Vintage frets vs jumbos? Help!!

[beninma]

I think the

Note the width and height measurements....

https://www.fender.com/articles/gear/different-fret-sizes-explained/

Someone already posted the important contents of that page. I think Fender made a mistake on that page. The link to Fender's store lists 0.046" as the height of medium jumbo frets.

0.46 makes sense with my own measurements of my Fender which is a model that is listed as having medium jumbo frets.

 

[Wally]

Beninma, I have never seen a factory fretted Fender with any jumbo fret in the fretboard. Again, the height is NOT the measurement thqt determines the judgement of Jumbo versus Narrow. What width is the bead on your Fender?
All of the jumbo frets indicat3d in that chart show a bead width over .100”.

 

[DeVilleDude]

I love the big frets on my SRV. My tele has vintage frets. I have no problem moving back and forth between the 2. Switching between different fretboard radius and neck size mess me up big time though.

 

[telemnemonics]

Another note on shredding WRT fret height, on thing shredding requires is maximizing efficiency of motion.
While fret height does not affect efficiency of motion, pressing down hard enough to bend the fretted notes sharp on extra jumbo frets is a huge loss of efficiency.

Of course something like an 8 liter big block Chevy is inefficient yet gets the job done, so clearly one can replace efficiency with power in many cases.

Playing very fast though is probably not possible if every note is fretted with extreme force. Not all players that prefer small frets do so because they fret too hard to play in tune on tall frets

So the question is not really "can I shred with small frets?".

I'd ask "Do I need to carefully control my fretting pressure to shred?".

There the answer would IMO/ IME be yes.

It could also be observed that one may use a heavy touch when chording and a lighter touch when playing fast lines, simply because one must stop pressing down and start lifting up in a very short span of time, so there the pressure is regulated by not stopping for long enough to settle into the kung fu grip.
Also if playing fast and using hammer ons for some note attacks we are forced to control dynamics by not hammering too hard.

Given some time to adapt there is nothing lost and much to be gained by learning to play on tall frets.
But there is no need to go there if we prefer not to, and many who prefer small frets play with a light touch and utter precision.

 

[BigDaddyLH]

Beninma, I have never seen a factory fretted Fender with any jumbo fret in the fretboard. Again, the height is NOT the measurement thqt determines the judgement of Jumbo versus Narrow. What width is the bead on your Fender?
All of the jumbo frets indicat3d in that chart show a bead width over .100”.

Highway Ones? http://www.tdpri.com/threads/highway-ones-jumbo-frets.252311/

In reply #4, Boris writes they used 6100s up to 2005 and 6000s after.

Dunlop 6100s are .110 x .055
6000s are .118 x .058

 

[telemnemonics]

Beninma, I have never seen a factory fretted Fender with any jumbo fret in the fretboard. Again, the height is NOT the measurement thqt determines the judgement of Jumbo versus Narrow. What width is the bead on your Fender?
All of the jumbo frets indicat3d in that chart show a bead width over .100”.

Yeah I can't recall a Fender with stock true jumbo frets, which i consider to be well over .050 high and over .100 wide.
I've had some pretty nice tall medium jumbos on '90s fender necks though, where many modern day medium jumbo wire is dismally low.
The Epi 335 Pro I briefly owned had new frets so low I considered it ready to refret.
Lower than vintage fender wire.

 

[beninma]

I said medium jumbo.

I don't recall the width of the frets, my concern was about the height listed for medium jumbo on that Fender page.

The widths may all be correct there. But I had measured my MIM Standard (which Fender says is fretted with Medium Jumbo). They very clearly measured out around the 0.046" range, which is what is listed in the Fender store. Now it's possible my guitar got refretted before I bought it, I got it used, but that seems highly unlikely considering I got it in early 2017 and and it has a "late 2016/early 2017" serial #.

Warmoth lists different measurements too... they claim most modern fender necks have jumbo, which they list as 0.106 x 0.047 or something.

All I know is I can tell the differences... I'm not really sure if any of the fretwire sizes are actually unusable for me though.

 

[Wrong-Note Rod]

I'm weird, with aging hands and fingers that are currently giving me a lot of grief.... so grain of salt and all that.

I

HATE

VINTAGE

FRETS


there. I said the "h" word.

too small, causes me to grip harder, and increases my hand problems.

lots of guys love them.

not me.

 

[etype]

I think the


Someone already posted the important contents of that page. I think Fender made a mistake on that page. The link to Fender's store lists 0.046" as the height of medium jumbo frets.

0.46 makes sense with my own measurements of my Fender which is a model that is listed as having medium jumbo frets.

Musikraft lists these codes and sizes:
6230 Vintage A.080 B.043
6105 Medium A.095 B.047
9055 Med Tall A.090 B.055
6150 M Jumbo A.104 B.047
6100 Jumbo A.110 B.055
6000 S Jumbo A.118 B.058

And lutherie.net has this chart... wild.

Mfr/
Supplier No. Material Crown width Crown height

Dunlop 6000 .118 .058
Dunlop 6110 .115 .050
Dunlop 6120 .114 .051
Jescar 58118 .118 .058
Jescar 57110 .110 .057
Jescar 55095 .095 .055
Jescar 55090 .090 .055
Jescar 55085 .085 .055
Jescar 50078 .078 .050
Jescar 51108 .108 .051
Dunlop 6100 .110 .055
Dunlop 6105 .090 .055
Stew-Mac 146 .106 .036
Stew-Mac 149 .103 .046
Stew-Mac 150 .110 .053
Stew-Mac 154 .100 .050
Stew-Mac 141 .095 .045
Jescar 47104 .104 .047
Jescar 47095 .095 .047
Jescar 47090 .090 .047
Jescar 45100 .100 .045
Dunlop 6105 .090 .055
Jescar 47095 .095 .047
Dunlop 6130 .106 .036
Dunlop 6140 .106 .039
Dunlop 6150 .102 .042
Dunlop 6170 .099 .043

ANd a second chart has even more!

Only Stew-Mac 149 matches what Fender sells. Could be coincidence.

 

[Fuelish]

I am perfectly fine with "vintage freta" ….. not so fine with vintage tuners …may replace 'em someday, but.....not in any big hurry, honestly, more of a "use it 'til it breaks" kinda guy....I consider them a PITA to string, but....I like old strings over new, so, don't restring as often as probably most of you folks. It's all good, just some of it different

 

[Backbeat8]

I did an actual comparison of 3 new Guitars, one American pro (narrow tall), one Classic 60s (vintage ), one Elite (Medium Jumbo)

The American Pro has the tallest thinnest, the classic 60s has the shortest thinnest, the Elite has the widest and a height that is at least as tall as the vintage, but not as tall as the American Pro

So I think that spec on the fender site for the medium jumbo is not accurate

It can't be shorter than vintage fret at least not in reality now that I have compared

 

[Wally]

That chart from that Fender Page is data from Dunlop....world’s largest maker of fretwire. Fender does not use all of those sizes. Benima, the medium jumbo fret on that Dunlop chart in that Fender Page is listed at .036” tall with a height of .106”.
I have known that Jumbo frets are wide for over 50 years. The Gibson electrics I have owned...1960’s era...came stock with Jumbo(wide) frets. I refretted my ES345 with tall jumbos...not tall narrows. Big frets....lot of mass....lot of sustain.
I find that this modern age is over-aggressive in redefining terminology that has been accepted for decades.....and the internet spreads disinformation on many subjects like wildfire.

 

[Wally]

Big Daddy, thanks for that refresher about the Highway one. It has been a while since I owned one, but something I; the back of my mind told me I could be wrong on my statement about Fender never using jumbo(wide) wire.

 

[Wally]

Regarding shredding on tall frets, that is very mich what many shredders like. Just as with scalloped fretboards, tall frets exhibit to a greater degree what unnecessarily heavy fretting pressure does with regard to pitch. Excessive fretting pressure on a short fret will take a note sharp....and slow the player down due to the muscle tension created by heavy fretting. On a tall fret, that pitch problem is even greater due to the added gap between the top of the fret...bottom of the string...and the fretboard. That added gap could allow a heavy handed fretted to use even more force and ie up the muscles to an even greater degree. A string should never be pressed to the board. The finger should never be in heavy contact with the board. Speed demands a light touch....so does accurate intonation.
Even on a fretless instrument one should use a light touch. Pitch is not a problem there, but muscle tension that restricts movement is a prime concern.

 

[Backbeat8]

These are the "medium jumbo" frets they are selling at Fender.com. My Cabronita was bought in 2015 (but I think made in 2014). Maybe the fretwire they sell is not the same as what they use.

https://shop.fender.com/en-US/parts...o-24/0991998000.html#q=frets&qSubmit=&start=1

From that link:

REPLACE, REPAIR AND RESTORE—GENUINE FENDER PARTS
Standard guitar fret wire pre-cut into 24 pieces and pre-radiused to 9.5".
FEATURES

• 24 pre-cut standard frets for guitar fingerboards
• Pre-radiused to 9.5"
• Each piece .046" tall and .103 wide

I think your measurements are probably accurate, at least they are representative of what are on Fender's new guitars in the stores. It's hard to see exactly the size differential here, but you can definitely see how much the string dips down, and I was pressing the string all the waydown to the wood. I think the Med Jumbos that are listed as being on the Elite model are a touch taller than the the Vintage, but wider, so that Fender Spec I attached in their Website is not correct.

Aside from that, I can noticeably hear the note going sharp when I press down now on the Narrow Tall frets, the Med Jumbos it goes ever so slightly sharp, but not really enough to be a factor, and no one actually grips the board that hard, that is like additionally excessive force. The vintage fret, the note is virtually unchanged, it's maybe sharp but at a completely significant level.

Top: American Elite (listed as having Medium Jumbos)
Middle: American Professional (listed as Narrow Talls)
Bottom: Classic Series 60s (listed as Vintage Size)
(link removed)
However the nut height is alot shorter on the Classic 60s which could make the dipping seem less extreme.

 

[nicod98]

I much prefer the vintage frets, I am used to them since >40 years. Never really had an issue with them. I actually don't like 6105's and see no need for these Jumbo type frets. Many of my friends always wonder how I can bend with these vintage frets. It's all about the right setup. Same with 7 1/4" radius, that's what I like and want on Teles or Strats. Many people tell me I need flatter radius necks. I don't!

I'm not really used to vintage frets, but I can surely relate to what you say here. I play 7.25", 9.5", 12" and 16" radius guitars. I don't mind the radius, I have medium jumbo and jumbo frets (and one vintage fret guitar), and hardly even notice the difference after a few minutes of playing. I guess it's all about what we are used to. I'm just to playing a lot of different guitars, so I can understand you being perfectly happy with wat you're used to.

 

[Slowisfast]

Sell it and buy another. It's 120. If it bugs you now it'll bug you in 6 months.

 

[etype]

One site (I cannot remember which) calls the 6130 "similar to Gibson fretless wonder frets used in the 70s").

Since I have already posted what some other neck builders have on there websites, here is USACGs list:


FRET SIZE DIMENSIONS (W X H) DESCRIPTION
6230 .080″ x .043″ small wire for a more vintage feel
6230SS .080″ x .043″ 6230 in Stainless Steel
6130 .106″ x .036″ low and wide fret for lots of fingerboard feel
6105 .090″ x .055″ tall and narrow – a great all-purpose fret
6105SS .090″ x .055″ 6105 in Stainless Steel
6125 .095″ x .047″ a new size for the player that wants something in between 6105 & 6150
6150 .104″ x .047″ true jumbo fret for rock and bass players
6150SS .104″ x .047″ 6150 in Stainless Steel
6100 .110″ x .057″ huge fret wire for those who want a scalloped feel
6100SS .110″ x .057″ 6100 available in Stainless Steel
6000 .118″ x .058″ railroad ties – the largest size fret available

 

[Backbeat8]

(link removed) (link removed) (link removed)

One site (I cannot remember which) calls the 6130 "similar to Gibson fretless wonder frets used in the 70s").

Since I have already posted what some other neck builders have on there websites, here is USACGs list:


FRET SIZE DIMENSIONS (W X H) DESCRIPTION
6230 .080″ x .043″ small wire for a more vintage feel
6230SS .080″ x .043″ 6230 in Stainless Steel
6130 .106″ x .036″ low and wide fret for lots of fingerboard feel
6105 .090″ x .055″ tall and narrow – a great all-purpose fret
6105SS .090″ x .055″ 6105 in Stainless Steel
6125 .095″ x .047″ a new size for the player that wants something in between 6105 & 6150
6150 .104″ x .047″ true jumbo fret for rock and bass players
6150SS .104″ x .047″ 6150 in Stainless Steel
6100 .110″ x .057″ huge fret wire for those who want a scalloped feel
6100SS .110″ x .057″ 6100 available in Stainless Steel
6000 .118″ x .058″ railroad ties – the largest size fret available

I took pics and zoomed in I the three frets. The vintage actually looks almost wider than the medjumbo

 

[El Tele Lobo]

I play guitars with a variety of fret shapes/sizes, neck profiles and fretboard radii. I can go from one to another fairly easily, but prefer fatter neck profiles. I do find I can play most fretwork, but can bend more easily on taller frets.