Change radius from 7 1/2 to 9 1/2?

Not understanding why people don't like something that has been well explained countless times in countless threads isn't an opinion. Its an admission someones too stupid to ever get it.

 

You sound like you’d be a ton of fun at a party!

 

I think you can get to 9.5 by working on the frets without having to work on the board. I the frets remain high enough, it's relatively easy. Re-radiusing the fretboard is not as simple and is easy to screw up. While I can play readily on all the different radii, I experience them all as different in both feel and action, and resulting tone. Leo did not choose 7.25 to feel like an acoustic, as acoustics have a much flatter fretboard. It was for easy chording and rhythm, because "lead guitar" was not a thing then. AS styles changed, fretboards got flatter, to the point that we now have 16" shredders. Since 7.25 is at the far extreme -- do you ever hear anyone asking for 6.5? Me either -- moving from the outliers towards the bell curve is perfectly sensible and a good idea. I'll be it will take fret work only, and the result will feel and play better for most players and styles.

 

No need to refret, people have been changing just the fret profile since the 70s. You're better off just setting the guitar up properly for you and playing it as it is.

 

Plenty of players can absolutely tell the difference between 7.25" and 9.5" radius fret boards. I noticed my preference back in the '80s -- well before any 'internet lore' was around.


Planing the fret board to 9.5" during a re-fret was/is a very common mod.

 

Perhaps, a compound 7.25 to 9.5 radius would be the ultimate neck. Bill Crook seems to make quite a few guitars with that radius.
I have never had problems with 7.25 radius choking out and yes I bend 'em. I play 7.25 radius to 12" radius guitars (not on the same guitar) without any issue.

 

I'm with you man!
If you can't make a 7.25 radius work there's something wrong with your setup or <GASP> your skill.

 

Yes, I suppose you are. But if you were the norm & only I preferred a flatter radius & taller frets, they wouldn't exist.

Then again, you play country so......maybe not so lucky.

 

Please explain how Roy Buchannan, Waylon Jennings, Clarence White, Luther Perkins, Jerry Donahue, Danny Gatton, Albert Lee, Marty Stuart, Buck Owens, Roy Nichols, Redd Volkaert, Vince Gill, James Burton, Jim Campilongo et al. seemed to do it just fine with 7.25" necks? I don't remember those guys complaining about notes choking out while bending.

 

I did actually have a luthier do this on the neck of a Fender '72 Thinline RI. I got a compound radius done, 9.5 to 12.

It was expensive. I would still do it again.

 

How much?

My guess is about $250

 

On cost, I get my frets (only) reprofiled from 7.25 to about a 10 radius for circa £60 depending on who I use. I refret or a neck re-profile is whole different deal.

It does provide an improvement if you like a low action and bend strings.

Really guys, this is not anything of a big deal at all. And definitely nothing to get worked up with each other about.

Some prefer it some don't / don't see the need. Cool.

 

Yes, it's possible. It's not worth it, but it's possible. Better to just sell the rarer 7 1/4" neck to someone who wants one (like myself), and buy a neck with a more common 9 1/2" radius.

There is an easily noticeable difference between the two IME. It's most noticeable at the edges of the neck. 9 1/2" feels fatter and more square at the edges. The other thing is that many of the 9 1/2" radius necks out there use medium frets, which in and of themselves feel significantly different than your classic small Fender frets. Never noticed a difference bending, but then again, I set my strings high, which has the side effect of making it much harder to fret out. And I never bend beyond a step, and don't play high on the board very often.

 

What's your point?
Stevie Ray Vaughan played with .13's, you should too.
I once saw some dude playing Rockabilly on a metal style Ibanez with EMG's so you should too.

As said in another post anyone can do anything on any guitar if they are stubborn enough. And again if no wanted something different for different reasons, none of it would exist.

 

Buy a 9.5' radius neck, keep the original just in case you decide to sell the guitar later.

 

What's my point? It was mentioned earlier in this thread that bends on a 7.25" radius neck were not possible. I listed a bunch of well-known players who apparently didn't have any issue with bends on a 7.25" neck, proving that that previous statement was not true. I was not trying to say that everyone needs to play a 7.25" radius neck. In your examples what you listed were the very rare, one-off exceptions. My list was the norm.

 

I have to respectfully disagree with this statement. Apparently some here can't do anything with a guitar with a 7.25" radius neck.

 

All hail "Bendicus"!!!!

He hath tried all the guitars & discovered electric guitar perfection was achieved within the first 5 years.

Call all the builders of the world & tell them to stop wasting our time with different scale lengths, different pickups, different body shapes, different woods, & different finishes. It's all a fools dream.

 

I've owned several guitars with 7.25 radius. I've had them setup by very talented luthiers where they played just fine. I prefer the taller frets 6105 that normally come with 9.5 radius. Its a preference. Not sure why thick heads around here can't understand that. They have to take jabs at playing skills, etc. If you like your guitars to have 7.25 radius and vintage frets, power to you.
Comparing it to what famous guitarists might be playing is ridiculous. They play what they prefer and I play what I prefer. I can certainly play but I don't put my self in their category. Doesn't mean I can't play vintage specs. Just like I prefer playing golf with modern clubs. But I've hit some great shots with an old persimmon club.
This thread is getting to be like the "relic" threads.