rhoads neck versus les paul neck

[L]

If I was to have fallen in love with a 1998 les paul custom with painted neck, would I love, like, feel ambivalent towards, or hate a Rhoads w/ ebony neck? Please point out which periods of production would yield the highest sililarities.

[1959burst]

Re: rhoads neck versus les paul neck

sorry but i think they are like apples and oranges, two very different sized necks.

[Jim Shine]

Re: rhoads neck versus les paul neck

I don't know how the '98 is carved but most San Dimas era Rhoads have a sort of 'generic' Les Paul carve. There may be some San Dimas era Rhoads guitars with fat '59 Les Paul shaped necks as well. I have three San Dimas era Soloists with such a carve.

[Newc]

Re: rhoads neck versus les paul neck

I think the Zakk LPC has a thin, oiled maple neck, but the 97 RR1 I used to have had a thin neck like a King V - nowhere near a Les Paul neck.

Newc

[L]

Re: rhoads neck versus les paul neck

I think more recent Les Pauls are all over the place neck-wise, but the Custom I was talking is kinf of middle of the road as far as les paul neck shapes go. I meant taking into account the ebony fretboard, painted neck, and general shape, does it put you in the lp mood or does it remind you of anything else?

[Newc]

Re: rhoads neck versus les paul neck

Well, I can't help but play Cray Train on my white LPC, but when I play my Standard it's usually less shred, more rock [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

Newc

[shadowcat]

Re: rhoads neck versus les paul neck

Well, don't forget that the Rhoads has a longer scale than a Les Paul, 25.5" to be exact.

IMO a large part of that special feeling a Les Paul provides is the 24.75" scale.

EDIT: typo

[ June 08, 2004, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Fifth_Horseman ]

[shreddermon]

Re: rhoads neck versus les paul neck

From the Gibson and Jackson web sites:

"50s rounded" LP neck

1st fret - .818"
12th fret - .963"

"60s slim taper" LP neck

1st fret - .800
12th fret - .875

RR1 neck

3rd fret - .790
12th fret - .850

[peedenmark7]

Re: rhoads neck versus les paul neck

interesting question...I would say if you are thinking les paul taper ,no jackson would fit that bill...BUT backshapes arent that far off in some rhoads production periods...I will say I personally like a chubby clubby backshape, this can be taken the wrong way by many.. dont get me wrong, I still like/want a thinner neck than say a les paul or Sg would normally have, its the side of the neck/fretboard as they round over to the back shape that I am talking about being simlar to "real" l.p.,, '83-84 rhoads guitars have a feel very much to themselves, they arent thick they arent thin but as the sides of the neck transition over to the back, the radius seems very roundy feeling at least to me, its a very smooth undefined transition point..I like them, but not my first choice as players, my hand does get fatigued playing them over a 4-6 hour period...this does carry over on many jackson models to early '85..then the necks become much chunkier at the sides and this carries over to a good many of them until '87 early '88..having had a sh!tload of dimas jacksons , the only thing I can attribute this phenomenon to is that they were cutting corners, I know they were busy beyond busy, cause I sold them new '84-86 and it took way more time to get a new jack in 'late '85 than early '84,, I think they simply didnt take the time to shape the necks fully, if you notice many late '85-86 jacksons have slip shot paint work as well. you also see the demise of binding over frets,and not so perfect inlay work, these are all time consuming things they simply omitted in production during that time period........
so if any of that has made sense , my suggestion would be to find an '85-'86 rhoads if you want a dimas one,..... everyone I have and have had has a chunkier neck.. it does carry over to most '87-88 , .I will say I really like the early ontario jacksons backshape/tapers as players , and they are more reasonably priced than the dimas made ones...another consideration , you also dont see many string throughs during the '87-88 period, so its trem vs. string through vs. backshape that tells you what time period you want.... same guys building them, just a different location ,
hope that helps some... BTW. I'll buy all the '83-86 rhoads that come my way...eh eh eh..
best, john

[peedenmark7]

Re: rhoads neck versus les paul neck

I forgot to add the '90 and newer rhoads guitars have drastically thinner feeling necks than the earlier years... john

[toejam]

Re: rhoads neck versus les paul neck

Originally posted by shreddermon:
From the Gibson and Jackson web sites:

"50s rounded" LP neck

1st fret - .818"
12th fret - .963"

"60s slim taper" LP neck

1st fret - .800
12th fret - .875

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What about the '59 rounded neck? I believe that's also different (I believe a tiny bit thinner) than the '50s rounded neck.

I've got the '59 profile on my Studio and love it. It's beefy, but not too thick or obtrusive, and I can play fast on it just fine.

I believe ZW's guitars are the '59 profile (maple instead of mahogany) just shaved down a little and oiled.

[skidd]

Re: rhoads neck versus les paul neck

My LP has a 60's neck and feels very close to my 98 RR. But for the record I hate painted/coated necks

[shreddermon]

Re: rhoads neck versus les paul neck

Originally posted by toejam:
What about the '59 rounded neck? I believe that's also different (I believe a tiny bit thinner) than the '50s rounded neck.

I've got the '59 profile on my Studio and love it. It's beefy, but not too thick or obtrusive, and I can play fast on it just fine.

I believe ZW's guitars are the '59 profile (maple instead of mahogany) just shaved down a little and oiled.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I didn't bother to list it. According to Gibson's web site, the '59 profile on the Studios has the same measurements as the "50s rounded" profile. Since the thickness is the same, I'd suspect the only difference might be the backshape. I'm no LesPaul expert, though.

[toejam]

Re: rhoads neck versus les paul neck

Hmm, I thought there was a third '50s profile. Maybe it was a '58 or something I'm thinking of. [img]graemlins/scratchhead.gif[/img]

[Jim Shine]

Re: rhoads neck versus les paul neck

Jackson most definately offered a 'chubby' shape atleast in late 1984-early 1985. I am sure it was an option, but they certainly do exist. J0233, J0440, and (J) RR0632 each have that thick neck carve unlike the 'standard' Jackson profile. It kind of feels like a cross between a '59 Les Paul neck and a '60-61 Fender neck carve. It has the broad width in the shoulders of the Fender neck with similar beef in the spine of a '59 Les Paul neck and is carved in a deep U profile.