Why are less new guitars 7.25?

[mashastrat]

Besides the current models Fenders US Vintage II & Vintera line of guitars being the offerings of 7.25” and some artist signature models.

Even the majority of the ‘Custom Shop’ period year based models have 9.45” necks.

With the now the majority of MIJ now producing in 9.45” who were reliably good to look for a 7.25” new Jaguar/Jazzmaster/Mustang.

I see guitars that are 9.45” I can’t help but think I’d like more if it was 7.25”. All the specifications are as I wanted but its 9.45” neck only option.

The 7.25 / 9.45 difference is pretty subtle can argue, if it has rolled edges and all nice fret ends.

I’m no shredder so it’s about the comfort. And this seems more noticeable on Fenders in my opinion, as a good Gibson neck throws this query out the mind.

Anyone shed some light on… this besides it appealing to the masses.

[sal paradise]

besides it appealing to the masses.

Why would it be anything other than a commercial decision? Makes little difference. One won’t sell, one will.

[mashastrat]

besides it appealing to the masses.

Why would it be anything other than a commercial decision? Makes little difference. One won’t sell, one will.

I don’t believe there’s that little interest in 7.25” necks, specifically when it was one of the best features.

[sal paradise]

besides it appealing to the masses.

Why would it be anything other than a commercial decision? Makes little difference. One won’t sell, one will.

I don’t believe there’s that little interest in 7.25” necks, specifically when it was one of the best features.

You’re right. Buddy Holly’s estate owns the radius on Fender guitars & the company needs to request permission each time they use it. To keep admin cost as low as possible, Fender decided to mainly use the 9.5” radius.

[Larry Mal]

The whole multiple radii has never made any sense to me. I mean, Gibson doesn't do that- they have 12", that's what they think is best, and that's the Gibson experience. If you like it, you like it.

Fender historically was the 7.25" experience, and it was great, and those were the guitars that set the world on fire.

Later, of course, Fender wanted to be able to compete with shredder guitars but they never would commit to anything like a 16" radius so they came up with a watered down compromise of 9.5". Those are good necks too, I'm not saying they aren't, Fender does not and never has made anything other than excellent playing guitars.

But my point is the 9.5" wasn't any better for shredding, really, so why they bothered with it I can't say. Other than, if one is to be cynical, Fender realized like all guitar companies that their primary competition was going to be their own used instruments. They all deal with this in different ways, Gibson gleefully agrees that whatever previous incarnation of Gibson was shit, and I guess Fender did that too by spinning up some bullshit about the "modern player" and their supposed needs being different than they were thirty, forty years ago.

So, to me, Fender has but been pandering all around, trying to persuade people that they still make 'em like they used to but also make guitars for the "modern player", a phrase that truly nauseates.

But obviously Fender would like to just make the one neck, that would save them a lot of money. And so them pushing towards one neck or the other would only make sense.

And boy has Fender been pushing their customer base, they've basically persuaded everyone that Chinese and Mexican made guitars are just as good as the American made ones were, I'll bet that overseas production accounts for like 90% of what Fender sells, if you count Squier, which I do.

And I'll bet you anything that they will keep on pushing their base to just accept the one neck radius, because again, that's a lot cheaper than cranking out different necks, you know?

[sal paradise]

Not the shredding. Plenty of those dudes used vintage strats. I think it was the 3-note blues benders who rushed to the Les Paul cos it didn’t choke. Despite Rory Gallagher doing exactly that on an old Strat.

And talking of Gallagher, we’re left with weird voodoo about 7.25” necks and removing nitro finishes to let guitars breathe for the perfect tone.

[mashastrat]

Not the shredding. Plenty of those dudes used vintage strats. I think it was the 3-note blues benders who rushed to the Les Paul cos it didn’t choke. Despite Rory Gallagher doing exactly that on an old Strat.

And talking of Gallagher, we’re left with weird voodoo about 7.25” necks and removing nitro finishes to let guitars breathe for the perfect tone.

The ‘Gallagher’ Custom Shop model is even 9.45”, they’re reasoning is it was played so much it became a 9.45”.

[JamesSGBrown]

9.5 is kinda better on-paper, but I prefer 7.25". Fret size impacts fretting-out a lot.
Some vintage Fender's were as small as 6"!!

[Larry Mal]

Yeah, the Custom Shop seems like an appropriate place to have different necks, but from Fender's point of view it would be easiest to just make one neck for the rest of the stuff.

And I'm not saying the vintage neck radius is anything but awesome, it's always been my favorite. But when I started playing you would hear people moronically repeat how "you can't bend on those necks", which isn't true to start with, and secondly what am I, BB fucking King around here?

Like I say, I also really like the Fender necks for the modern player- that's me, the modern player, you understand. I'm not your grandpa huffing and puffing with his stupid jazz box like some kind of asshole, I'm a modern player who really demands the best.

I have contempt for your grandpa, sure, but I also have contempt for Fender, who will tell you in one blurb that- well, here, I'll quote them, I love quoting Fender's corporate bullshit:

"Delivering both comfort and speed, the American Professional II Deep “C” neck profile is slim at the nut and fills out gradually as it approaches the neck joint to create a natural feel that’s perfect for chording and single note playing alike. The hand-rolled fingerboard edges and Super-Natural satin finish provide a supremely comfortable feel."

OK, cool. If you take that at face value, though, why would Fender make anything other than those necks, if they feel so strongly about them?

Because it's all just bullshit that the marketing department cooked up. That's from the American Professional Strat, which replaced some other Strat, and why would you buy the new Professional instead of the used whatever it was?

The snake oil rubbed hand finish is why.

[mashastrat]

Why would it be anything other than a commercial decision? Makes little difference. One won’t sell, one will.

I don’t believe there’s that little interest in 7.25” necks, specifically when it was one of the best features.

You’re right. Buddy Holly’s estate owns the radius on Fender guitars & the company needs to request permission each time they use it. To keep admin cost as low as possible, Fender decided to mainly use the 9.5” radius.

I don’t understand what you mean? They have to ask permission when making a signature model, as required by all artist signature models.


That’s like saying they need ask Leo Fender can we make a Stratocaster.

[mashastrat]

9.5 is kinda better on-paper, but I prefer 7.25". Fret size impacts fretting-out a lot.
Some vintage Fender's were as small as 6"!!

I agree the small frets may of drew a lot of complaints on play wearing out. As I read Leo thought just changing the whole neck when the frets were worn out was main option. It maybe was cheaper back then to buy a neck than have a refret.

7.25” works or seems best with a 42mm or smaller nut.

[BoringPostcards]

I prefer 9.5, but I don’t necessarily dislike 7.25.
The main reason I prefer 9.5 is that I have a Gibson and switching between the Gibson and the Fenders is less jarring with a 9.5 radius Fender neck, than with my 7.25 Fender, which I don’t play as often as a result. The curve of a 7.25 feels like a cello radius in comparison to the 12”.
I actually only have one 7.25 Fender left. A competition Mustang. All my Fenders used to be 7.25, but I moved them on over the years for various reasons (though never because of the radius).

@Larry: good to have you back. I had a good laugh reading your sarcastic replies about Fender’s marketing BS.

[mashastrat]

I prefer 9.5, but I don’t necessarily dislike 7.25.
The main reason I prefer 9.5 is that I have a Gibson and switching between the Gibson and the Fenders is less jarring with a 9.5 radius Fender neck, than with my 7.25 Fender, which I don’t play as often as a result. The curve of a 7.25 feels like a cello radius in comparison to the 12”.
I actually only have one 7.25 Fender left. A competition Mustang. All my Fenders used to be 7.25, but I moved them on over the years for various reasons (though never because of the radius).

@Larry: good to have you back. I had a good laugh reading your sarcastic replies about Fender’s marketing BS.

7.25” is essential Mustang ingredient, that combined with the narrow short neck makes it all the better.
You can wrap round it.

Yeah Gibson have a figured out how to make 12” suit and feel the normal for all there guitars, you know what to expect in that regard. Those it helps when it’s good one. They’re 43mm & 12” for me it needs to be the slimmer 60’s.

9.45” is good, but like I say even the Fender Japan have now began making all there models with that radius. Even those they continued with 7.25” till recently.

[mekhem]

I like 7.25 generally but 9.5 is ok too and 10 is about my play feel limit.

I think the move toward focusing on lead players is likely one cause and the other being the "choke out" problem with the 7.25. Flatter boards have a higher tolerance for setups.

That said - I think most "choke out" issues are set up related

[mashastrat]

Yeah, the Custom Shop seems like an appropriate place to have different necks, but from Fender's point of view it would be easiest to just make one neck for the rest of the stuff.

And I'm not saying the vintage neck radius is anything but awesome, it's always been my favorite. But when I started playing you would hear people moronically repeat how "you can't bend on those necks", which isn't true to start with, and secondly what am I, BB fucking King around here?

Like I say, I also really like the Fender necks for the modern player- that's me, the modern player, you understand. I'm not your grandpa huffing and puffing with his stupid jazz box like some kind of asshole, I'm a modern player who really demands the best.

I have contempt for your grandpa, sure, but I also have contempt for Fender, who will tell you in one blurb that- well, here, I'll quote them, I love quoting Fender's corporate bullshit:

"Delivering both comfort and speed, the American Professional II Deep “C” neck profile is slim at the nut and fills out gradually as it approaches the neck joint to create a natural feel that’s perfect for chording and single note playing alike. The hand-rolled fingerboard edges and Super-Natural satin finish provide a supremely comfortable feel."

OK, cool. If you take that at face value, though, why would Fender make anything other than those necks, if they feel so strongly about them?

Because it's all just bullshit that the marketing department cooked up. That's from the American Professional Strat, which replaced some other Strat, and why would you buy the new Professional instead of the used whatever it was?

The snake oil rubbed hand finish is why.

I agree and these can decide what…covers everything models aren’t for me, like the the American Professional II Deep “C” neck profile is slim. It’s both still not slim enough and too thick. Yet wider also.
No offence to owners, I have tried it and it’s good guitar, a workhorse for many musicians I’ve seen with them.
But even the colour combinations trying to be innovative and new yet still manages to incoherent mixing colours in an attempt to reinvent sunburst. You have trouble getting the specs you want one guitar.