Warwick Necks

[Warpeg]

A thought...
Is it possible that some people "feel" thick and thin necks, but not always based on the thickness of the neck? Meaning, do you guys think that it's possible that some people confuse the feels of wenge and ovangkol with the feel of maple? Do you think that people feel the neck differently based on how the neck sits on the bass/the position that the player has to hold the neck? Like I said, just a thought.


However, I will state that my '06 Infinity NT (LTD), which has a maple neck, is very thin--almost Ibanez-like. My early '98 Thumb neck-thru also has a thin neck, but not as thin as the Infinity. My '05 Corvette Standard fretless has a nice, beefy, thick neck. My '03 Thumb BO 5 Broadneck has a fairly average, P-Bass-like thickness to the neck. My old '96 Fortress One had a very thin neck, like the Infinity. My old '05 Corvette Standard had one of the thickest necks that I've played. Can anyone see any kind of pattern?

For the record, thin and thick necks are comfortable to me--it just depends on the bass and the feel that I need for certain styles. Thick or thin, and like a previous poster stated, Warwick necks are very strong. Though I'm not super finicky about my setup, I've collectively only had to adjust any of my Warwicks once! There was a very small amount of fret buzz that needed to be worked-out of my Thumb NT. Those necks act like they're made of steel!

 

[soniq]

This is what I'm finding after playing my newly acquired used Vette Std 4 this weekend. My decrepit old fingers are actually hurting less while playing and after a two hour session compared to playing with the thinner neck of my Bongo. Now I just need to get used to the extra three pounds on my shoulder .

I love my Corvette Std. The neck is just like everyone is saying. Not thin, but not thick. I'd say it's jussssssst right.

 

[jnprather]

someone even went as far as to state that his Warwick's neck was a telephone pole in a previous life.

hahaahha... well, my thumb 5 has a pretty big neck, but it doesnt bother me a bit...

 

[Shoewreck]

My SSTD neck is a newer thicker ovankgol one. The first thing I ever noticed about it is how good does it lay in my hand. I tried to sand it to make it less rough. I succeeded, but don't think that I was right - the exta smoothness increases grip. Currently I'm thinking on adding some roughness with a few strokes of 80 grain sandpaper.

 

[LifeIsBass]

One great thing I'll throw in about my Warwick neck is that it is rock solid. I have adjusted it ONCE, when I first bought the bass. While my Fenders have needed to be tweaked once in a while to account for the seasons, my Warwick hasn't budged. Sweet.

Very true. I adjusted my Thumb once when I bought it. My Corvette Proline and Streamer Stage II were just fine when I bought them and I've never had to touch them. The necks are more stable than any other bass I've owned except my graphite Steinberger of course.

 

[LifeIsBass]

Hans Peter Wilfer standing on the neck of a Warwick!

 

[T-MOST]

Ok, so after reading a bazillion posts on the subject, I'm seriously confused. Everyone talks about the "baseball bat" necks and someone even went as far as to state that his Warwick's neck was a telephone pole in a previous life.

But I've owned a neckthru Thumb 4-banger and the neck on that bass was WAAAAAAAAAAY thinner than any Jazz bass I've ever played. I've tested out a lot of Katanas which were the same. And the bolt-on Thumb 4 was a lot thicker than the neckthru 4-string, but still not HUGE as well as a few Corvettes.

So my question is: "Is everyone smoking something or am I missing something?"

I owned a Thumb 5 and I found the the to be verrry narrow. It was very thick in terms of the depth (it really filled your hand). But in terms of the fingerboard width and string spacing it was like an Ibanez soundgear... way to narrow. So had to get rid of it. at the other extreme I had a Thumb six Wide neck. That thing was as wide as an aircraft carrier but thin from fingerboard to back of the neck... just the opposite of the Thumb 5. I had to get rid of that to... thus ending my brief love affair with warwick.

 

[NKUSigEp]

Thinner necks doesn't mean easier playabilty, IME.
I was quite surprised at how easy it was to get around on a 'wick. Despite what I have heard I find their necks to be extremely comfortable. I also love the feel of the wood.
I don't think the neck is that thick anyway. Alot of folks make it sound like
your fingers won't reach the strings!

Definitely true. Although I'm not really saying thinner necks are or are not easier to play...I'm just saying I'm slightly annoyed with the over-generalizations. Back to me analogy earlier...it's like saying that ALL Fenders have thin necks just because the Jazz bass does.

It just ain't the truth, ya know? There are different models, different woods, different widths and thicknesses. So...maybe I'm trying to start the revolution that will end the ignorance?

The world will be a better place yet!

 

[rusty66]

It comes down to whats comfy for you. A lot of people are quick to bag warwicks, I must admit I think their quality has dropped since 2000, but my 97 NT5 thumb neck has only been adjusted once (like many others here), the width is perfect & the thickness suits me fine. I also play other basses with thicker necks also & they feel fine to me.

They say if you want to find out something bad about something, go to a forum. Its true! My advice is just go with what feels best for you & dont listen to everybody!

Cheers,
Rusty

 

[breckscratcher]

warwicks are the shaiz, although i can't say much for the reliability of my electronics in my streamer lx 5.

 

[birdxofxprey]

part of the explanation for the lack of consensus on warwick necks is that people are using "thickness" to mean different things. some people might call a neck thick because it is wide at the nut (width) and others might call a neck thick because of the distance from the board to the back of the neck (height).

in my experience, warwick necks have a relatively narrow width, and a bit more height than other necks. so, if you like a narrow neck, you might call wick necks "thin." on the other hand, if you like a neck with diminished height, you might be inclined to call wick necks "thick."

fender jazz necks have an exaggerated width and very little height, and they feel terribly awkward to me. warwick necks are perfect for me, slim on width, chunky on height.

"thick" and "thin" are just unhelpful and confusing terms. the more specific descriptions that refer to "width" and "height" make it more clear what is being debated.

 

[motleystew]

Search for the thread I started once about taking these measurements..Search for "micrometer" I tried to get as many people to gather certain info on width, thickness, etc..and it seemed to die in the water..people would rather argue with out any real world data. I also thought that if a lot of different basses were measured and posted, a person could get an idea of what a neck was like before they bought one in the mail, etc..

 

[alexit]

I think there's a trade-off on neck thickness. Thicker necks allow the thumb and upper palm to get more grip and as a result provide more leverage/support for the fingers. The drawback is that the friction from a lot of contact makes movement up and down the neck harder.

The (over-simplified) result is this: thicker necks make for more stable/comfortable playing when you're sticking to a single position or not moving around on the neck much. Thinner necks allow for easier sliding up and down the neck, but at the expense of finger stability. You can play up the neck faster, but you need to develop a lighter touch to be precise.

Of course, all of this is still second in relevance to hand size vs neck size. Those of us with big hands may have trouble with stability on thinner necks, especially near the nut, since there is not very much surface area on the thumb that is in contact with the neck. That's why you see people wrapping the thumb over the e-string, or putting it along the headstock up past the nut, sure it's 'poor' technique, but when your left hand is playing something that requires a lot of strength, you need more room to lever it off of.

IMO the best option for newer players is to find a neck that is somewhat thin RELATIVE TO YOUR HAND SIZE and work on a good clean left-hand technique instead of relying on a thick neck for stability. That being said, I like the way warwicks feel, and if you have a decent left hand technique, go for whatever feels right.

 

[NKUSigEp]

All good points to think about. My '01 NT Thumb 4 was very thin from front to back, and it had an ovangkol neck. So...there's a lot more than what meets the eye here. Seems like people just like to latch onto an idea because someone else said it, without seeing for themselves.

I'm finished here.

 

[nuno.ka]

I have been playing a Warwick since 1994, so I know what I mean when I say "It is very comfortable".
It's not hearsay.

 

[ScottyBoy]

At one stage I had two Warwick Corvette standards.

One was fretted and bought new in 2005
The fretless was a lot older (wenge neck, brass nut) not sure of the year.

The new one had a noticeably thicker neck. It got to the point where I couldn't believe how chunky the neck was going from the fretless to the fretted.

I never measured it but the difference wasn't subtle! It wasn't just the fact it was fretless.

 

[Grueber]

Hans Peter Wilfer standing on the neck of a Warwick!

AHHHHH!!

 

[Webtroll]

I think that people read something like that enough times on the forum that not only will they say it if they've never even played a Warwick, but if they have a chance to play one in passing the will be predisposed to have already expected the neck to be huuuuuge and will report it as such. Ah, the wonders of stereotypes!

Actually some Warwicks have intentionally wide necks by design. If someone were to pick one up and not be familiar with the brand I could imagine him thinking they're all like that. Neither of mine are particularly wide nor narrow, but from what I've heard the wide ones are actually pretty comfy to play (maybe due to the profile? dunno).

*** I'm glad that's not my bass he's standing on. I'd have a heart attack!!!

 

[cnltb]

I've just noticed , repeatedly that warwick necks felt "unfinished" to me.Not in terms of "no finish on the neck" but in the way that the last bit of attention had not been afforded to the completion of the instrument.
A picture of Mr Wilfer standing on a neck does not s
ay anything.

 

[Human Bass]

I dont know why people care so much about the nut width...it makes no difference to me, i think that the neck shape, and by i that i mean the profile (C, V, U, asymmetrical) has a much more profound effect.