attention screw counters!!!!! was the 83 namm rhoads models gibson scale?

[MEX3]

I'm gonna guess that the Jacksons are all 25.5" scale and that's why Randy liked the Les Paul so much.

[toejam]

I'm still betting 25.5", but WTF do I know?

Maybe it's 25" like a Carvin or PRS. :ROTF:

[shreddermon]

PRS does a 24.5" scale now, too. Maybe it's that?

(hic)

[GWARGHOUL]

I heard it was 22.5, like Randys favorite 60's fender student models.

[Firebird V]

hmmm. I doubt 22.5" scale but you never know.

[slo100]

One should be able to take any undistorted picture of the guitar, take a measurement of two known points (such as the width of a pickup bobbin) and extrapolate that reading to gauge the scale length. I am sure there is a software application that could be used for this purpose to get a scale measurement of the bobbin width (a known variable of @ 2 9/16") and simply do the math after "measuring" between the nut and bridge.

I did a really sloppy method using a scale ruler on my computer screen using the NAMM guitar picture and came up with 24.3485 as a scale length. Obviously not accurate but it is closer to the short scale.

My calculation was

.75" (bobbin width in the pic) = 2.563" (actual Duncan pickup bobbin width)

7.125" (nut to bridge in pic) x

x = 24.3485"

This approach could be used on any picture of any guitar (undistorted). I'll try and find a good pic of Randy's guitars and try it. Bear in mind any distortion or wacky stuff going on with the monitor and the image's appearance should, could, and would throw things out of kilter.

Whatever the case with the RR guitars, I would guess that the factory standardized on the longer scale length and simply applied it across the entire line of guitars. IF the RR guitars were indeed short scale...why was the longer scale length used as the factory standard? This would be a huge decision that would have to be made prior to any kind of production and I'd think Tim/Mike/Grover would remember this one.

Bret

[Newc]

Given they were already set up for 25.5" scale for their Charvel necks/boards (the Superstrat crowd), it makes sense they would stick with that for the production RRs just to save retooling time.

I know Grover liked the Gibson Firebird - was never really clear if he worked for Gibson at one time or what - and I know the Firebird was Gibson's only neckthrough model, but wasn't it also their only (or at least known for having) 25.5" scale?

[toejam]

and I know the Firebird was Gibson's only neckthrough model, but wasn't it also their only (or at least known for having) 25.5" scale?

Are you sure? I thought it always had the 24.75" scale.

[Firebird V]

Firebirds are Gibson scale 24.75" too.

[Newc]

Ok. For some reason I thought they were Fender scale.

So, maybe Grover went with 25.5" for the RRs to keep with the predominant Charvel format, figuring that's the market where most of the "Jackson" customers would come from.

[Firebird V]

Could be right. Everything is under the same roof/tooling/etc. so it might have been made that way just to keep it consistent.

[J.C. Harrist]

One should be able to take any undistorted picture of the guitar, take a measurement of two known points (such as the width of a pickup bobbin) and extrapolate that reading to gauge the scale length. I am sure there is a software application that could be used for this purpose to get a scale measurement of the bobbin width (a known variable of @ 2 9/16") and simply do the math after "measuring" between the nut and bridge.

I did a really sloppy method using a scale ruler on my computer screen using the NAMM guitar picture and came up with 24.3485 as a scale length. Obviously not accurate but it is closer to the short scale.

My calculation was

.75" (bobbin width in the pic) = 2.563" (actual Duncan pickup bobbin width)

7.125" (nut to bridge in pic) x

x = 24.3485"

Bret

I tried using the pickup as well, but found that the Duncans vary pretty widely in bobbin width depending on the model and application. From 2.52" all the way up to 2.75"

The bigger problem is that the guitar is sitting on a stand which tilts it back slightly and compresses the dimensions. For this method to work accurately the headstock and the body would have to be exactly the same distance from the camera.

For what it's worth, this is what I came up with in DesignCAD using a neck width of 2.25" at body joint as the scaling factor.

[Newc]

So, any response from Clegg?

[slo100]

J.C.,

I have a pretty good assortment of Duncans and the ones I measured were +/- 1/32" to 1/16" or so. I have a bunch that are very early 80's models and I attribute most of the variation to wear.

How do we know the fretboard is/was 2.25 at the body?

I agree with you on the tilt-back effect of the guitar. That would throw it off some.

Both of us came closer to the short-scale though so we may be onto something!

[sully]

man, i KNEW that a thread with the term "screw counters" in the title would bring back senor slo100! after all, he coined the term.

sean (the owner of the real guitar) said that it feels very les paul like, but that doesn't hold a ton of weight with me. he said that he'd check it when he had a chance, so i'll keep ya posted.

sully