• Guys, we've spent considerable money converting the Les Paul Forum to this new XenForo platform, and we have ongoing monthly operating expenses. THE "DONATIONS" TAB IS NOW WORKING, AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE ANY DONATIONS YOU CAN MAKE TO KEEP THE LES PAUL FORUM GOING! Thank you!

Les Paul with wider string spacing?

Minibucker

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 12, 2003
Messages
6,372
It's Les Paul inspired, but not a Les Paul, but the neck on my 2000 Guild Blues 90 is 1.73" wide at the 1st fret. The neck is round (not much shoulder) and 0.89" deep at the first fret and 1.00" deep at the 11th fret. It's the perfect neck for me.

As I said, it's not a Les Paul- the body is slightly larger and chambered and the pickups are hot ceramic P90s (I replaced mine with Mojotone clones). The guitar sounds and plays awesome! One of my favorites. It's a hell of a guitar!
Those Guilds were cool guitars, as well as the Nightbirds from years back. Yeah I remember them having pretty wide necks/fingerboards near the nut.
 

Big Al

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
14,537
Did you read that I was referring to a Luthier who did what I was describing? We're not talking by much, as it was essentially just changing the fingerboard width as it approached the nut from the original 1-9/16" on a '69 L-5CES to 1-11/16". So going by that, THE SAME CAN BE DONE with a neck which already has a 1.695" or so nut width and a custom nut, to give that EXTRA BIT OF WIDTH FOR CHORDING AND BIG HANDS DOWN THERE. Granted, this is a pretty major undertaking though, and don't know if cost would eventually be any less than just ordering a new M2M from the custom shop that way, or the like.

I meant to say fingerboard width instead of neck width and corrected.

https://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/...-String-Spread-quot-mod-quot-for-a-narrow-nut

There is no way to substantialy widen a neck by using binding. None. you may gain a very slight string spread with over the binding refret with reduced fret end bevels. Anything other would suggest a fingerboard that over hangs the neck edges and would prove as ridiculous as it sounds. And it is ridiculous given the op's stated needs for a wider neck and nut approaching 1 3/4 inch.

The op stated he wanted a substantialy wider neck in a stock Les Paul. As was pointed out, even though the metal, false fret adjustable nut version Les Pauls from 2015 on had a standard string spread, they could easily accommodate a much greater string spread with a new nut cut to utilise the extra width these necks present. Exactly what the op asked for and the only option for him, based on his specific question. If you had read the thread you'd have found, problem solved.
 

Minibucker

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 12, 2003
Messages
6,372
There is no way to substantialy widen a neck by using binding. None. you may gain a very slight string spread with over the binding refret with reduced fret end bevels. Anything other would suggest a fingerboard that over hangs the neck edges and would prove as ridiculous as it sounds. And it is ridiculous given the op's stated needs for a wider neck and nut approaching 1 3/4 inch.

The op stated he wanted a substantialy wider neck in a stock Les Paul. As was pointed out, even though the metal, false fret adjustable nut version Les Pauls from 2015 on had a standard string spread, they could easily accommodate a much greater string spread with a new nut cut to utilise the extra width these necks present. Exactly what the op asked for and the only option for him, based on his specific question. If you had read the thread you'd have found, problem solved.
And as I pointed out (should I use bigger and slower font?), it was about the fingerboard width at the top surface as it approached the nut or even all up the neck, along with a wider nut to increase string spacing so the outer strings aren't as near to the overall edges....in that case from the one on a 1-9/16" nut to one on a 1-11/16" one, but there's not reason the same can't be applied to a neck that already has a 1.687" nut width or the like. Just an option if say he wanted a Historic.



Read it again.

Never mind overall neck width (since we're not talking about adding wood). And....yet again...I'm not talking about something theoretical here, it's something that was actually done, by someone who knows what they're doing. Have you tried it?


The op stated he wanted a substantialy wider neck in a stock Les Paul.
The thread says 'string spacing'.....and here's his OP.....

I have very large hands and mostly play fingerstyle, with my roots in classical technique.

To accommodate my playstyle, I am looking for a Les Paul with wider string spacing; not quite classical spacing, but significantly wider than standard.

Is a wide string spacing Les Paul available?


And I'm providing just one option (which also can apply to the wider nuts and the widest of available Historic necks, if he wants one of those guitars.....as opposed to the 2015's mentioned). If you don't like it, skip it.

But by all means, keep on being a presumptuous and arrogant ass. It's what we've become accustomed to. :laugh2:
 
Last edited:

Minibucker

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 12, 2003
Messages
6,372
Aaaaanyway.....Yagon......



The widest nut measurement I've seen listed for currently available Gibsons as a specification is 1.7". I don't know if that's rounded up from 1.695", but on Wildwood they also list guitars with 1.695" too, so I would assume they're being pretty exact. Unfortunately, I've only seen that on certain ES's so far. The Historic Les Pauls all seem to max out at 1.695", at least going by what's listed. If that with a custom nut with wider spacing isn't enough, then I don't know you may have to custom order or maybe look into some other guitar suggestions here.

There are several 2015 USA Les Paul on Reverb, though.

The option I mentioned did at least widen the top surface of the fingerboard on that particular guitar and gave room for the wider nut/spacing....as that 60's 1-9/16" spacing is pretty unplayable for some, myself included. I don't know if that approach would be enough for you on say a pre-existing 1.695" nut width, and of course it's not like there are a lot of examples out there to try with a 1.78"-ish nut, so it would be quite a gamble considering the work needed (at least some new frets too) by a very good luthier.

This is essentially what I was talking about....

mNWZi2Y.jpg


The way it was done on my friend's L-5CES was pretty amazing and you wouldn't know it wasn't factory unless someone told you, and even then, it was seamless because the luthier was such a talent. The neck itself wasn't any wider, just the top surface of the binding, but it felt like a wider neck because of the new wider nut/spacing and that little bit of extra real estate on the sides. But again, this was for a vintage guitar that he wanted 'converted' as a better player, would probably be too much for a new instrument...just clarifying what I meant. If you had a guitar that you absolutely loved in every other respect and just wanted a little more width, then maybe...but obviously easier just getting one with the width already.

Maybe look into those Guilds that were mentioned earlier....or look for one of the 2015's like mentioned earlier which seem to measure up to 1.795" (!!), although some of those look rather goofy with those anniversary LP headstock logos. ;-) But obviously easier than the whole binding thing I mentioned.


ETA: if you're into ES335's, there was Rich Robinson signature one that has a nut width of 1.711". So maybe look for one of those if interested.
 
Last edited:

Big Al

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
14,537
And as I pointed out (should I use bigger and slower font?), it was about the fingerboard width at the top surface as it approached the nut or even all up the neck, along with a wider nut to increase string spacing so the outer strings aren't as near to the overall edges....in that case from the one on a 1-9/16" nut to one on a 1-11/16" one, but there's not reason the same can't be applied to a neck that already has a 1.687" nut width or the like. Just an option if say he wanted a Historic.



Read it again.

Never mind overall neck width (since we're not talking about adding wood). And....yet again...I'm not talking about something theoretical here, it's something that was actually done, by someone who knows what they're doing. Have you tried it?



The thread says 'string spacing'.....and here's his OP.....




And I'm providing just one option (which also can apply to the wider nuts and the widest of available Historic necks, if he wants one of those guitars.....as opposed to the 2015's mentioned). If you don't like it, skip it.

But by all means, keep on being a presumptuous and arrogant ass. It's what we've become accustomed to. :laugh2:

Are you even remotely familar with the WIDE NECK ADJUSTABLE NUT MODEL LES PAULS? Or do you get your experience reading Wildwood web page? Your solution, while useful for adapting a nut to gaining 1/8th inch for the post 65 SG and es models is novel, it still leaves a narrow neck and is not a conversion to a wider fingerboard or neck, nor is it anything other than squeezing a marginaly wider nut onto the existing narrow neck. Unless you never bend strings and use heavy flatwounds, you may find it kinda sorta works, but no it's just not the same as an actual, honest to goodness, real deal WIDE NECK.

The bullshit modification you love so much is not in anyway a solution to the ops problem. Several people posted about the extra wide neck Les Pauls post 2015. THE ONLY WIDE FINGERBOARD OPTION ever for Les Pauls. Historic, USA all other Les Pauls are 1 11/16 too narrow for the op.

Yet, when given a real solution to the problem, and the only one that fits his desire for a factory wider neck, you just have to throw this bullshit squeeze play you love so much, why? It is not what he asked for, it doesen't give the correct result, it helps not.

My arrogant ass doesn't need to try and find an answer on Wildwoods web page. I've and others have posted about nut mods for the extra wide 2015's for greater and comfortable string spread far greater than stock, for Classical players, fingerpickers and large hands. I've done it, I've played them and I know them.
 

Minibucker

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 12, 2003
Messages
6,372
Are you even remotely familar with the WIDE NECK ADJUSTABLE NUT MODEL LES PAULS? Or do you get your experience reading Wildwood web page? Your solution, while useful for adapting a nut to gaining 1/8th inch for the post 65 SG and es models is novel, it still leaves a narrow neck and is not a conversion to a wider fingerboard or neck, nor is it anything other than squeezing a marginaly wider nut onto the existing narrow neck. Unless you never bend strings and use heavy flatwounds, you may find it kinda sorta works, but no it's just not the same as an actual, honest to goodness, real deal WIDE NECK.

The bullshit modification you love so much is not in anyway a solution to the ops problem. Several people posted about the extra wide neck Les Pauls post 2015. THE ONLY WIDE FINGERBOARD OPTION ever for Les Pauls. Historic, USA all other Les Pauls are 1 11/16 too narrow for the op.

Yet, when given a real solution to the problem, and the only one that fits his desire for a factory wider neck, you just have to throw this bullshit squeeze play you love so much, why? It is not what he asked for, it doesen't give the correct result, it helps not.

My arrogant ass doesn't need to try and find an answer on Wildwoods web page. I've and others have posted about nut mods for the extra wide 2015's for greater and comfortable string spread far greater than stock, for Classical players, fingerpickers and large hands. I've done it, I've played them and I know them.
Al, all I did was offer a different option for the sake of discussion. I never said anything about anything else being wrong.

Other than your ego, what was hurt by that?
 
Last edited:

Big Al

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
14,537
Al, all I did was offer a different option for the sake of discussion. I never said anything about anything else being wrong.

Other than your ego, what was hurt by that?

The reason I questioned your reply was because it did not offer another solution at all to the op. Clearly, the question was, has Gibson offered a WIDER neck option, or model as the op prefers them because of his large hands, and possibly employing a Classical style.

In a later post he specificly stated he wanted EXTRA WIDE, SUBSTANTIALLY WIDER FINGERBOARD and wished to find that in a stock Gibson. He said it was the single most important thing for him, right?

Now, I'll ask again, have you personally checked out the 2015 and following few years models with the adjustable nut?

Because as many know, they are the only, ever Les Pauls with a substantialy wider nut width and fingerboard/neck width than the common 1 11/16 since 1952. Oddly, imo, they chose to slot that wide adjustable nut the same as the 1 11/16 neck, resulting in both E strings laying far from the fingerboards edge toward center. ???????

That is the reason I suggest replacing the nut with proper slotting string spread to utilise all that extra room the wide neck provides. JUST WHAT THE DOCTOR ORDERED AND WHAT THE OP WANTS.

Now I know you love telling this story but it does not and can not provide width or string spread the op stated he wants. Cannot be done. That is a fact. I know the process and result and if you read the thread, why offer a solution that isn't? Why not qoute your Wildwood measurements of wide neck 2015 models instead of the very ones he says won't work no matter what you claim, cannot be properly or substantialy widened.

Just a guess, but I don't believe you are aware of the wider neck LP's you didn't bother to find out and looked for ways to bolster this inadequate trick.

WTF?? Really I have to explain this obvious crap, 'cause it's just another solution? It is not, it doesn't do what the op wants. It's an old fix for a minor, minor adjustment.
 

Minibucker

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 12, 2003
Messages
6,372
The reason I questioned your reply was because it did not offer another solution at all to the op. Clearly, the question was, has Gibson offered a WIDER neck option, or model as the op prefers them because of his large hands, and possibly employing a Classical style.

In a later post he specificly stated he wanted EXTRA WIDE, SUBSTANTIALLY WIDER FINGERBOARD and wished to find that in a stock Gibson. He said it was the single most important thing for him, right?

Now, I'll ask again, have you personally checked out the 2015 and following few years models with the adjustable nut?

Because as many know, they are the only, ever Les Pauls with a substantialy wider nut width and fingerboard/neck width than the common 1 11/16 since 1952. Oddly, imo, they chose to slot that wide adjustable nut the same as the 1 11/16 neck, resulting in both E strings laying far from the fingerboards edge toward center. ???????

That is the reason I suggest replacing the nut with proper slotting string spread to utilise all that extra room the wide neck provides. JUST WHAT THE DOCTOR ORDERED AND WHAT THE OP WANTS.

Now I know you love telling this story but it does not and can not provide width or string spread the op stated he wants. Cannot be done. That is a fact. I know the process and result and if you read the thread, why offer a solution that isn't? Why not qoute your Wildwood measurements of wide neck 2015 models instead of the very ones he says won't work no matter what you claim, cannot be properly or substantialy widened.

Just a guess, but I don't believe you are aware of the wider neck LP's you didn't bother to find out and looked for ways to bolster this inadequate trick.

WTF?? Really I have to explain this obvious crap, 'cause it's just another solution? It is not, it doesn't do what the op wants. It's an old fix for a minor, minor adjustment.

Oh I was aware of the wider neck and everything that was mentioned...actually shopped those models (Standards, IIRC) at the time looking to set one up for slide and regular stuff, really didn't like the goofy headstock graphics and inlay and robot tuners, but the asymmetrical profile probably bothered me the most, more than the extra width which I thought I would actually like. But that's just me and I'll say again, I never said this wan't a solution or even not the first thing he should look at, nor did I imply that it should be ignored (why would you even think that?)....just giving another example of something that I have seen done to widen string/nut spacing on a preexisting neck without teetering near the outer edges, albeit in a particular case. And the luthier who performed it...and not just on that guitar...was pretty renown for his 'tricks' as you call them, if that even matters to you (doubtful). It's not about 'loving to tell a story', I was just under the impression that this was a discussion forum and didn't feel it warranted the condescension or dismissiveness, even if you fully disagree. But then as I said...this is you, so with all due respect I don't give a flying fuck if you think it's 'crap'. I have as much right to post it here as you have to display your crap attitude. I also wasn't just 'relying' on Wildwood's listed specs (only giving examples, again), I've also done caliper measurements between nuts. But it's all good.

Also, in regards to 'slight difference'...if we want to get technical, the difference in nut width/spacing that I described that went from 1-9/16 to 1-11/16 is actually a bit more than 1.695 (like a historic) to 1.795 (like a 2015). I.e. 1/8 vs. 1/10. But whatever.

**edit**


*I have deleted the rest of my original response here out of respect for this forum and, believe it or not, your health as well. If you still want to read it, let me know and I will provide. But I would say there's been enough of this and it's really not helping anything. Let's leave it up to the OP as to what works best for him.
 
Last edited:
Top