Finally got around to trying out some 2015 Gibsons in Andertons today whilst putting together a new pedalboard. I could probably live with the zero-fret nut, but not the necks. Awful things! Wide for the sake of being wide for no gain in string spacing.
I've got a 2014 Melody Maker Les Paul (2 P-90's), which has a nice feeling 50's neck and came very well set up. It's a bit chunkier than my 1995 LP but still very comfortable. But their current necks just feel plain awkward and put you off playing. Don't know which part of Gibson management instigated the change but they were obviously working undercover for a competitor.
No wonder they aren't selling so there are a lot of discounts. But even at half-price (or even a quarter of price), for me they wouldn't be worth it. What a waste of wood!
Part of the reason there are so many being discounted is that many players dislike the automatic tuning (at least on the Les Pauls, my luthier pal is removing them on an almost weekly basis). Haven't played one yet though so I can't comment about the necks but my Emerald has a neck similar to what you describe, wider than it need be to accommodate the chosen string spacing. It is also a little chunkier than I like but that's more a matter of personal preference. Anyway the neck is the only thing about the guitar that I have any issue with and I'm not finding it hard to live with. Changing the profile on a CF guitar is probably a more major operation than on a wooden one as it would require a new mould to be made, you can't just shave it a bit thinner
It must be a conscious decision for whatever reason, the parts of a standard LP/SG or WHY will be made to a template (or for most non-boutique guitars these days CNC machined) so they won't be a couple of mm bigger by accident or natural variation.....
I've been told that 2016 will see slimmer necks. Of course the 2015 necks will suit some people; I've just discovered two such people elsewhere, but then they didn't like the standard Gibson necks.
Do you think it might be so that they can sell a regular spec instrument for a lot more money? Just being cynical I know but read the description on this one.
Difficult to tell if they are charging more, because the standard 2015 ones now have discounted prices. But it's hard to see how they can charge more for a guitar that has less.
Mmmm, well, I like a chunky neck, I love the robot tuners... and they're being heavily discounted? Maybe time for me to look into that LP Junior I've always thought about...
I'd say wide but fairly slim. It's not 'chunky' in the '50s Gibson or Fender baseball bat neck sense. It may well suit some people but it's a big departure from something that was an industry norm.
More a nose-picker's neck, as they didn't increase rhe string spacing at the nut, just the fingerboard width all the way up. Gives you a bit of space to store your 12-bar bogies.
Looks like it's back to normal. Normal nuts, standard width necks and Grover tuners, not G-force. They seem to have lost the coil tapping on the LPs as well, which I think is a shame.
Funny thing is that most likely these current SNAFUs by Gibson will probably become the next fad 40 yeas down the line, like people are killing over the "NOCASTER" and other abominations of yore.
And if you've got big fingers a relatively inexpensive new nut and a setup to increase the string spacing and Robert is your relative
This has got me thinking, my Emerald X7 has a slightly wider, chunkier D shaped neck than my preferred shallow C shapes ('75 Les Paul, '90's Korean Strat) but the string spacing seems more or less standard. I'll get the vernier calliper out and measure it up. Maybe a new nut would improve things. The X7 has so many other good points that I'm not bothered by the neck but it's in the nature of us guitar players to chase rainbows.
Sam Spoons wrote:And if you've got big fingers a relatively inexpensive new nut...
It may not be quite that easy as they have that zero fret nut.
That 'zero fret' may be flat (and it looks it in that photo), but if it's rounded, then a standard replacement nut would be a bit too far forwards. You'd then need a custom one with a step in it to move the main nut part back very slightly. Do-able, but if you're not into guitar DIY, then you'd need a luthier to cut a nut for you.
Fair comment Wonks but it's easy enough to see hands on, and an ebony/rosewood/bone fillet would not be too difficult or expensive. Any half decent luthier/tech wouldn't break a sweat. Any way you cut it, a genuine, US made Les Paul for under £800 is a good deal even if you factor in a new nut and machine heads (if you hate the G-Force tuners).
And now.... bugger.... I'm really tempted by one of these
BTW, my Emerald is normal at the nut so it must be the slightly chunkier shoulders to the neck that make everything feel a bit further away. No worries though, I had stopped noticing TBH.
