V3 Neck Profile - Just How Skinny is it Really?

[Ronson]

Like the title says, I'd like to hear from anyone here who owns a Historic LP with 1960 V3 neck profile.

Dimensions/specs for V1, V2 and V3 are not easy to find online and these figures can be misleading anyway... So, some real-world experience with these "skinny" neck carves would be appreciated!

 

[Walnut's Nutwalls]

My R8 has a V2 neck profile (Wildwood special order) but I've played a V3 R0 and they feel different. The V3 and V2 may have similar measurements at the 1st/12th frets but the V3 is flatter and feels substantially thinner. The V2 has a more rounded, C shape feel - it's very similar to the R9 feel, but with less mass. If you've ever played an SG with a slim/flatter profile, then that's the closest to the V3 - at least the one I played.

 

[jb_abides]

I know you said real world, but just in case...

V3s are equivalent to the end-game R0 profile from the years with no Versions, no?

They were advertised that way during the anniversary launch. That's how I recall how they were spec'd, apart from the normal hand crafting differences.

V1 - R9, prior to transition
V2- the modified in-betweener
V3 - R0, fully transitioned 60s era CS version of 'slim taper'

I didn't go for the V1 or V3 because I've got R9s and R0s... so the V2 was new and unique for me.

 

[metropolis]

I asked the same question yesterday in the Gibson Garage in London after playing an R9 an a V2 R0 (which felt quite similar) and the salesman said the V3 is "much thinner".

 

[marshall2553]

I’ve never played a V3, but I do have a V2 R0. The neck measures .800” and .900” and feels much flatter and slimmer than any R9 I’ve had. To the point that I can’t imagine how the V3 could be much thinner.

 

[Ronson]

Thanks everyone for the great intel. I have been mulling online purchase of a specific LP which checks all my boxes - but the V3 neck specs were an unknown. In fact I was unaware of the 1960 variants until a few days ago.

I have large-ish hands so an unusually thin/flat carve is a concern. From your feedback I am getting the message that this particular guitar is probably not for me. Thanks again for helping with my deliberations!

 

[Walnut's Nutwalls]

I’ve never played a V3, but I do have a V2 R0. The neck measures .800” and .900” and feels much flatter and slimmer than any R9 I’ve had. To the point that I can’t imagine how the V3 could be much thinner.

You're basically describing the V3 - slim and flat. Looks like your R0 was mislabeled as a v2.

 

[jb_abides]

Thanks everyone for the great intel. I have been mulling online purchase of a specific LP which checks all my boxes - but the V3 neck specs were an unknown. In fact I was unaware of the 1960 variants until a few days ago.

I have large-ish hands so an unusually thin/flat carve is a concern. From your feedback I am getting the message that this particular guitar is probably not for me. Thanks again for helping with my deliberations!

Sounds like you need to check out R9s, even R8, R7, R6... or a USA Standard 50s.

 

[Ronson]

Sounds like you need to check out R9s, even R8, R7, R6... or a USA Standard 50s.

Y'know - my first CS LP was an R7, with a very full neck (1"+ at the 12th fret). That guitar played flawlessly and I found the neck to be comfy and easy to navigate. Perhaps stupidly, I sold it because - while it sounded great acoustically - I wasn't in love with the plugged-in sound. At the time I blamed the pickups and the very lightweight body (8.1 lbs) but with hindsight the problem was probably more to do with the amp I was using back then. Oh well, now I get to start the whole process over again!

 

[LeonC]

FWIW, I think collector's choice #14, the Waddy Wachtel guitar, has a great example of the V3 neck.
Just below nut
0.805" depth
1.694" wide (at nut)

First fret
0.796" depth
1.734" wide

Fifth fret
0.834" depth
1.879" wide

12th fret
0.906" depth
2.08" wide

 

[Ronson]

FWIW, I think collector's choice #14, the Waddy Wachtel guitar, has a great example of the V3 neck.
Just below nut
0.805" depth
1.694" wide (at nut)

First fret
0.796" depth
1.734" wide

Fifth fret
0.834" depth
1.879" wide

12th fret
0.906" depth
2.08" wide

Thanks for this - very interesting... Depth dimensions are *really* close to my G&L Fallout (which is my workhorse at the moment) as is width at the 12th fret; big difference is that the G&L is narrower at the nut. I probably shouldn't equate the two tho, because of the difference in scale length.

 

[LeonC]

Thanks for this - very interesting... Depth dimensions are *really* close to my G&L Fallout (which is my workhorse at the moment) as is width at the 12th fret; big difference is that the G&L is narrower at the nut. I probably shouldn't equate the two tho, because of the difference in scale length.

Right.

We're all different--I've got probably medium size hands--but I find it to be very comfortable and a great shape for playing. Nice smooth shoulders.

I had a Dutchburst CC#18 at one point...that may have been the "transitional" neck (not sure)...I didn't dig the shape that much, FWIW. The shoulders were kind of abrupt/sharp.

I got to play an actual '60 burst several years ago that had the V1 carve...loved it! I've also got a CC#28 with a much chunkier neck; love that one too.