ShortScale.org

Red ss jaguar ftw.

Gavin wrote:haet t-o-m on jag >:^x

It works great, actually.

I've never actually tried it, so I probably shouldn't moan; but it's got a flat radius, I hate it when people set their string height flat on a guitar with a curvy radius and from what I've heard the t-o-m sits pretty high in the cups meaning that you have to shim the neck to get rid of some horrific action. I'm generally against neck shimming as a rule.

All of that is pretty much wrong. And you have some facts completely wrong

The neck on the Classic Players is 9.5". It actually feels really good, Hurb has played more Jaguars than anyone, Vintage and Modern, and he really liked it.

The TOM Radius on the Classic Player is 9.5". It matches the neck.

The classic player neck pocket is also angled to accomodate the bridge, no shim is necessary. The guitar is set up to have the hardware it does and it works great.

A jag with a 9.5" radius? Ew.

Watch as Gavin talks about something he has never experienced, he's just liek McClownFace.

I don't need to play a Jag with a flat radius to know that I don't like them on any guitar.

Mike wrote:Watch as Gavin talks about something he has never experienced, he's just liek McClownFace.

Lol... you just reminded me of this:
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch?e=20090306151024478
from when I was on JS.suck

i have to admit i'm still a n00b to things like neck radii, only because i just know things by "feel"...and of all the jags i've played, they've all "felt" the same to me...are do jags have different radii?

Gavin wrote:I don't need to play a Jag with a flat radius to know that I don't like them on any guitar.

9.5" is not flat, you muppet. 12" and above is flat, and how it feels is also hugely dependent upon the profile of the neck. You are looking like a fool in this thread. You haven't played one, so you shouldn't be dismissing it out of hand - that's close-minded and pathetic.

Lol, I have played 9.5" before and I prefer lower. Some girls are referred to as flat chested but they don't actually have flat chests. I'd buy guitars with flatter radi than that if I like the rest of the guitar enough, but why would I get a Jaguar with a flatter radius when I prefer the radius it already has. No thakye to a Jag with a t-o-m and a flatter radius.

The CP Jags are certainly player friendly with all the mods... there is a noticeable difference with the radius but I don't see many being put off by it.

St. Jimmy wrote:i have to admit i'm still a n00b to things like neck radii, only because i just know things by "feel"...and of all the jags i've played, they've all "felt" the same to me...are do jags have different radii?

Normally it's 7.25 (vintage, Japanese re-issue, AVRI), but the new MIM Classic Players have 9.5.

Gavin wrote:Lol, I have played 9.5" before and I prefer lower. Some girls are referred to as flat chested but they don't actually have flat chests. I'd buy guitars with flatter radi than that if I like the rest of the guitar enough, but why would I get a Jaguar with a flatter radius when I prefer the radius it already has. No thakye to a Jag with a t-o-m and a flatter radius.

Try reading posts. If you knew anything about guitar necks you would know it is the combination of radius and profile that results in the playing feeling. The same feel of neck can be manifested in various different combinations of profile and radius.

7.25" radius is not the be all and end-all of the Fender experience, in fact it is much more prone to fretbuzz with a lower action than other radiuses. You're bitching something out that you have never played, and that makes you a fool. I've played a lot of Jaguars and I have a Duo-Sonic II with a 7.25" radius. My Telecaster and Jag are 9.5". They all play great, but the Jaguar I have is much more suited to the aggressive rhythm playing I do than a CIJ.

Jaysus Mike, go have a cup of tea or something. I'm no expert but I do know how the feel of different neck radius feels. It feels flatter. I don't like it when it feels flatter. You and other people may feel differently about that but that's the way I feel about it. End of.

Not end of, because you haven't played this neck, so you should not comment upon it. It's quite simple, Gavin.

Ok, just for ewe Mike, I'm going to hold my opinion of this one neck until I play it.

That probably would have been the thing to do in the first place, rather than be all "EWWW FLAT RADIUS ON JAG", especially when the radius is not flat by any stretch. I can feel a flat radius (I sold the compound neck Warmoth made for my Mustang because I didn't specify any because it did not feel right to me), and this does not fall into that classification. Equally a flatter radius on a thick curved clubby profile can feel completely different and much more playable, for example the neck on the '72 Telecaster Deluxe Reissue, which is a big profile with a 12" radius, it doesn't feel flat on account of the large neck.

I loved that neck, I loved the neck on Hurb's (formerly Aen's) '69 Jaguar which is 7.25" and I love the neck on my MIM Jaguar.

This is why just saying "that's dumb" or "I won't like it" is stupid, because it's not flat, and the bridge is not flat, and it does not need shimming.

what are the advantages?

... flatter radius fretboards are less susceptible to fret buzz & chocking notes on bends, you can also achieve a lower action because of this. Just look at the metal guitars !!

Along with the other mods on the CP Jag.. I think this was another sensible decision.