is depth more important than girth..fnarr, fnaar?!?

[iconic]

Yesterday i had a noodle across quite a few bass's and think i've found that within reason the actual width of a neck (nutwise) is less important than the depth of the neck front to back...which i find quite enlightening....but most bass's when advertised display width but not depth.....although i think fender may declare this?

I'm blessed with short savaloy type digits so this could be the reason....i'd love some thin spidery ones that most of the decent bass players seem to posess!

Edited January 23, 2014 by iconic

[BigRedX]

It's a combination of both plus where the end of the neck is in relation to your body when seated or on the strap. The only way you can really find out if an instrument is suited to you is by playing one which is why I find most measurements irrelevant.

Edited January 23, 2014 by BigRedX

[Lozz196]

For myself I find that a neck that`s very deep is far harder to play than a neck that`s very wide. The Fender Road Worns for example, the Precision has the 1.75 width at the nut, yet I find these easier to play than the 70s Precisions that have the 1.625 due to the depth on the 70s basses.

[thisnameistaken]

Totally agree with BRX.

Of the common neck profiles the Jazz is closest to what I like but it's a little too skinny at the nut and not deep enough. Whereas the P is a little too wide at the nut and generally feels like an odd fit for my hand all the way up. I really like Warwick necks and can't really explain why but it must be the overall shape that feels comfortable for the dimensions of my hand. My Warwick isn't as narrow as a Jazz but it's close, but it's definitely got more of a stocky feel around the back, it's a really good fit for me.