Classic Vibe Necks - WTF?!!

Discussion in 'Squier Tele Forum' started by jshape, Jun 17, 2019.

  1. jshape

    jshape TDPRI Member

    Posts:
    25
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    This is probably my main frustration - the lack of options with the CVs. I suppose you could argue that's what you're going to get with a $300-$400 model. It's just a bummer that they have the right price tag, but every time I've seen or played one I've thought, "man, this could be my next #1...if it just had a fatter neck."
     
  2. jshape

    jshape TDPRI Member

    Posts:
    25
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Just a preference thing. Heel adjustment is true vintage spec. Despite it being less user-friendly, that's just what some prefer. Different things inspire different plays, and it doesn't always come down to form vs function.
     
  3. fender4life

    fender4life Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    3,278
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Location:
    los angeles
    I get that, same happened to me, TWICE ! Bought one when they first came out but i just could no play that neck. Later i had a MIJ double bound in white but it sounded like cr@p so i sold it and saw the limited edition CV in white with black binding and thought heres my chance to get a better sounding version of the MIJ i just sold, and the CV was dirt cheap. So i convinced myself if i tried harder i could get used to the neck, but again i had to sell it. Such a shame because if the neck had just been the size of my 50s CV tele or my CV strats i would have been in heaven. Then again it wasn't as good sounding as the first one so i wasn't too bothered about selling it. But there are few DB teles available anymore that are reasonable so those could have been a great option if they'd have made the neck bigger. I always wonder why that one model was like that. The rest of the CV line all have thin necks too, but not crazy thin like that.
     
  4. archetype

    archetype Fiend of Leo's

    Posts:
    3,512
    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Location:
    Williamsville NY
    They vary. My CV 50s Tele has a very soft V-profile. Not skinny, either.
     
    blueruins likes this.
  5. telemnemonics

    telemnemonics Doctor of Teleocity Ad Free Member

    Age:
    60
    Posts:
    17,807
    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Location:
    Maine
    I was actually trying to be funny or sarcastic, my feeling is that in today's massive guitar market that includes used guitars that are hard to sell, the CV Squier is nothing special in terms of value at around $400.
    In fact while many trumpet how CNC gave us tons of great cheap guitars, my feeling is that I used to be able to get MIM/ MIJ Fenders with some changed parts for $300 that were in my hands vastly better than any new $400 Squier.
    Part of this though is because consumers/ guitar buyers put guitar shops out of business with our preference for choosing on forums and buying sight unseen from online retailers with lower prices.
    Not sure but given how many rave about these guitars which of the many I've tried and even bought, not a single one impressed me beyond being decent and too expensive compared to what I'm used to in terms of dollar value.
    A good unbuggered CV at $200 used is a better deal and a good value, but all the fans NGD excitement on the internet keep the prices high.

    My reference to "physical reality" was about the seeming mob perception of quality, where so many call something great that eventually it becomes a new truth. Seems like the best feature is they look good, and much of that look is the thick coat of nicely tinted plastic.
    Seems like Fender uses a cheaper looking tint on the cheaper Squiers.

    Here again, my feeling (which is just the feeling of a guitar player who's followed the market for 45 years, not fact. I also come from the perspective of long term guitar tech as well as long term woodworker in both custom and production wood product manufacturing.) is that Fender puts skinny necks on those CV Squiers because they know that younger players and budget players will buy them regardless, but most players will eventually want a fatter neck, which is again one of those mass appeal things, so probably most buyers will not stop at CV Squier, and will eventually buy a Fender with a fatter neck, better hardware, better lumber, better fret wire, better tuners, better electronics and pickups etc.
    We see a bunch of players who do indeed stop around the $400 guitar price point and buy new lower end guitars monthly, which is a whole new kind of consumer, sort of unrelated to the musician buying instruments to play music.
    Hard to fully understand this phenomenon, some say it's because there are so many good cheap guitars, but when I started playing there were again, lots of $300 used US Fenders available, and we played more than we shopped.

    To me this whole debate is about itself more than guitar playing.

    I could easily be happy to play only Squiers from the '80s MIJ production, and even slimmer necks they often had, because they were and are just generally better guitars to me. Again, part of this is the neck wood quality.
    I'll happily buy the cheapest thing that I find suits my needs well, never paid over $800 for a guitar and usually more like $350.
    Three $7-800 guitars I bought were a '71 LP, a '64 Tele neck on an ESP CS body, and a '73 Tele neck on a '50s Esquire body.
    So the mass insistence that CNC has filled the market with better cheaper guitars does not fit with my own experience.
    I see more expensive guitars that are not as good for their prices.

    I don't think the CV Squiers are bad guitars at all, just view them as what they are, lower end and look nice but still lower end.
     
    SheldonP and raysachs like this.
  6. leftfoot1381

    leftfoot1381 TDPRI Member

    Posts:
    78
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Just got a Classic Vibe Tele Custom today. Literally just unboxed it and played it a little bit.
    [​IMG]
     
    Charlodius, tubedood, jjudas and 3 others like this.
  7. jshape

    jshape TDPRI Member

    Posts:
    25
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Not being pleased with the feel of the neck on a guitar is not a "contrived trivial barrier." For me, the feel of the neck is one of the primary determinants on whether or not I'm going to plop down money for the guitar.

    Here's an idea - go hold your breath and wait for my apology for posting a thread that incites conversation.... on a discussion forum. Also, if you have nothing positive to contribute, consider retiring your keyboard warrior persona.
     
  8. archetype

    archetype Fiend of Leo's

    Posts:
    3,512
    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Location:
    Williamsville NY
    I'm not trying to be a jerk, but may have come across that way. You and I probably both pick a guitar based on the neck. I'm just questioning your liking the "playability" of the guitar and yet rejecting the guitar because of the neck. I don't understand.
     
  9. jshape

    jshape TDPRI Member

    Posts:
    25
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Good point.

    Not all desirable specs are based on convenience or function. Only real upside on the heel-adjustment would be a more true-to-vintage spec, which for me in some instances would be desirable. Just a preference thing. Whatever turns you on.
     
  10. jshape

    jshape TDPRI Member

    Posts:
    25
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    No worries. My apologies for firing back like a jerk if that was not your intent. For me, there are several factors that go into "playability" - action, string tension, fret heighth, fretboard rounding, etc., as well as the neck thickness. I was just pointing out that all of those other factors have been very much to my liking on the CVs I've played, except for the neck thickness. Every time I've played one I've pretty much thought "this thing would be incredible for me for $300 (or whatever other low price) if it just had a fatter neck." My post was intended to hear from others on whether the CV-thin-neck-thing is true across the board, or if there's a chance there might be some out there with thicker necks that I just haven't come across yet. If there's a chance I could find one with a thicker neck, all other specs being the same, I would just assume buy one of those over the thin necks I've played, I would likely throw down the 300 or so bucks in a heartbeat.
     
  11. jshape

    jshape TDPRI Member

    Posts:
    25
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Also, the thick poly finish - another big factor as that tends to get sticky, especially if you're playing in humid conditions or getting sweaty hands.
     
  12. archetype

    archetype Fiend of Leo's

    Posts:
    3,512
    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Location:
    Williamsville NY
    My CV 50s BSB is 0.832" at the 1st fret and 0.896 at the 12th fret with a very subtle V below the 9th, morphing into a C somewhere above that. Even though there's zero shoulder, and the carve starts at the edge of the fretboard, the profile makes it feel more substantial that the numbers might indicate. I switch between that CV, a Baja 50s Tele, and a Classic Player 50s Strat, and the CV never strikes me as uncomfortably small.

    Even though the CV Strat and Tele necks are shaped by CNC, the hand finishing makes them vary. For everyone that says his/her neck is thin another person says "What? Not mine." You just have to try every example you can put your hands on. :D
     
    bender66 likes this.
  13. telemnemonics

    telemnemonics Doctor of Teleocity Ad Free Member

    Age:
    60
    Posts:
    17,807
    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Location:
    Maine
    Now and then we see reports that this or that Squier has a fatter neck but they all seem thin to me.
    The J Mascis JM is a nice Squier and also attractive because there are fewer Jazzmasters out there that are cheap and good.
    Reports that it has a fatter neck and bigger frets are to me overstated!
    A little bigger but little.

    We read similar complaints about the Epiphone line, where many of us would own a 335 Pro if it just had a fatter neck.
    Plenty of players are fine with those thin necks, but I'm guessing that some who claim they are happy will keep looking for the better 335 "copy" with a fatter neck.
    The better than average 335 Pro I bought had the not just thin but flexible issue I often find with low priced Chinese necks.
    And the not really level fingerboard thing as well.

    I'm convinced both FMIC and Gibson stick with skinny/ thinner necks on cheap guitars because they know many or most of us will like them but long for a little more, and eventually move up their price range.
     
  14. telemnemonics

    telemnemonics Doctor of Teleocity Ad Free Member

    Age:
    60
    Posts:
    17,807
    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Location:
    Maine
    When you said .83 at the first fret I thought that's not bad!

    But then you said zero shoulder/ subtle V and it was all over for me.
    .83 subtle V no shoulder is thin to me.
    I have a 1.00 soft V and a .95 soft V. IMO when you carve a V neck you do so by leaving more thickness in the middle but removing shoulder. Not just removing more wood, but reshaping the whole profile. Course, I'm not FMIC!

    I don't think any of us are saying nobody likes thin or thinner necks, what we're saying is why don't Squier and Epi leave more of the damn wood on some of those better Squiers that are not targeting Moms buying little Johnny's first guitar?
     
  15. BorderRadio

    BorderRadio Poster Extraordinaire

    Posts:
    8,394
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2014
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    I think we’ve discussed this before, but Vintage Modified guitars are generally the place to go for thick Squier necks. It's not to say you're wrong though, because look what FMIC did to that lineup. I have never experienced a ‘flexy’ neck on a Squier other than a old 2004 Bullet I own. I’ve also owned a few CV Thinline quartersawn maple necks that I just happen to find by looking around. No they weren’t thick but they weren’t flexy either.

    VM Mustang neck (big C): 0.92” 1st and 0.95” at the 12th
    VM 72 Thinline neck (U-shaped): 0.87" 1st, 0.94" 12th
    As reported by a fellow S-T member:
    VM Jaguar: 0.91" 1st and 0.98" 12th
    VM Mustang: 0.93” and 1.05”

    My J. Mascis neck was a nice neck, but no it wasn’t chunky at all, just wider with huge bass-sized frets. I'm still looking for a baseball bat neck for a Jazzmaster, but screw it I'm either making my own or getting a Warmoth.

    Side note: I've come to realize I hate V necks. Could be 1 inch all the way down but feels like all my CVC necks did, holding a twig I can snap in half.
     
    telemnemonics likes this.
  16. fender4life

    fender4life Friend of Leo's

    Posts:
    3,278
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Location:
    los angeles
    Really? Maybe u r right but definately not when it comes to the VM 72TL i had which had a thinner neck than any of the CV's i have had except the CV60s tele which was crazy thin and about the same as the VM i had.

    By the way, i never hear near as much complaining about the neck being too thin on MIM classic series models, yet i just mic'd my MIM 60s and my CV60s and here is what i got. Note that these are for RELATIVE comparison only, as i used a strap button from the parts drawer on the fingerboard since there are strings on them. So the measurements include that height of that button. But for comparison you will see the MIM is thinner at the 1st fret and thicker t the 12th, both to a degree so small you couldn't possibly feel it. I measured in the middle between the nut and 1st fret and the 12th between the 11th and 12th. Talking the thickness of maybe 1 to 3 sheets of paper i imagine.

    1st fret, MIM 1.15, CV 1.16
    12th fret MIM 1.21, CV 1.20

    Didn't bother measuring my CV 50s tele since i have nothing to compare it to, but the classic 50s MIM i had was definately thicker, but the classic 60s MIM was probably thinner, definitely no thicker. So i really don't see the CV line as being really thin aside from the ridiculously thin CVC 60s as i mentioned above. I've had thinner USA stuff too like the deluxe strat i had about 10 years ago. It seemed thinned than my current CVs. Maybe it wasn't, but it sure felt that way to me and wasn't near as comfortable.
     
  17. leftfoot1381

    leftfoot1381 TDPRI Member

    Posts:
    78
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    The neck on my classic vibe custom is definitely thinner than my Nashville deluxe tele. But I don’t think it is uncomfortable to play. Besides the neck being on the thin side it feels great. No fret sprout, edges are nice and rolled and it feels super slick. And I am pleasantly surprised at how it sounds. The body is a bit thinner than my Nashville deluxe tho, but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
     
  18. G.Rotten

    G.Rotten Tele-Holic

    Posts:
    881
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Location:
    CoolsVille
    Why is this even a thread? Squiers for the most part right from the early 80's have equaled smaller necks. Initially they were meant to stay in an area where the average buyer would want a smaller neck. Then they were geared towards newer players (kids) & now for everyone who also ended up really liking those guitars.

    If you don't like small necks you don't like Squier necks.

    20190619_164149.jpg
    20190619_164514.jpg
    1984 MIJ Squier 50's reissue.

    I can measure a 90's Squier Jagmaster, an early 2000's Squier Standard & a 2012 CV but I already know that every one of them has a small-ish neck.

    The 60's CV is the only one with the same width as my MIJ Fender 62 reissue (but possibly a touch thicker & with taller frets).

    Complaining that a Squier has a thin neck is like complaining that a Gibson Les Paul has a set neck. It's what they do. If you like it you like it, if you don't you don't.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2019
    bender66 and SheldonP like this.
  19. G.Rotten

    G.Rotten Tele-Holic

    Posts:
    881
    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Location:
    CoolsVille
    You've certainly missed the point of the Classic Vibe. You're aware they have a 9.5 radius & taller frets right? They were never going for a Vintage feel. They were going for something that sounded & looked Vintage-ish but with a more modern feel. However, in the case of the 60's Tele & 60's Strat thinner happens to be "vintage correct". I know that stament depends on specifically which 60's years we're talking about I'm talking about the years with the thin necks of course.

    I also assume it would possibly cost a tiny bit more (parts & labor) to put a truss Rod adjustment in the headstock as now there is a plug with a hole vs a solid plug or no plug in a 60's Strat or Tele. That's a convenience for us call on their part & not a cost cutting measure.
     
  20. jshape

    jshape TDPRI Member

    Posts:
    25
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    And you've certainly missed the point of the post - I'm just trying to find out from some of those with firsthand experience if all the necks across all CV models and years are all thin. From what I can gather from the posts, it sounds like the maple neck 50s-style CVs tend to be a little thicker. I didn't know I'd be fortunate enough to hear from an expert on the original CV designers' objectives and what they were going for. Thanks for your insights!
     
IMPORTANT: Treat everyone here with respect, no matter how difficult!
No sex, drug, political, religion or hate discussion permitted here.


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.