Announcement

**parntz145** · 02-19-2003, 08:07 PM

Re: Newer Necks vs. Late 80\'s Necks

HI,I have a two dk1 and I believe the necks are a little thicker from front to back than the jem.Christ I played a jem so long ago im trying to remember.What i remember about the jem necks are they are thin front to back but have a high profile. The dinky is not as narrow as the jem.And yes a soloist neck is thicker than a dinky.I love both and could not pick one over the other the soloist and the dinky both have a great feeling to them.Hope this helps you paul.

**JDA** · 02-19-2003, 08:16 PM

Re: Newer Necks vs. Late 80\'s Necks

Thanks to you guys!

Dinky vs. Soloist neck.

Is the Dinky neck unfinished on the back and the soloist is painted?

Through the years it seems I've always favored the bolt on neck, but I'm sure both are great necks.

I think I would favor an unpainted neck, but a thicker one. If the soloist is thicker is it due to the paint that's on the back or is it the wood itself?

Any thoughts on the new vs old Jackson bolt on necks?

Thanks!

**slayer** · 02-19-2003, 08:22 PM

Re: Newer Necks vs. Late 80\'s Necks

Dinky-Flat/Thin neck. Soloist-Medium Rounded neck. I have played both of the newer models of each and ordered the SL2H because of the rounder/thicker neck and the neck-thru design.Soloists come with painted necks, unless you go custom shop. Jack.

[ February 19, 2003, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: slayer ]

**JDA** · 02-19-2003, 08:31 PM

Re: Newer Necks vs. Late 80\'s Necks

Thanks for the quick replies!

Do you guys happen to know the actual weight of the Dinky and Soloist guitars?

I'm dealing with some back problems and this would be an important factor to me.

Thanks!

**charvel750** · 02-19-2003, 11:21 PM

Re: Newer Necks vs. Late 80\'s Necks

Not all Soloist necks are thicker than Dinky necks. Furthermore, in the specs list they might show a difference but I have not been able to feel that difference when playing them. Since cat...err...Dross is back on the JCF, I'm not at liberty to divulge the number of Jacksons in my ownership, however, let me say that I've sampled enough to know what I know. The late 80's was a good time for Jackson necks in that the profiles were extremely comfortable and ultra thin. Many of the neck throughs of the time are just like butter. It's all really a matter of opinion though, if I told you that a certain neck was thin, you might find it to be fat.

**IRM** · 02-20-2003, 12:47 AM

Re: Newer Necks vs. Late 80\'s Necks

I've never weighed my jackson SL2H(alder w/maple top), but I also have a fender american Fat strat(ash) and my fender is noticeably heavier. If you can handle a strat's weight you shouldn't have much of a problem with a soloist.

**JDA** · 02-20-2003, 03:27 PM

Re: Newer Necks vs. Late 80\'s Necks

Thanks IRM!

I was hoping they weren't too heavy like a Les Paul and no more than a strat.

charvel750,
That's interesting on the neck thickness issue. Is Jackson inconsitent like Fender. I know on the Fender American Series necks they tend to vary in thickness too. I know a lot has to do with the final sanding on the back of the neck, but that makes it scary when you by mail order vs. being able to buy one in person.

It's tuff when you don't have a dealer near by to try them out for yourself.

Thanks

**IRM** · 02-20-2003, 04:03 PM

Re: Newer Necks vs. Late 80\'s Necks

When I got my SL2H it took a tiny bit of getting used to the neck compared to my fender neck, but after about a few days I was totally comfortable on it. It was definitely a little different than my fender neck, maybe a lttle thinner, but it wasn't different enough to cause any problems, in fact I like the soloist neck a little better(for shredding at least). It seemed way more comfortable, and maybe a little thicker and more fenderish than ibanezes(RGs) i've played(though I;ve never tried a JEM).
If you liked the strat a soloist should be real comfortable. For me, the only thing that took some getting used to on the soloist was the finished neck.

[ February 20, 2003, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: IRM ]

**pro-fusion** · 02-20-2003, 04:23 PM

Re: Newer Necks vs. Late 80\'s Necks

The only J/C's I've played with necks as thin as an Ibanez 'wizard' neck are the Fusion and Stealth models. All of the other bolt-on J/C's I've played have thin necks, but not THAT thin. Of course, I like thin necks...

**xenophobe** · 02-21-2003, 05:12 AM

Re: Newer Necks vs. Late 80\'s Necks

JDA, no Jackson necks do vary from guitar to guitar of like models for similar years... All Jackson USA necks are milled to a template, then hand finished, so yes, some necks do tend to have a different feel to them... They all feel rather good, IMO, and they're all relatively consistent.

The neck profiles do seem to get thicker sometime in 90's. I really don't own any USA Select Jacksons, so some of my guitars might have had specific neck backshapes ordered.

The two thinnest necks I have, one is an 84 SD Soloist, the other is a '95 Warrior... and their profiles are identical. As thin, probably thinner than a Stealth neck (haven't played a stealth in a while, so I don't quite remember).

Then getting a bit larger would be two of my bolt ons, a '87 pointy strat and '89 Strathead dinky, (the latter is my favorite player)

And my thickest ones would be my Archtop (which I may end up sending back to Jackson to mod)

They all play wonderfully, but my Archtop is just a bit too thick. I was actually having trouble keeping up to pace with our set, though it sounded unbelievable. [img]images/icons/frown.gif[/img] I dunno what to do about this one...

**Thoraby** · 02-21-2003, 09:58 AM

Re: Newer Necks vs. Late 80\'s Necks

They all play wonderfully, but my Archtop is just a bit too thick. I was actually having trouble keeping up to pace with our set, though it sounded unbelievable. I dunno what to do about this one...

Give it to me½ [img]graemlins/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

**xenophobe** · 02-21-2003, 02:12 PM

Re: Newer Necks vs. Late 80\'s Necks

Originally posted by Thoraby:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />They all play wonderfully, but my Archtop is just a bit too thick. I was actually having trouble keeping up to pace with our set, though it sounded unbelievable. I dunno what to do about this one...

Give it to me½ [img]graemlins/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img] <hr /></blockquote>Uh...

NO! [img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

**MarkW** · 02-21-2003, 02:42 PM

Re: Newer Necks vs. Late 80\'s Necks

Hi, folks. Hope it's OK contributing on this topic. It's one close to my heart, although my example is actually in relation to the late 80s Japanese through-neck Charvels (Model 6) that were essentially mass-produced foreign-made Jackson Soloist copies.

I have one which I love dearly, but which poses the same dilemma for me as "Xenophobe" has with his Archtop - although it plays very smoothly (I don't mind the finished neck at all), there's something about the neck profile that makes it tiring to play for me.

The neck isn't any wider than I'm used to, and the shape of the back of the neck is thin (a C-shape). But whereas on other (cheaper) guitars I have I can wrap my left hand comfortably around the neck so as to feel very in control (e.g. to apply vibrato by a nicely controlled wrist rotation), on the Jackson/Charvel my hand simply won't get round so far (e.g. if I play a first fret F chord by playing the bottom E string with my thumb instead of as a full barre chord, not all the strings will sound cleanly). So I end up with my thumb in a classical (back of the neck) position more often and with my left hand fingers more at right angles to the fingerboard. Because of that, the whole playing action seems looser and less in control; speed is impaired by hand position shifts; and my hand tires because of the constant stretching of the hand.

Is this normal?? I have quite large hands, so to someone with smaller hands they must get the same sort of problems playing any smaller necked-instrument. How do they cope? Maybe you just get used to it?? I've found it a sufficient problem that I've bought myself a second Charvel (a 1995 San Dimas Standard with a totally different neck altogether - bolt on and thin) to use as my main instrument. But like "Xenophobe", I'd never get rid of the Model 6 - it's a work of art and a piece of history. But I'd really like to be able to play it as well as just look at it!

Any thoughts or tips?

Cheers

Mark

**Sunbane** · 02-21-2003, 04:41 PM

Re: Newer Necks vs. Late 80\'s Necks

I can't offer any help in regards to the topic, but I thought I'd just reply to MarkW...

Being someone with small hands and short and stubby fingers, I've always had problems having good reach across the high frets. Stretches are a pain and I've always had problems with scale runs, arpeggios, etc - which probably is the reason that my rhythm playing is much more developed than my lead playing.

I favor thin and narrow necks. Granted, the Jackson necks aren't what I'd call narrow (not like a Gibson V for instance), but the thinness makes up for a lot of it. I'd rather have a thin and wide neck than a narrow and loggy one.

Having gained a larger interest in lead playing, I've had to find techniques that work for me, i.e: a minimal amount of stretches and position shifts. So far I've focused on building strong alternate picking with fixed scale runs and string skipping. I also think my vibrato technique is different to most others, since I accomplish it using my fingers rather than the wrist - pulling down on the string rather than up. When I have to do a vibrato with my index or middle finger, I found that this works the best.

There are two drawbacks to this: I have to alter the angle of the finger somewhat to get a good grip on the string, which slows me down...and it tends to crack my nails after a while (I get the best grip on the string with the edge of my nail placed diagonally across the string), which can be painful. I'm trying to weane myself off of using the nails tho'... =P

'bane

Announcement

Newer Necks vs. Late 80's Necks

Newer Necks vs. Late 80's Necks

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment