That's a chonky boi!
JAG-STANG Prototype - Reverse Engineering
- GilmourD
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 1782
- Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:11 pm
- Location: Rutherford, NJ
- AcrylicSuperman
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 447
- Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 3:37 am
- Emil
- PAT PEND
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2022 10:55 am
Re: JAG-STANG Prototype - Reverse Engineering
I made some mistakes with my digital caliper measuring the neck depth, so I took them again. Now they are 100% accurate.AcrylicSuperman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 7:53 pmWow! That is definitely the chunckiest MIJ I've probably ever encountered! Thanks for the info.
Nut width: 1.60
1st fret depth: 0.85"
1st fret width: 1.63"
12th fret depth: 0.93"
12th fret width: 2.03"
- GilmourD
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 1782
- Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2020 8:11 pm
- Location: Rutherford, NJ
Re: JAG-STANG Prototype - Reverse Engineering
OK, that makes much more sense, although I would love that chonker with your original measurements. LOLEmil wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 12:14 amI made some mistakes with my digital caliper measuring the neck depth, so I took them again. Now they are 100% accurate.AcrylicSuperman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 7:53 pmWow! That is definitely the chunckiest MIJ I've probably ever encountered! Thanks for the info.
Nut width: 1.60
1st fret depth: 0.85"
1st fret width: 1.63"
12th fret depth: 0.93"
12th fret width: 2.03"
- AcrylicSuperman
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 447
- Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 3:37 am
Re: JAG-STANG Prototype - Reverse Engineering
Thanks for the update!Emil wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 12:14 amI made some mistakes with my digital caliper measuring the neck depth, so I took them again. Now they are 100% accurate.AcrylicSuperman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 7:53 pmWow! That is definitely the chunckiest MIJ I've probably ever encountered! Thanks for the info.
Nut width: 1.60
1st fret depth: 0.85"
1st fret width: 1.63"
12th fret depth: 0.93"
12th fret width: 2.03"
- Emil
- PAT PEND
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2022 10:55 am
Re: JAG-STANG Prototype - Reverse Engineering
I meassured my 1996 MG69 Mustang as well:
Nut width: 1.58"
1st fret depth: 0.82"
12th fret depth: 0.90"
Compared to my 1995 Jagstang around 0.02-0.03” slimmer, but in reality it’s almost impossible to feel a difference between the two necks. I wouldn’t be surpriced if the difference is an effect of the sanding process on the individual necks in the factory rather than differences in specs between models.
Nut width: 1.58"
1st fret depth: 0.82"
12th fret depth: 0.90"
Compared to my 1995 Jagstang around 0.02-0.03” slimmer, but in reality it’s almost impossible to feel a difference between the two necks. I wouldn’t be surpriced if the difference is an effect of the sanding process on the individual necks in the factory rather than differences in specs between models.
- Amon 7.L
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 743
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 5:45 am
Re: JAG-STANG Prototype - Reverse Engineering
Thank you for the measurements, Emil.Emil wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 11:49 pmI meassured my 1996 MG69 Mustang as well:
Nut width: 1.58"
1st fret depth: 0.82"
12th fret depth: 0.90"
Compared to my 1995 Jagstang around 0.02-0.03” slimmer, but in reality it’s almost impossible to feel a difference between the two necks. I wouldn’t be surpriced if the difference is an effect of the sanding process on the individual necks in the factory rather than differences in specs between models.
Yeah, the deviations are the result of the human operator during the process, it's clearly stated in Fender service diagrams:
(I just realised this is post number 666 )
- BTL
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 1460
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:24 pm
- Contact:
Re: JAG-STANG Prototype - Reverse Engineering
I think an argument can be made that the MIM Jag-Stang is closer to the likely or ideal spec than other versions might have been, but we'll never know for certain until the Blue Prototype is measured. Am I correct on this?Amon 7.L wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 1:39 amThank you for the measurements, Emil.Emil wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 11:49 pmI meassured my 1996 MG69 Mustang as well:
Nut width: 1.58"
1st fret depth: 0.82"
12th fret depth: 0.90"
Compared to my 1995 Jagstang around 0.02-0.03” slimmer, but in reality it’s almost impossible to feel a difference between the two necks. I wouldn’t be surpriced if the difference is an effect of the sanding process on the individual necks in the factory rather than differences in specs between models.
Yeah, the deviations are the result of the human operator during the process, it's clearly stated in Fender service diagrams:
(I just realised this is post number 666 )
Owner, Lowe Custom Guitars
- Amon 7.L
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 743
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 5:45 am
Re: JAG-STANG Prototype - Reverse Engineering
BTL wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 5:35 amI think an argument can be made that the MIM Jag-Stang is closer to the likely or ideal spec than other versions might have been, but we'll never know for certain until the Blue Prototype is measured. Am I correct on this?Amon 7.L wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 1:39 amThank you for the measurements, Emil.Emil wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2024 11:49 pmI meassured my 1996 MG69 Mustang as well:
Nut width: 1.58"
1st fret depth: 0.82"
12th fret depth: 0.90"
Compared to my 1995 Jagstang around 0.02-0.03” slimmer, but in reality it’s almost impossible to feel a difference between the two necks. I wouldn’t be surpriced if the difference is an effect of the sanding process on the individual necks in the factory rather than differences in specs between models.
Yeah, the deviations are the result of the human operator during the process, it's clearly stated in Fender service diagrams:
(I just realised this is post number 666 )
Unless you know something we're not aware of, NO. YOU ARE NOT CORRECT.
- BTL
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 1460
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:24 pm
- Contact:
Re: JAG-STANG Prototype - Reverse Engineering
Somewhere in the distant past I thought I remembered the MG69 neck was the closest newer production model, and it looks pretty close to the MIM Jag-Stang. Perhaps I mis-remembered. Maybe those were the 2.0 prototypes?
Owner, Lowe Custom Guitars
- AcrylicSuperman
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 447
- Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 3:37 am
Re: JAG-STANG Prototype - Reverse Engineering
They did throw a MG69 neck on red 2.0. We know that blue never got such treatment.
- BTL
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 1460
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:24 pm
- Contact:
Re: JAG-STANG Prototype - Reverse Engineering
Ah! That's the detail I got confused about...thank you!AcrylicSuperman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 9:25 amThey did throw a MG69 neck on red 2.0. We know that blue never got such treatment.
So, the MIM neck is faithful to the MG69 used on red 2.0. I wonder if that's what they used as the baseline for the MIM reissue. I apologize if the details are a little fuzzy for me at this point.
Owner, Lowe Custom Guitars
- AcrylicSuperman
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 447
- Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 3:37 am
Re: JAG-STANG Prototype - Reverse Engineering
I don't believe they evem used the MG-69 as the baseline for the MIM either. They have similarities but aren't the same either. Each variation of the Jagstamg has had a different neck.BTL wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 7:36 amAh! That's the detail I got confused about...thank you!AcrylicSuperman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 9:25 amThey did throw a MG69 neck on red 2.0. We know that blue never got such treatment.
So, the MIM neck is faithful to the MG69 used on red 2.0. I wonder if that's what they used as the baseline for the MIM reissue. I apologize if the details are a little fuzzy for me at this point.