Vintage 7.25" radius - how hard to play on it?

appar111 · December 27th, 2006, 04:52 PM

If I raise the action up a bit from what I'm used to (low to medium-low), will a 7.25" radius tele neck be much harder to play? I'm used to warmoth's 10-16" compound radius, which I love, but I'm curious as to how a 7.25" radius neck would play.

I do a fair amount of bends, etc. but might like a guitar that's more comfy for chords for playing more rhythm, which is why the vintage radius intrigues me.

Durtdog · December 27th, 2006, 04:59 PM

I have a Tele with 7.25 and I don't think it's hard to play at all. It feels like the Teles I grew up playing. It does feel *different* from the Warmoth radius, or the 9.5, which I also have. I routinely do whole step (and maybe a little more) bends with no problem. Lots of folks don't like the 7.25, but I don't really understand the fuss. Probably just more of a preference thing than being hard to play.

PeterUK · December 27th, 2006, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Durtdog

I have a Tele with 7.25 and I don't think it's hard to play at all. It feels like the Teles I grew up playing. It does feel *different* from the Warmoth radius, or the 9.5, which I also have. I routinely do whole step (and maybe a little more) bends with no problem. Lots of folks don't like the 7.25, but I don't really understand the fuss. Probably just more of a preference thing than being hard to play.

What Durtdog said. I play various radius necks in my collection but the vintage radius doesn't seem any harder to play. In fact, it's my main gigging axe.

Peter

chickshannon · December 27th, 2006, 05:43 PM

Couldn't agree more. All three of mine have the 7.25 and I wouldn't have anything else. The necks just seem so much more comfortable and playable to me. I dislike the sharp edges of many flatter necks ! On a 7.25 the neck just sort of rolls into the fingerboard like a warm and welcoming old friend...

( What on earth am I talking about ?....put the wine bottle away man...)

CK1 · December 27th, 2006, 05:52 PM

I agree also. I have a 7.25 radius fretboard and vintage frets on my MIJ Tele and I love it. I do plenty of bending and this is my favorite and most comfortable guitar to play.

My other guitars have flatter fretboards and I personally don't think it is a big deal to switch between them - I have always wondered why everyone thought this is such a big difference...I figured maybe I just wasn't as sophisticated or technical of a player (still probably true) so it didn't make much difference for me.

marc sosnoff · December 27th, 2006, 05:56 PM

i to, see no problem on my tele i bend with med/low action a whole step any where on the board with out fretting out i dont bend more then a whole ever if i bend further then i do get some fret buzz

i have played other guitar with 7.5 radius and not have a problem

AJ Love · December 27th, 2006, 05:58 PM

I prefer a 7.25 inch radius. I do like bigger frets for bending, but the 7.25 radius fits me fine, so I have a guitar with both

"S.P.U.N." · December 27th, 2006, 06:00 PM

I don't think the radius is what makes my Tele a little harder to play for me, but probably the laquer on the (narrowish) fretboard, the string spacing, and the small frets.

My action is not very low, but it still frets out a little bending the E or B strings a minor third or wider. Being pretty new to Teles, I figured this is part of the sound and just the way they are, and I'm cool with it.

zombywoof · December 27th, 2006, 06:17 PM

I played a Tele with a 7.25" radius for maybe 40 years. Loved it. Never had one bit of trouble bending strings or chording.

morroben · December 27th, 2006, 06:37 PM

I'm with everyone else on this one. 7.25" isn't any more difficult. In fact I prefer it. I don't find any particular radius too difficult to play.

Rick S · December 27th, 2006, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chickshannon

Couldn't agree more. All three of mine have the 7.25 and I wouldn't have anything else. The necks just seem so much more comfortable and playable to me. I dislike the sharp edges of many flatter necks ! On a 7.25 the neck just sort of rolls into the fingerboard like a warm and welcoming old friend...

+1, and very well said. No question in my mind that 7.25 is the most ergonomic. There are trade offs, as in any design aspect, but preference for most players seems to be simply what they are used to. To the most part, the "hard to play" thing is a product of the pointy headstock forums. To me, hard to play better describes a radius in excess of 10", wide fretboard, short scale loaded with crowded fat frets.

chickenpicker · December 27th, 2006, 07:24 PM

My experience is that the fretboard radius doesn't determine how easy it is to play, but the neck profile does, in particular, where the neck meets the fretboard. If the join is sharp, it's harder to play than if it's rolled.

Robert H. · December 27th, 2006, 07:33 PM

Doesn't the answer depend on who's answering? You've got to try it for yourself.

Pete Galati · December 27th, 2006, 08:29 PM

I think that people assume that 7-1/4" radius necks are harder to bend strings on, because Gibsons have flatter radii on their necks, and a lot of them are pretty good for string bending.

But Gibsons have shorter scale necks! 24-3/4" vs Fender's 25-1/2"
That's what makes Gibsons great for string bending, not the fretboard radius.

If your notes are choking when you stretch strings on a 7-1/4"R. fingerboard, have someone who knows what they're doing set up the guitar for you.

Pete

appar111 · December 27th, 2006, 10:00 PM

Well, guys, I really appreciate all the love for the vintage radius! I think I may end up getting a Warmoth "Total Vintage" neck. This guitar will definitely be more vintage inspired than the other two teles I own. Since they both have Warmoth's compound radius, I can try something different on this guitar and go for the 7.25" radius.

I do think that I'll end up doing what AJ Love did though, and get bigger frets AND the vintage radius. That way I'll have the comfy radius for chording, but still have big enough frets to get under the strings for bends & such.

thanks for the advice, my fellow TDPRI'ers!

sudancat · December 28th, 2006, 12:19 AM

Just wanted to chime in on this. I went through the same problem,trying to figure out if i wanted 7 1/4 or 9.5. Some said 7 1/4 was not good for bending but was good for chording and the 9.5 was excellent for bending and you could get the action lower. I wound up with both. I cant tell any difference other than my 7 1/4 is thicker,but it does have a nice feel the way it sort of rolls around. As far as the action, the 7 1/4 is lower,in fact its lower than the Fender specs set up calls for and there is no buzzing. As far as bending,I can bend as far as it will let me and it dosent choke out. So, i've decided also the 7 1/4 is fine with me and i'm partial to those 50s neck MIM.

Bill · December 28th, 2006, 12:49 AM

I've got an ES Gibson and a 7-1/4 inch radius Fender, and they both have about the same low action and easy playability. I've noticed that on my guitars at least, it's been easier to set a lower, non-choking action on the Gibsons than on the Fenders. But it can be done.

"S.P.U.N." · December 28th, 2006, 02:09 AM

I don't know what effect scale length has on tension - playing both 24.75" and 25.5", it's hard for me to tell - but I do know that I don't like the way shorter scale guitars feel or sound. 25.5" scale lenght is a must for me.

I love my 52ri, but it plays much differently (and to my gurlie hands, harder) than what I'm used to, which is a 14" or 16" radius with medium jumbo frets, on a satin-finished fretboard. There is no fretting out anywhere on the fretboard whatsoever, no matter how wide the bend.

Looking at my 7.5" Fender, I can see the string fretting out as I bend further. (I don't mind this.) Is it really possible to eliminate this without changing the frets or scalloping the fretboard?

yerffej · December 28th, 2006, 02:44 AM

I really prefer it for everything. Some people dont like them for lead work. I play best on a 7.25

Rocker AK · December 28th, 2006, 04:24 AM

Mine has a 7.25 radius and I love it. Very comfortable for chording. Mine tends to fret out in certain places with bends over a whole step but that's due the small frets and the way I have the truss adjusted. It's always the first guitar I grab when learning new material. It's like an old friend...

There are some great people here and tons of information on Tele's. Looks like you found the right place. Enjoy yourself!
Allan

Scotland · December 28th, 2006, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete Galati

I think that people assume that 7-1/4" radius necks are harder to bend strings on, because Gibsons have flatter radii on their necks, and a lot of them are pretty good for string bending.
But Gibsons have shorter scale necks! 24-3/4" vs Fender's 25-1/2"
That's what makes Gibsons great for string bending, not the fretboard radius.
If your notes are choking when you stretch strings on a 7-1/4"R. fingerboard, have someone who knows what they're doing set up the guitar for you.
Pete

Spot on ! I personally prefer the vintage radius because that's what I'm used to which leads me to suggest that all it takes is a little time to aquaint yourself with it. It's certainly no more difficult than any flatter radius to play.

Ivan · December 28th, 2006, 05:39 AM

this is what i dont understand!
i think 7.25 necks are great to play... i prefer them over anything else (i think theyre easier to play).
yet most mags and reviews i read never imply that its preference but rather that flatter means easier and better.

Tele The Truth · December 28th, 2006, 09:28 AM

Well, there ya go. It's all based on personal preference. If you're like me and love playing on fender's with 9 1/2 radius and medium jumbo frets, going to a 7 1/4 with vintage frets is gong to feel a little off. That's the reason I never got into the vintage and reissue teles. It's all about what feels good to you as a player.

Rocker AK · December 28th, 2006, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tele The Truth

Well, there ya go. It's all based on personal preference. If you're like me and love playing on fender's with 9 1/2 radius and medium jumbo frets, going to a 7 1/4 with vintage frets is gong to feel a little off. That's the reason I never got into the vintage and reissue teles. It's all about what feels good to you as a player.

Very well put!

Also, something to consider is nut width/string spacing. It took me years to figure out I couldn't play a guitar well with a wide 1-3/4" nut. That extra 16th is a killer for me. My George Lynch ESP LTD is a perfect example of another guitar I need to sell (and buy a "REAL" TELE or Strat

). I can adjust to different radius and fret size but not neck width. Hope I didn't complicate the issue. It's just something else to obsess over.

appar111 · December 28th, 2006, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rocker AK

Very well put!

Also, something to consider is nut width/string spacing. It took me years to figure out I couldn't play a guitar well with a wide 1-3/4" nut. That extra 16th is a killer for me. My George Lynch ESP LTD is a perfect example of another guitar I need to sell (and buy a "REAL" TELE or Strat

). I can adjust to different radius and fret size but not neck width. Hope I didn't complicate the issue. It's just something else to obsess over.

I've got to agree w/ you on this one. I had a warmoth fatback before, and I thought it was just too thick, but I think the real problem is that it had a 1 7/8" nut width - that thing was a friggin' beast! I remember wanting the biggest fattest neck I could get. I can't help but think that the fatback wouldn't have been near as bad if the nut width was more normal, like 1 5/8". 2/8" of an inch difference in width is pretty huge.

1293 · December 28th, 2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rocker AK

Also, something to consider is nut width/string spacing. It took me years to figure out I couldn't play a guitar well with a wide 1-3/4" nut. That extra 16th is a killer for me. My George Lynch ESP LTD is a perfect example of another guitar I need to sell (and buy a "REAL" TELE or Strat

). I can adjust to different radius and fret size but not neck width. Hope I didn't complicate the issue. It's just something else to obsess over.

+1 on the neck width.

I have 7.25" neck with vintage frets on my Strat and a 10-16" with medium-jumbos on my Tele. The neck profiles are similar and I don't notice much difference between the two. My casino has a wider neck with a 12" (?) radius and isn't as much fun to bend on. I like to wrap my thumb around the low E and the extra width is a little too much.

I think the main (non comfort related) issue with a smaller radius is bends fretting out. I levelled and crowned my frets last year and I occasionally adjust the truss rod to maintain a little relief as the seasons change. Right now, the action is actually lower than I would like it and the guitar still never frets out.

December 27th, 2006, 04:52 PM	#1 (permalink)
appar111 Tele-Afflicted Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Ohio Age: 33 Posts: 1,325	Vintage 7.25" radius - how hard to play on it? If I raise the action up a bit from what I'm used to (low to medium-low), will a 7.25" radius tele neck be much harder to play? I'm used to warmoth's 10-16" compound radius, which I love, but I'm curious as to how a 7.25" radius neck would play. I do a fair amount of bends, etc. but might like a guitar that's more comfy for chords for playing more rhythm, which is why the vintage radius intrigues me.

December 27th, 2006, 05:43 PM	#4 (permalink)
chickshannon Tele-Meister Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: North UK Posts: 255	Couldn't agree more. All three of mine have the 7.25 and I wouldn't have anything else. The necks just seem so much more comfortable and playable to me. I dislike the sharp edges of many flatter necks ! On a 7.25 the neck just sort of rolls into the fingerboard like a warm and welcoming old friend... ( What on earth am I talking about ?....put the wine bottle away man...) __________________ " If things don't change, they stay as they are...."

December 27th, 2006, 06:17 PM	#9 (permalink)
zombywoof Friend of Leo's Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Back in the Heartland Posts: 2,904 17 Photos	I played a Tele with a 7.25" radius for maybe 40 years. Loved it. Never had one bit of trouble bending strings or chording. __________________ "I don't play a lot of fancy guitar. I don't want to play it. The kind of guitar I want to play is mean, mean licks." John Lee Hooker

December 27th, 2006, 06:37 PM	#10 (permalink)
morroben Tele-Afflicted Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: california Age: 32 Posts: 1,869 18 Photos	I'm with everyone else on this one. 7.25" isn't any more difficult. In fact I prefer it. I don't find any particular radius too difficult to play. Last edited by morroben; December 27th, 2006 at 06:38 PM. Reason: I put 7.25'...that would be a FLAT radius

December 28th, 2006, 12:49 AM	#17 (permalink)
Bill Friend of Leo's Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Bay Area, California Posts: 2,667 59 Photos	I've got an ES Gibson and a 7-1/4 inch radius Fender, and they both have about the same low action and easy playability. I've noticed that on my guitars at least, it's been easier to set a lower, non-choking action on the Gibsons than on the Fenders. But it can be done. __________________ B i l l B a e c k A journal of our year in London

December 27th, 2006, 04:59 PM	#2 (permalink)
Durtdog Friend of Leo's Join Date: May 2004 Location: Tennessee Posts: 3,484	I have a Tele with 7.25 and I don't think it's hard to play at all. It feels like the Teles I grew up playing. It does feel different from the Warmoth radius, or the 9.5, which I also have. I routinely do whole step (and maybe a little more) bends with no problem. Lots of folks don't like the 7.25, but I don't really understand the fuss. Probably just more of a preference thing than being hard to play.

December 27th, 2006, 05:52 PM	#5 (permalink)
CK1 TDPRI Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 31	I agree also. I have a 7.25 radius fretboard and vintage frets on my MIJ Tele and I love it. I do plenty of bending and this is my favorite and most comfortable guitar to play. My other guitars have flatter fretboards and I personally don't think it is a big deal to switch between them - I have always wondered why everyone thought this is such a big difference...I figured maybe I just wasn't as sophisticated or technical of a player (still probably true) so it didn't make much difference for me.

December 27th, 2006, 05:56 PM	#6 (permalink)
marc sosnoff Tele-Holic Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: new jersey Age: 55 Posts: 538 10 Photos	i to, see no problem on my tele i bend with med/low action a whole step any where on the board with out fretting out i dont bend more then a whole ever if i bend further then i do get some fret buzz i have played other guitar with 7.5 radius and not have a problem

December 27th, 2006, 05:58 PM	#7 (permalink)
AJ Love Tele-Holic Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Madison WI Age: 42 Posts: 864	I prefer a 7.25 inch radius. I do like bigger frets for bending, but the 7.25 radius fits me fine, so I have a guitar with both

December 27th, 2006, 06:00 PM	#8 (permalink)
"S.P.U.N." Tele-Meister Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Austin, TX Age: 39 Posts: 208	I don't think the radius is what makes my Tele a little harder to play for me, but probably the laquer on the (narrowish) fretboard, the string spacing, and the small frets. My action is not very low, but it still frets out a little bending the E or B strings a minor third or wider. Being pretty new to Teles, I figured this is part of the sound and just the way they are, and I'm cool with it.

December 27th, 2006, 07:24 PM	#12 (permalink)
chickenpicker Friend of Leo's Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: UK Posts: 3,060 14 Photos	My experience is that the fretboard radius doesn't determine how easy it is to play, but the neck profile does, in particular, where the neck meets the fretboard. If the join is sharp, it's harder to play than if it's rolled.

December 27th, 2006, 07:33 PM	#13 (permalink)
Robert H. Tele-Holic Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: San Francisco Age: 54 Posts: 787 7 Photos	Doesn't the answer depend on who's answering? You've got to try it for yourself.

December 27th, 2006, 08:29 PM	#14 (permalink)
Pete Galati R.I.P. Poster Extraordinaire Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 8,104 2 Photos	I think that people assume that 7-1/4" radius necks are harder to bend strings on, because Gibsons have flatter radii on their necks, and a lot of them are pretty good for string bending. But Gibsons have shorter scale necks! 24-3/4" vs Fender's 25-1/2" That's what makes Gibsons great for string bending, not the fretboard radius. If your notes are choking when you stretch strings on a 7-1/4"R. fingerboard, have someone who knows what they're doing set up the guitar for you. Pete

December 27th, 2006, 10:00 PM	#15 (permalink)
appar111 Tele-Afflicted Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Ohio Age: 33 Posts: 1,325	Well, guys, I really appreciate all the love for the vintage radius! I think I may end up getting a Warmoth "Total Vintage" neck. This guitar will definitely be more vintage inspired than the other two teles I own. Since they both have Warmoth's compound radius, I can try something different on this guitar and go for the 7.25" radius. I do think that I'll end up doing what AJ Love did though, and get bigger frets AND the vintage radius. That way I'll have the comfy radius for chording, but still have big enough frets to get under the strings for bends & such. thanks for the advice, my fellow TDPRI'ers!

December 28th, 2006, 12:19 AM	#16 (permalink)
sudancat Tele-Holic Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: North Carolina Posts: 700 12 Photos	Just wanted to chime in on this. I went through the same problem,trying to figure out if i wanted 7 1/4 or 9.5. Some said 7 1/4 was not good for bending but was good for chording and the 9.5 was excellent for bending and you could get the action lower. I wound up with both. I cant tell any difference other than my 7 1/4 is thicker,but it does have a nice feel the way it sort of rolls around. As far as the action, the 7 1/4 is lower,in fact its lower than the Fender specs set up calls for and there is no buzzing. As far as bending,I can bend as far as it will let me and it dosent choke out. So, i've decided also the 7 1/4 is fine with me and i'm partial to those 50s neck MIM.

December 28th, 2006, 02:09 AM	#18 (permalink)
"S.P.U.N." Tele-Meister Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Austin, TX Age: 39 Posts: 208	I don't know what effect scale length has on tension - playing both 24.75" and 25.5", it's hard for me to tell - but I do know that I don't like the way shorter scale guitars feel or sound. 25.5" scale lenght is a must for me. I love my 52ri, but it plays much differently (and to my gurlie hands, harder) than what I'm used to, which is a 14" or 16" radius with medium jumbo frets, on a satin-finished fretboard. There is no fretting out anywhere on the fretboard whatsoever, no matter how wide the bend. Looking at my 7.5" Fender, I can see the string fretting out as I bend further. (I don't mind this.) Is it really possible to eliminate this without changing the frets or scalloping the fretboard?

December 28th, 2006, 02:44 AM	#19 (permalink)
yerffej Tele-Meister Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: canada Posts: 299	I really prefer it for everything. Some people dont like them for lead work. I play best on a 7.25

December 28th, 2006, 04:24 AM	#20 (permalink)
Rocker AK Tele-Holic Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Virginia Age: 42 Posts: 963	Welcome to the nuthouse :) Mine has a 7.25 radius and I love it. Very comfortable for chording. Mine tends to fret out in certain places with bends over a whole step but that's due the small frets and the way I have the truss adjusted. It's always the first guitar I grab when learning new material. It's like an old friend... There are some great people here and tons of information on Tele's. Looks like you found the right place. Enjoy yourself! Allan

December 28th, 2006, 05:39 AM	#22 (permalink)
Ivan Tele-Meister Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 381 2 Photos	this is what i dont understand! i think 7.25 necks are great to play... i prefer them over anything else (i think theyre easier to play). yet most mags and reviews i read never imply that its preference but rather that flatter means easier and better. __________________ Ivan __________________________ '06 Gibson Les Paul Standard '06 Martin D-35 '06 Fender AV '62 Stratocaster (Wildwood Thinskin) '05 Fender AV '52 Telecaster

December 28th, 2006, 09:28 AM	#23 (permalink)
Tele The Truth Tele-Meister Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: East Coast Posts: 236	Well, there ya go. It's all based on personal preference. If you're like me and love playing on fender's with 9 1/2 radius and medium jumbo frets, going to a 7 1/4 with vintage frets is gong to feel a little off. That's the reason I never got into the vintage and reissue teles. It's all about what feels good to you as a player.