• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

about thickness..

Hi,

i have a 60's jazz in progress. Things are going fine except one thing - my mind. Since i've
somehow made a mistake in inch-to-mm conversion in thickness of the body ( i believe orig. Fenders was 1-3/4" wich makes
44.5mm and not 43mm), i can't stop thinking about it. Body is almost done, but sometimes i keep thinking like 'oh, that will
look like those Squiers or a cheap copies that have thinner body' (wich is visible mostly on neck-heel). I don't think those 1,5mm will remarkably affect the tone but you know..
Another thing is that i'd like to sink neck a 2 or 3mm deeper into the body and now i don't know if i can.. Is there any
minimal thickness of wood under the neck-pocket? I've seen many pretty expensive basses with thinner heel (so it seems to
work) but it just looks weak compared to old Fender style..



edit: i remember on Sadowsky site in descriptions of their Ultra-vintages there was detail of deeper neck pocket
because of having strings closer to the body but i can't fint it now in there.. that would be a trick i'm going for.



ok, tell me it doesn't matter that much and i'll have a better sleep ;;

all the best,

mike
 
ok, thanks rodent.. (yes, a bit late reply)

another fact that gave me better feeling is that i checked some celinders and they had noticeably thinner neck heel than fenders. i still believe that the mass under the neck joint has an important rule, but when top class fender-style instruments like celinder has pretty shallow neck heel, i'm happy with my own thickness.

cheers,

mike