Californian Neck Specs

[sidvisc1]

Does any one have neck specifications for Hamer Californian Elites? I'm looking for neck measurements at the first and twelfth fret in 100ths of an inch. Thanks so much!

 

 

[Jimbilly]

does this work? you might need to brush up on your Vernier scale reading skills!?  This is my '91, the dot neck 89 I have is a tiny bit narrower at fret 1, and effectively the same at 12.  (I'm pretty sure this is an Elite, I get mixed up sometimes), I can get more/different photos if you need them. 

[sidvisc1]

Thank you, Jimbilly! This is extremely helpful. If you don't mind, I would be curious to know how deep the necks on your Calis are, too. I have two, and one is substantially more chunky than the other. To the point where I'm thinking of having it shaved down to a slimmer profile.

 

I wonder if they had a standard profile throughout production? Or did it evolve as the years went on? Again, thanks for your help.

[bruce919]

Remember Hamer necks were hand shaped. In my experience you can get different thickness ranges even in the same year. I do think from about 90'-94' seem to be on the thinner side as a whole. The late 80's era bolt-on necks had a slightly thicker C shape. 

[Jimbilly]

1 hour ago, sidvisc1 said:

Thank you, Jimbilly! This is extremely helpful. If you don't mind, I would be curious to know how deep the necks on your Calis are, too. I have two, and one is substantially more chunky than the other. To the point where I'm thinking of having it shaved down to a slimmer profile.

 

I wonder if they had a standard profile throughout production? Or did it evolve as the years went on? Again, thanks for your help.

how would you like them measured (including fret or not?), and where?

[sidvisc1]

If you could measure from the fretboard to the outside of the neck (not including the fret) and at the first and twelfth fret I would greatly appreciate it!

[Bennyboy-UK]

3 hours ago, bruce919 said:

Remember Hamer necks were hand shaped. In my experience you can get different thickness ranges even in the same year. I do think from about 90'-94' seem to be on the thinner side as a whole. The late 80's era bolt-on necks had a slightly thicker C shape. 

/\ 100% - my 88 Cali “felt” slimmer and rounder than my 1990 which “felt” wider and flatter. 
 

They were both very comfy and thankfully I’m not fussy with Hamer necks - which I find to be comfy and just feel good irrespective of model.

[Jimbilly]

it's much easier to measure without the strings on!, and my '89 just happens to be de-strung at the moment. It seems to me that the 89 is just a tiny bit thicker than the 91. At 12th fret followed by 1st fret. edited to add: calipers are on the fingerboard, not on the fret.

[hamerhead]

19 hours ago, sidvisc1 said:

.....I'm thinking of having it shaved down to a slimmer profile.....

Don't you dare!

[veatch]

Thick-necked Calis are hard to find. At least I haven't found one yet... 

[JGale]

They all moved to Colorado Springs. 

[velorush]

Difficult to tell due to perspective, but at any rate all measurements appear to be in excess of 24mm, i.e., in excess of .945." 

Do you happen to be including the fret in those measurements?  That's larger than a 50's Les Paul first fret.  Ginormous for a shredder guitar (and right up my alley).

[Jimbilly]

2 hours ago, velorush said:

Difficult to tell due to perspective, but at any rate all measurements appear to be in excess of 24mm, i.e., in excess of .945." 

Do you happen to be including the fret in those measurements?  That's larger than a 50's Les Paul first fret.  Ginormous for a shredder guitar (and right up my alley).

My calipers are on the fingerboard, not on the fret, - I'm just a bad photographer.

[velorush]

1 hour ago, Jimbilly said:

My calipers are on the fingerboard, not on the fret, - I'm just a bad photographer.

Not at all.  The photo is extremely clear - the Main Scale in the second photo is clearly indicating 24 mm, or (24 / 25.4 = 0.945") before even getting to extra bits on the Vernier Scale. 

Could it be the photos somehow posted in the reverse order (first fret, then 12th fret rather than "At 12th fret followed by 1st fret")?  That would make more sense as the first photo is showing 23 and change, which is still really a large-for-shredder (23 / 25.4 = ) 0.906."  

Oh, and love the boomers in the top shots.

[Jimbilly]

2 hours ago, velorush said:

Not at all.  The photo is extremely clear - the Main Scale in the second photo is clearly indicating 24 mm, or (24 / 25.4 = 0.945") before even getting to extra bits on the Vernier Scale. 

Could it be the photos somehow posted in the reverse order (first fret, then 12th fret rather than "At 12th fret followed by 1st fret")?  That would make more sense as the first photo is showing 23 and change, which is still really a large-for-shredder (23 / 25.4 = ) 0.906."  

Oh, and love the boomers in the top shots.

I think the 2nd set of photos is correctly labeled 12th followed by 1st, at least how it's being shown on my screen. Either way, the nut or tuners should be visible in the 1st fret photos. 

[velorush]

13 hours ago, Jimbilly said:

I think the 2nd set of photos is correctly labeled 12th followed by 1st, at least how it's being shown on my screen. Either way, the nut or tuners should be visible in the 1st fret photos. 

You are correct. The nut is clearly visible (on closer examination) in the second photo.  Larger at the nut than at the 12th fret; another oddity.  Very interesting neck.