Official Luthiers Forum!

Hi All,

I have a few sets of plans for classical guitars and they show neck thicknesses of 21 to 22 mm at the first fret location and 23 to 25 mm at the 9th fret location. On the neck I am currently carving I'm OK at the first fret position but I've gone too thin around the ninth fret and will probably end up around 22mm thick. Do you think this will still be OK or do I need to start over and make a new neck (it's a bolt-on so it's separate from the guitar body)?

Thanks,
Pat

_________________
There are three kinds of people:

Those that make things happen,
those that watch things happen,
and those that wondered what happened.

My favorite guitar as far as playability is a Sakazo Nakade classical 1968, which is 20.7 at the first fret and 21.5mm at the ninth. This is at the thin end of the spectrum though.

It will be fine. My 3rd has a neck that's 21 at the nut and 22 at the 9th, and it is a great neck to play. Very easy player. 25 is a really thick size. I really like something in the 23 to 24 range at the 9th fret.

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

Yep. Them's all good numbers IMO. It really depends on who the guitar is for and what kind of feel they'd like the neck to have.

Cheers,
Dave F.

_________________
Cambrian Guitars

"There goes Mister Tic-Tac out the back with some bric-brac from the knick-knack rack"

Thanks for the reassurance. I figured it would be OK as the neck is still pretty close to what I would have on a steel string guitar. In fact, on the thicker end, the classical guitar necks seem to be thicker than steel string guitar necks and why this should be so has me puzzled. While worrying about my current neck I thought of several reasons why a classical guitar neck could be thinner than a steel string guitar neck. What I came up with are:

1) Nylon strings pull with less tension than steel strings (single biggest reason).
2) A classical guitar neck is wider, so even if it is a little thinner, overall there is still more cross-section.
3) A classical guitar fretboard is usually flat, or close to flat so, again more cross-section.
4) At 12 frets to the body, compared to 14, the "free" neck is shorter so less torque.

So given the above, why is it that classical guitar necks are about the same overall thickness as steel string guitar necks, i.e. why aren't they able to be thinner?

Pat

_________________
There are three kinds of people:

Those that make things happen,
those that watch things happen,
and those that wondered what happened.

Pat-
My guess is that even though they can be thinner, players prefer them at the more typical widths. I know I've read complaints about some necks being 'too thin' ....
As my hands get a bit more 'creaky' with age, I'm paying more attention to these things, so I'm following the responses here with interest.
Asking at delcamp would probably get some answers from classical players who have handled a lot of instruments - some serious classical GAS over there!

Cheers
John

The playing dynamic makes a big difference. Many steel string players wrap their thumbs around the neck, while nylon string players place the thumb against the back of the neck.

I don't like a "too thin" neck, I find that I lose strength in my left hand. When the neck is very thin I can't squeeze the strings down properly.

There is no truss rod, so the actual wood is all that provides stiffness to the neck.

Relax, this is your first. Build it, play it, learn from it.

_________________
Expectation is the source of all misery; comparison the thief of joy.
http://redrivercanoe.ca/

As mentioned, the left hand is most comfortable and most efficient in a certain position: too thin or too thick and it can throw you off. But as also suggested, who it the guitar for? The specs you listed are good "average" dimensions, but each player, and each hand size, will have an optimal fit. Another thing to consider is the roundness/flatness of the neck: I find the usual semi-circular profiles feel like a baseball bat. The last classical I built for myself, I played quite a bit of "air guitar" while shaping the neck, working towards the best feel. I ended up with a profile that is flatter than typical, and it feels really good!

Back on topic, the last classical I built for myself measures 24m at the 9th, and I have XXL hands, so someone with normal hands might very well like 22mm. My first classical was built using a Friederich plan, and it called for 21.7mm at the 9th. However, one of his guitars from 1981 measures 23mm at the 8th (that book, "The Classical Guitar, a Complete History" doesn't provide data for the 9th fret). Most guitars in that book (Fleta, Hauser, etc.) measure 24-25mm at the 8th.

A very thorough and (academically) interesting book by Franz Jahnel ("Manual of Guitar Technology") states, "As the fretboard width increases, so should the thickness of the neck. The thickness of the neck should be 15-17 mm at the nut, and 20-24mm where it enters the body. Semicircular section necks have been spurned by competent guitarists"

A figure of 20-24mm at the body is quite thin. As you can see from these two books we have quite a range. I say if it feels good to you, move on and learn from it, and don't worry too much about it.

Cheers,

Scott

You'd like my first. Everyone says, "Wow, fat neck!"

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

same is mine, 22.5 at the first with 24 and a solid profile. I simply was too scared to carve it more. I'm OK with it since i have huge hands but but others it can be a little uneasy.

My latest is 21 with 23 and a slim profile, at the request of the owner who has small hands. It is a dream to play I would dare say. My next personal guitar will have a Cuban hog neck and I will make it 20 or 20.5mm. I played a 20mm flamenco and it was nice, but thinner than that would certainly start to feel odd.

_________________
Build log

Hi Waddy- How fat is it at the 1st fret? What is its shape? How does it feel to play? I'm thinking of making my current build a "fat" one with 24 mm at 1st fret & 25 mm at 9th. I'm going to play it a while in the white & if I don't like it go to, say 22 mm. -Steve

No way 24, trust me

_________________
Build log

As I recall, it's about 22.5 - at the nut and nearly 27 at the 9th, D shaped, sort of flat in the middle area. I like it, but my favorite is my #2 which is 21 and about 24 or so at the 9th, but it has a 54mm nut and 45 or 46 string spacing at the nut and 60 at the bridge. It gives my fat fingers enough room to fret without buzz against my nails of my left hand.

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

54mm at the nut! Oh my goodness.

I've got skinny little girly fingers, I guess. I like the traditional Torres nut width of 48-49mm. I haven't measured the thickness of my necks; I carve them to feel good, but significantly based upon the Torres neck thicknesses.

_________________
Expectation is the source of all misery; comparison the thief of joy.
http://redrivercanoe.ca/

Doug-
How far do you 'set-in' the E-e strings from the edge of the nut? (ie what's your string spacing on a 48-49 mm neck?)
(I've been using 4.5mm set-in for the 1st and 4 mm for the 6th string on classicals.)

Thanks
John

21mm nut 22 9th for my Flamencos.
21.5 nut 23mm 9th for classicals.

Mike

_________________
Mike Collins