7.25" Fretboard Radius

[GIBrat51]

I learned to play in 1968, on a friend's '68 Rick 4001. So, whatever that Rick's fingerboard radius was? That's what I got used to. But, I played other friend's basses off and on - for years - until I bought my first bass, so I'm sure I played on a number of fretboards with all kinds of radii. In 1988, I bought an "A-spec" necked '78 Fender P-Bass. And, to be honest? I have no idea what it's fretboard radius is. I like it; I have no trouble playing it; I don't think about it. And, to be perfectly honest? Same goes for all 22 of my other basses. I'm sure their radii are all over the place, and that, if I bothered to concern myself with it, I could tell the difference between them. But, other than width and contour? I don't give their necks much thought. Given the stuff I like to play, and given that I've been playing it for 50 years? Fingerboard radius hasn't made much difference - to me. But, of course - YMMV, and all that...

 

[andare]

Thank you for this post! I have a 66 PBass (7.25 radius) which i love. I'm attempting to make a project P Bass with the same vibe, but with PJ pickups. Fender doesn't make anything like that. Have been looking all over the internet to see if 7.25 vs 9.5 makes any real difference and this is the only post i found that made sense to me. "When i played it, it felt like home" was the exactly the feeling i got when i playing the 66 PBass for the first time. Even Fender's $700 replacement neck has the right nut width but 9.5 radius.

After reading this i checked the MIM Precisions and they're Pau Ferro with 9.5 radius. The Professional and Vintage II series do have 7.5 radiuses (!) but no PJ configuration. The Performer Precision is PJ but 9.5 radius. Will have to find a custom neck i guess. Thanks again for posting!

I agree, 9.5 is no problem but man does 7.25 feel good.
Most players complain about the 7.25" radius and the 1.75"/44.45mm nut width so Fender has basically phased those out save for a few vintage accurate models but the AVII is really expensive and the Vintera only comes in maple. I wish there was a neck like that with a slab rosewood board. My MIJ P bass is close but the nut is only 41mm (should be 42mm) and it annoys me to no end. I hate these wimpy dimensions, basses need big ass necks, tiny frets and huge strings

 

[ArteK]

The Vintera 50s and 60s basses and guitars have the 7.25” radius. And I found (on eBay) 50’s Fender reissue replacement guitar necks (Telecaster) with that radius as late as last year. (I have not looked for bass replacement necks in a while though, so perhaps those have been discontinued.

 

[Dabop]

All of the Fender basses and guitars used the 7.25" radius until about the mid-80's where it changed to 9.5" radius. My first "good bass" was a 1965 Jazz that I bought in 1966. Played it in high school and some college and then toured using it for three years across the mid-west and western US playing 5-nights a week, 50-weeks a year. Was a great bass and I got real used to that narrow and slim neck with 7.25" radius. After coming off tour I still played it for weekend gigs. Then all my touring gear got stolen including my '65 Jazz in 1976. I didn't really have the money to replace it working a "normal" job with a wife and 2 kids. Nonetheless, I was on the lookout for another Jazz that had that "60's slim C-shape neck with a 7.25" radius". Couldn't find one anywhere. Found all the Jazz basses seemed to have that same width at the nut (just under 1½") but none of them were slim. They were all thick necks what I refer to as fat necks.

Then in 1985 while working part-time at a music store while back at college, someone brought in my current bass as a trade-in. When I played it, it felt like coming home. so I bought it and have played it for the last 36-years. I didn't buy it because it had the 70's-era pickup spacing (4" center to center), or because it was Olympic white, or because it had a white bound maple neck. I bought it because the neck shape, profile AND radius was the same as my 1965 Jazz. Most people thing there's not much difference between a 7.25" radius and a 9.5" radius, but the difference of course is that the 9.5" radius is flatter across its width than 7.25" radius. They can be made the same width and still have a different radius. When I pickup a bass with that radius, it just feels off to me...so I don't play one with that radius.

If you can find a Jazz with that "60's slim C-shape neck with a 7.25" radius", pick it up and play it. You'll find that it is extremely comfortable to play and really is a very "fast" neck. You can't get one from Fender USA now unless you have it custom built. However there were a number of MIM Jazz basses that were made with that neck and their re-issues of the 62 and 60's basses do have that neck. The re-issues from Fender US do not have that neck on them, which is really a sad state of affairs. They pronounce how this has all the original features on it and then go and put a modern Jazz neck on it. That neck is what determines the playability of the bass...OK, I'll stop. I'm just ranting now. See if you can find a Jazz with that "60's slim C-shape neck with a 7.25" radius" and give it a try. I think you'll see in an instant what I mean.

 

[Dabop]

Exactly.. The feel IS the thing.

 

[goes to 11]

I am considering a p-bass with 7.25 radius 4 string but havent played it since its over seas. My other basses have the 9.5 radius. What is the difference in plain english? Is the 7.25 more curved and fatter in the back like an upright or OLD p bass? (thats the impression I'm getting) How huge is the difference? What does it do for tone on a p bass? Thanks. I really want this bass.

 

[TyBo]

I am considering a p-bass with 7.25 radius 4 string but havent played it since its over seas. My other basses have the 9.5 radius. What is the difference in plain english? Is the 7.25 more curved and fatter in the back like an upright or OLD p bass? (thats the impression I'm getting) How huge is the difference? What does it do for tone on a p bass? Thanks. I really want this bass.

7.25 is more curved, as you would expect. That's it. Neck depth and profile just depend on the individual neck itself, don't necessarily change with fretboard radius. I don't find radius to make a difference in the tone, really.

The difference to me is in articulation - 7.25 seems to fit my hand better, feels a little more natural and easy. Not a huge difference, but noticeable for me. If 9.5 feels good, I'd expect 7.25 would probably feel OK too.

 

[felis]

For me, it's 9.5" or go home.

 

[Thumper]

I'm 72, and playing in a gigging Biker Bar band. Part of the reason is the 7.5 doesn't make me work as hard by not having to straighten my fingers as much. Small things make a difference after thousands of hours and 56 years of playing. Rolled fingerboard edges also help along with light strings, and of course light weight.

 

[goes to 11]

7.25 is more curved, as you would expect. That's it. Neck depth and profile just depend on the individual neck itself, don't necessarily change with fretboard radius. I don't find radius to make a difference in the tone, really.

The difference to me is in articulation - 7.25 seems to fit my hand better, feels a little more natural and easy. Not a huge difference, but noticeable for me. If 9.5 feels good, I'd expect 7.25 would probably feel OK too.

I would think the difference islet most in how you hold your left hand. I use my thumb as more of a pivot like an upright. I dont ever hold the neck tight. The thumb is always pivoting.. Thanks for the info. Appreciate it.

 

[HP Hovercraft]

For me, it's 9.5" or go home.

Well, you're lucky then. Those of us who prefer 7.25" don't have a whole lot to choose from without paying crazy vintage prices.

 

[TyBo]

I would think the difference islet most in how you hold your left hand. I use my thumb as more of a pivot like an upright. I dont ever hold the neck tight. The thumb is always pivoting.. Thanks for the info. Appreciate it.

My LH position is the same with either radius. But that's me, others may differ.

 

[Jim C]

I am considering a p-bass with 7.25 radius 4 string but havent played it since its over seas. My other basses have the 9.5 radius. What is the difference in plain english? Is the 7.25 more curved and fatter in the back like an upright or OLD p bass? (thats the impression I'm getting) How huge is the difference? What does it do for tone on a p bass? Thanks. I really want this bass.

Just want to make sure you are on the right track. The radius is only for the fretboard and in no way defines the shape or profile of the back of the neck, nor the thickness of the neck.

For me, the radius/shape of the back of the neck is MOST important but rarely discussed other than thickness at the first and 12th fret.
When you compare a 1960 P with a C neck to a 1973 with an A neck, the fret board radius doesn't register considering 1 3/4" at the nut vs. 1 1/2". I have one of each to compare. All IMO/IME!

 

[Mike Vee]

flatter feels way better to me

 

[Nebadon2000]

When I bought my First Bass a new 1975 Precision I had no Idea about neck shape, nut width [1.75] or radius; I have smallish hands and it was difficult for me at first but I adapted and learned how to handle any style Bass lines. [played it 25yrs]

I can bend my fingers now in awkward crookedness that's not so pretty

I then used a 2001 P with 9.5 and 1.65 nut found it a tad more comfy when I got used to it

the went to Fender Ultra P with 10-14 compound radius with slim/wide 'D' Neck best/most comfy/fast playability for me ever

Now with Stingray Special 11 radius, 1.7 nut and 'D' [ish] neck with oil & wax finish equal to if not a tad better than Ultra

All opinions for both right and left hand

 

[andare]

More curved fretboard means the neck is thicker in the middle than a 9.5 but really the only difference is in how much better 7.25 follows the natural curve of my fingers.

It's very noticeable on bass, a bit less on guitar.

I suppose I could play a 9.5 neck if it was sufficiently thick. The profile is also very important. My favorite is the oval or flat D profile used in MIJs. It feels wider than the fretboard but it's not thick front to back so it doesn't feel like a baseball bat.

Tone differences are irrelevant to me and my 7.25 bass has a slab board fretboard. That may contribute more to tone than the radius compared to a veneer board. Who cares

 

[SteveCS]

For those of you who play and prefer a bass with a 7.25" fretboard radius, is it due to a greater ease with reaching notes? I have smaller hands and it *seems* like this radius would be better for single note runs, arpeggios, but maybe not. I play with my fingers (no pick). My current basses (2) have a 9.5" radius each. Fine to learn with (I'm new to bass), but I'm curious about the differences. From what I've learned so far, the old, early '60s Fender Jazz basses (and maybe Precisions?) had this radius. Closer to the radius of an upright bass? Thanks.

Curious why flatter would be easier to play? The nut width on a Jazz would make a difference.

There are genuine geometric problems with a smaller radius (particulary when combined with highly tapered necks such as the typical Jazz bass) which make it difficult to get a consistently low playing action along the entire length of the fingerboard. If you imagine the strings running along the sides of a long slim (7.5" radius) cylinder. Place them closer together at one (nut) and and further apart at the other (bridge) and they will drift away from the surface as they approach the bridge - that is to say the action gets higher as you move up the neck. Lower the action and they start to wrap around the cylinder. To get them down again you have to raise the nut slots, lower the bridge and introduce excessive relief, all of which compromise playability. Flatter fingerboards (thicker cylinder) and wider nuts mitigate this issue to some degree. Compound radius fingerboards which gets flatter as you go up the neck and are more like a cone section can totally solve the issue leading to greater playability across the entire neck.

YMMV

 

[Mike Vee]

There are genuine geometric problems with a smaller radius (particulary when combined with highly tapered necks such as the typical Jazz bass) which make it difficult to get a consistently low playing action along the entire length of the fingerboard. If you imagine the strings running along the sides of a long slim (7.5" radius) cylinder. Place them closer together at one (nut) and and further apart at the other (bridge) and they will drift away from the surface as they approach the bridge - that is to say the action gets higher as you move up the neck. Lower the action and they start to wrap around the cylinder. To get them down again you have to raise the nut slots, lower the bridge and introduce excessive relief, all of which compromise playability. Flatter fingerboards (thicker cylinder) and wider nuts mitigate this issue to some degree. Compound radius fingerboards which gets flatter as you go up the neck and are more like a cone section can totally solve the issue leading to greater playability across the entire neck.

YMMV

perfect explanation and why I love flat. I like ridiculously low action.

 

[SteveCS]

...
and why I love flat. I like ridiculously low action.

Likewise, which is why I had my Rays (fretted and fretless) modified from 9.5" to 12" when they were PLEKked. You would probably like a Warwick where the standard radius is 20" and can be set very low all the way to the 2nd octave even with the 38mm nut.

 

[Mike Vee]

Likewise, which is why I had my Rays (fretted and fretless) modified from 9.5" to 12" when they were PLEKked. You would probably like a Warwick where the standard radius is 20" and can be set very low all the way to the 2nd octave even with the 38mm nut.

how is that done? by changing just the frets?