Official Luthiers Forum!

Most posts over the years i have seen poo-pooh the idea that larger hands would be better served with a wider neck width and to some point i agree. You certainly can learn to play on whatever you learn on... but does that mean it is the optimal size?

I'd like to see if there's any correlation between hand size and preferred neck width mainly because i will soon be building the neck for my first guitar and with hands that are probably on the larger size and i want to consider whether it might be better to go with a wider than normal neck.

I don't know if there are any scientific measurements to take but i am thinking of a couple that make sense:

Here's mine:
- from meat of pinkie to meat of the index finger spread wide: 6.5 inches.
- From a point along the thumb where the web to the index finger touches to the tip of the index finger: 6.25 inches.

I don't think this one makes sense from a playing standpoint but who knows what tonal qualities large hands impart...
from pinkie tip to thumb tip 9.75 inches.

I don't have a favorite neck width. I know what i play now seems a bit crowded. 1 3/4. That's my excuse and i'm sticking width it.

On an electric, I like about 1.8" at the nut (Les Paul + 1/8")
My hands are small. but I like the extra wiggle room.

_________________
wah
Wah-wah-wah-wah
Wah

According to a quick internet search, my hands are almost precisely average in size and I certainly enjoy a 1.75 inch nut more than I do a 1.65. But that 10th of an inch is enough to require some getting used to when switching back and forth. I don't think my optimum would be much beyond that!

Would be useful to try a few similar guitars with slightly different nut widths though. It's one of the great things about a commissioned guitar, surely? That you get your dream instrument to your own chosen specs!

My take on it is that the 1 11/16 standard has been around for a long time. Back then men averaged about 5'-7". They are much larger now. I think a wider standard neck is in order.

_________________
Joe Beaver
Maker of Sawdust

And were't the really narrow necks an attempt at converting banjo players?

depends on what you want to play. if you are a jazz chord monster who sits, then classical style wide-n-flat works. if you are jimmy page and play with the neck down at your knees and bend strings, a neck like that won't work so well...and so on

I have had to build a neck for a customer that had unusually small hands and insisted she needed a narrower and thinner neck. It didn't seem to improve her playing though. I then showed her that youtube clip with the korean kids all playing full size guitars with tiny hands. She stopped complaining.

_________________
Martin Taylor
http://martintaylorguitars.com.au

I have average sized hands I guess. I don't really care for the 1 3/4" nuts on pre-1939 Martin's. Just a bit too wide for me. The 1 11/16" nut on post 1939 Martin's are fine and seem to be standard now. Recently I got to play a Grammar guitar that had a thin 1 5/8" nut and it felt great. If I ever build a guitar for myself that's what I would use. 1 5/8" nut and a narrow spacing at the bridge as well..2 1/16" or so.

It's all personal preference obviously and depends on what you are doing with the guitar. I like the feel of a thin neck, and I mostly play accompaniment- rhythmic strumming, so I like the quicker attack and less work involved with a tighter string spacing. Someone who does mostly fingerpicking might like a wider string spacing.

Yeah...kids can play on a wider neck. and maybe with my hands i could play on a 3" neck. That wasn't the point.

At 6' 5" i would not use the same golf clubs as someone 5' 2". Yeah, I COULD, but should i?

It sounds like this is really an opinion topic and not something that has been researched?

I have the triple-whammy of hands: Big palms and short fat fingers. It doesn't matter what size the neck is - it doesn't fit...

put it this way: i've never heard the best players talk much about scale length or neck width- it seems to be an "excuse", as you said, that beginners lay awake over at night worrying about. if cramped is what you are sensing, then i'd sit in a music store and spend a whole lot of time on instruments that have wider nuts and see if that really does much for you. if not, then, best to stay in "standard" sizes so, at the very least, you can sell it some day.
erring larger will be better than erring smaller though...
i dabble around with a mandolin, a violin, a 3/4 cello, an electric bass, a strat, an electric baritone, and various nylon string guitars with different necks, and while i am terrible at most of them, i am never thinking "its because it is too small/too large, if only it was a few mm different i would be so much better at this!"....

I have big hands--from the tip of my thumb to the tip of my pinky is 10"--I wear a 3xl glove. I really prefer a 1 13/16" nut. How the width feels, though, also depends on the neck profile. A semi-V neck with hardly any cheeks, can make a neck with a wide fingerboard seem quite small and playable. I have sold quite a few guitars with the 1 13/16" nut to small people with small hands. Perceived (and comfortable) width depends on more than the fingerboard width. And, of course, there's personal preference.

Wait a minute. From the tip of your thumb to the tip of your pinky is 10"? I guess that is with your hand spread? Must be. Otherwise it would be really big, as in polar bear big. Makes sense now.

_________________
Joe Beaver
Maker of Sawdust

imo there are basically 3 styles of play: cowboy (thumb over top), classical (thumb on center) and cradle (free thumb with the neck supported by the middle of the hand) everything starts here. play with the player and observe the style. determine whether the style was driven by the guitar or the player plays every guitar this way.are they comfortable or get fatigued after a while? sitting or standing also effects the style of play. optimal size is determined by individual body mechanics not cookie cutter numbers.

I am not suggesting there's a magic formula, but it seems practical that some sort of allowance makes sense to help extract the best performance.

I agree that practice is 99.99% of the issue, but we take such pains to make sure a bat isn't too big for the batter, and use different sized equipment for different sized people and genders...

I guess it's my own experience with cars. YEah, i drove a chevy chevette with my 6' 5" frame and i swear that led to some back issues. Most cards do not accomodate me well. I drove an expedition that i still had to crane forward to see the stop light change because i sat too far back and it would be hidden by the roof. Could i drive as well as anyone? Sure, but i had to make accommodations to do it.

Just seems to me that the hand to neck ratio would have at least as much to do with the final output as does changing my bridge pins from plastic to bone.

I suppose i can always build another neck if i someday find a larger width suits me better. Maybe i need to make it a bolt-on?

I have huge hands too, and prefer 1 7/8" nut width. I can play down to 1 3/4" if I keep my left hand nails trimmed, but 1 11/16" I start bumping neighboring strings even with short nails. Haven't tried 1 13/16", but I imagine it would be nice and comfy too.

for me the test is whether i can play a first position A maj without screwing up my fingers like a bonsai tree. this is a factor of nut width, string spacing, and neck depth. i'm 6' 7'' but my hands are like a surgeon's. i get the best general play-ability for my style with a nut width of 1.875 and a vee profile.

i suggest making a mock neck section as a prototype. make it from the nut to the 5th fret. start from the largest size you think would work and trim down from there. i have a guitar going on right now that a reduction of .010 off the back was quickly noticed by the player. cut some fret slots loose so you can pull them out, put a nut on it and attach some strings to a mock headstock. this way you can adjust width, fretboard radius, shaft profile and string spacing. action is a factor too with higher= more strength, more curvature of the fingers and more leverage required vs. a lower action. prototype first -it will save you a bunch of work when you go to final.

Playing style is definitely a key element to this. I have smallish hands, but I love a wider neck with a medium c profile for a lot of the playing that I do. Problem is, I can't fret bass notes with my thumb cleanly on a neck like that, which restricts me and removes techniques like Travis picking from my arsenal in certain positions up the neck. So I end up opting for narrower v shape necks just to facilitate that technique, even though by and large I don't like the feel as much. But it's the only way I can thumb the bass notes above the fifth fret. Life is a series of compromises.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cowboy style is just wrong. I think Fender started this trend when they came out with the narrow board and small radius on electrics.

_________________
wah
Wah-wah-wah-wah
Wah

Thumb over is a useful tool in the arsenal. I use it at certain times, like when the other 4 fingers are occupied and I still want to fret a note on the bass string. I don't play electrics and my necks are 1 3/4" or 1 13/16" at the nut. I suspect the technique has been used as a convenience by many players for many years before Leo came on the scene.

_________________
Steve Smith
"Music is what feelings sound like"

Well, I have been playing for over 30 years, and have my opinions on this subject:

- Thumb Over: Try playing Country Blues like the guys from the 20's/30's NOT doing thumb over - especially on the F.
- I find Neck thickness and shape to be way more impacting to comfort to neck width, assuming not too narrow. I have guitars from 1 11/16 to 1 7/8, and i have no problems switching between them with a few minutes of "adjustment".
- Personally, I like "V" shaped necks, and find them much more comfortable than "C" or "D"

Bottom Line, it IS a matter of opinion. I am not sure how any research can come up with a conclusion that will lump physical characteristics to personal preference.

Glenn