Jump to content
Hamer Fan Club Message Center

Better, yes?


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, scottcald said:

That completely rocks!

Thank you Sir    :)

4 hours ago, FGJ said:

Even though I don't care for the neck profiles of the SGs I've played, I have a hankering for one. I just don't need one.

This one has got a fairly fat neck ... perfect really.  Its a 96, I read that 94 to 96 were the best years unless you want to go bootiki and spend $$$. Then the 65's are supposed to be really good. But who knows Badger Dave had a newer one with a really fat neck ... But then on the other hand the new one I played recently at the local music shop was pathetically thin

9 hours ago, geoff_hartwell said:

That is a sweet ride!

Did you swap the direction on the g and d string bridge saddles?

It's a fancy callaham bridge that I had in a parts drawer. The damn thing was really expensive so I thought I should actually use it on something  :)  I thought it was weird too but I just slapped it on there and the intonation is perfect. So I guess it's ok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, they've all been too fat to my taste. I wouldn't mind it for playing simpler chords and stuff, but I find it difficult to really wrap my hand around the neck with my little girly hands. I just dig how the thin body feels, however. It's so much more comfortable to me than a Les Paul, and it sounds great. I would really prefer to find one with a thinner neck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Punkavenger said:

Thank you Sir    :)

This one has got a fairly fat neck ... perfect really.  Its a 96, I read that 94 to 96 were the best years unless you want to go bootiki and spend $$$. Then the 65's are supposed to be really good. But who knows Badger Dave had a newer one with a really fat neck ... But then on the other hand the new one I played recently at the local music shop was pathetically thin

It's a fancy callaham bridge that I had in a parts drawer. The damn thing was really expensive so I thought I should actually use it on something  :)  I thought it was weird too but I just slapped it on there and the intonation is perfect. So I guess it's ok?

I had a 1991 and it was sweet. But the stock pickups were kinda dull sounding and a bit hot. The binding also cracked on it all over the sides of the neck. I kinda miss it though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Punkavenger said:

Thank you Sir    :)

This one has got a fairly fat neck ... perfect really.  Its a 96, I read that 94 to 96 were the best years unless you want to go bootiki and spend $$$. Then the 65's are supposed to be really good. But who knows Badger Dave had a newer one with a really fat neck ... But then on the other hand the new one I played recently at the local music shop was pathetically thin

It's a fancy callaham bridge that I had in a parts drawer. The damn thing was really expensive so I thought I should actually use it on something  :)  I thought it was weird too but I just slapped it on there and the intonation is perfect. So I guess it's ok?

I like yours now, but I dig the look of any SG with pickup covers VS none. I make an exception for a black one with dbl cream humbuckers with pickup rings on the larger batwing pickguard. 

6 hours ago, FGJ said:

Yeah, they've all been too fat to my taste. I wouldn't mind it for playing simpler chords and stuff, but I find it difficult to really wrap my hand around the neck with my little girly hands. I just dig how the thin body feels, however. It's so much more comfortable to me than a Les Paul, and it sounds great. I would really prefer to find one with a thinner neck.

A good rule of thumb for non-custom shop SGs is: larger, batwing pickguard = fat neck aka SG rounded profile, and the smaller pickguard = 60s slim taper. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...