar, but it has a relatively thin shouldered "C" profile, which makes it feel trimmer. I have a beautiful 8 AUG 65 B neck that I found on Ebay and that only lasted 5 minutes on a guitar before I took it off - it has a relatively thick shouldered U shaped profile that is far less comfortable for my stubby fingers. My '75 Music Master's B Width, C profile neck is almost unbelievably trim and comfortable - even smaller and faster feeling than the '71's neck, and very similar to the highly regarded Jagstang and mid-90s MIJ Mustang necks. And of course, we have reports in this very thread of a Music Master from '78 with the exact opposite - a large, chunky feeling neck.

The last time I tried one of those Jaguar HH Specials in a store a year or two ago, I thought the neck wasn't anything particularly unusual. It wasn't as thin as I might have wanted, but it didn't feel like a baseball bat either. It definitely didn't feel small to me. Your Mileage, and your guitar, May Vary.

taylornutt · Post by **taylornutt** » Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:31 am

Haze mentioned the neck on his 78' Musicmaster was very chunky. My 78' Musicmaster has a 72' Musicmaster neck which is the B profile. I think the later 70's had the chunkier necks.

stewart · Post by **stewart** » Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:51 am

taylornutt wrote:I think the later 70's had the chunkier necks.

again, simply not true from my experience. you can't lay down a generalisation like this with vintage fender necks because they vary so wildly.

taylornutt · Post by **taylornutt** » Sun Jun 05, 2011 3:13 pm

stewart wrote:
taylornutt wrote:I think the later 70's had the chunkier necks.
again, simply not true from my experience. you can't lay down a generalisation like this with vintage fender necks because they vary so wildly.

I am simply referring to the 70's Mustang style necks I have come in contact with. CBS Fender was anything but consistent.

stewart · Post by **stewart** » Sun Jun 05, 2011 4:11 pm

you're asserting something as fact that isn't, and it can be misleading to someone who doesn't know better. there are big variations in pre CBS neck profiles too, they were essentially shaped by hand.

with vintage necks, if you're choosy, aim to try it first rather than going by year or you could end up being very disappointed.

robroe · Post by **robroe** » Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:32 pm

or if you have extra money, buy a jag stang, take the neck off it. put it on your guitar,and throw out any thing that isnt a jag stang neck

ploppy · Post by **ploppy** » Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:16 pm

So, what necks were the jagstang necks based on?

stewart · Post by **stewart** » Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:00 pm

who knows if they were based on anything *insert kurtdz myth here*. the jagstang necks i've played have felt remarkably similar to the 1978 musicmaster neck i used to own, whatever that's worth.

Phil O'Keefe · Post by **Phil O'Keefe** » Mon Jun 06, 2011 6:44 pm

ploppy wrote:So, what necks were the jagstang necks based on?

I'm not certain that any specific neck was modeled for that guitar, but in the original sketches / photo collages for it, Kurt specifically requested a "very thin neck."

http://www.jag-stang.com/guitars/jagsta ... g-history/

Wiki's Jag-stang entry says the guitar's neck was shaped to exactly match one of Kurt's favorite necks (from a unspecified Mustang), but as far as which one, or whether or not that was actually done, I don't know for certain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fender_Jag-Stang

I have a '94 MIJ Mustang neck that is every bit as trim as my mid 70s Music Master neck. Absolutely a fantastic neck for someone with smaller hands or who prefers a thin (but not overly narrow - it's a B width) neck.

astrozombie · Post by **astrozombie** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 2:14 am

So B is the chunkier profile? A is 1/2 and B is 5/8 right?

if i was going to order a neck from say, warmoth, what would come closest? 59 style neck?

Mages · Post by **Mages** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 6:48 am

B is not a profile, it's a width. I think people mentioning the the B width necks just mean the regular C profile necks you find on most earlier mustangs. it seems the 70s necks were a bit hit or miss with some crafted to the older C profile and some the chunkier 70s U profile.

Post by **Mike** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 8:19 am

The general consensus of the "heft" of 70s necks probably comes more from the fact that 70s Reissues Fender makes these days feature them.

Having said that my '72 Competition Mustang has a nice clubby neck.

benecol · Post by **benecol** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:17 am

... which matches your foot perfectly.

Post by **Mike** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:31 am

HAR

decalsbitch

robroe · Post by **robroe** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:50 pm

i am uploading a video review i took of a 1973 Mustang in buttrock red that i played in Louisville when i was there 2 weeks ago. the neck on it is fucking FAT AS FUCK while still being a 24" scale neck. its crazy. they only wanted 800 for it. the brand new mustang RI hanging on the wall a couple of guitars down was 900. hahaha thats total bullshit showing how much these new guitars are overpriced. the 73 felt solid as fuck even by my standards of picking up and trying out everything i see.

robroe · Post by **robroe** » Tue Jun 07, 2011 12:59 pm

[youtube][/youtube]

Phil O'Keefe · Post by **Phil O'Keefe** » Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:26 pm

Mages wrote:B is not a profile, it's a width. I think people mentioning the the B width necks just mean the regular C profile necks you find on most earlier mustangs. it seems the 70s necks were a bit hit or miss with some crafted to the older C profile and some the chunkier 70s U profile.

Again, I don't think you can definitively say 70s necks are U shaped and 60s necks are C shaped. I have a mid 60s neck here that most definitely has a chunky U profile, and a mid 70s neck that is a very slim C profile. 70s necks definitely are inconsistent in my experience, and while I'm not convinced that 60s necks are more consistent, there were some with larger necks from that era too.

My advice with Fender USA's 24" scale necks is to "try before you buy" - especially if you're picky about having one profile or another.

As far as neck widths, yes, the B width (1 5/8") is by far the more popular width. The A width (1 1/2") is probably the second most popular; especially for short scale guitars. While I love slim-shouldered neck profiles (thin C and V shaped profiles) and "thin" necks (measured front to back, from fingerboard to the center of the back of the neck), I'm generally not a fan of "skinny necks" - the narrow A width - while it does help to make the neck "smaller" feeling, it spaces the strings way too close together and makes it very difficult to get your fingertips in on individual strings without accidentally partially fretting, "buzzing" or muting other strings.