Warwick have changed the shape of their standard neck this year

[peted]

For those that don't like the fat 'baseball bat' style neck which Warwicks have been sporting for quite a while now, it seems that they are changing the standard neck dimensions on their basses from this year onwards. I just got the latest Warwick Newsletter with the below:

[quote]The first Warwick basses had a flat neck profile that is now almost legendary, but that was given up in favour of a fatter profile that guaranteed more stability. For a long time the
U-shape was standard on Warwick basses. New manufacturing technologies (such as slimmer truss rods and an enhanced measurement of humidity levels of neck woods) enabled Warwick to return to flatter neck profiles (somewhere between the legendary slim neck and the present U-profile) which were available via the custom shop only. This year the flat C-shape became the new standard. However, the U-shape is still available as a custom shop option under the name “fat neck”.[/quote]

Therefore going from:


to:

[simon1964]

[quote name='peted' post='570300' date='Aug 15 2009, 11:09 PM']For those that don't like the fat 'baseball bat' style neck which Warwicks have been sporting for quite a while now, it seems that they are changing the standard neck dimensions on their basses from this year onwards. I just got the latest Warwick Newsletter with the below:



Therefore going from:


to:

[/quote]

Bit of a shame IMO. I actually really like the fatter "U" shape. I suspect I'm in a minority though.

[Alun]

This should be interesting. I always found the U necks too thick on the 4 strings, although they didn't feel so bad on the sixes where the dimensions seemed to work better.

Cheers
Alun

[budget bassist]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[quote name='simon1964' post='570308' date='Aug 15 2009, 11:23 PM']Bit of a shame IMO. I actually really like the fatter "U" shape. I suspect I'm in a minority though.[/quote]
not at all, i remember the first time i played my (your) 'wick at that bass bash and really didn't get on with the neck, but i've learned to love it

is the nut width still the same?

Edited August 16, 2009 by budget bassist

[Machines]

Their necks are one of the reasons a lot of people can't stand Warwicks - perhaps a shrewd move from them. Would love to try one out.

[spacecowboy]

I for one am extremely happy, i have an '88 Stage II with a dream like neck, and thus far i have had to sell an '04 LX, '08 Double Buck, and an FNA Jazzman all because i couldn't handle the fat neck, and i have big hands... Very wise decision Warwick.

[Lfalex v1.1]

[quote name='Alun' post='570354' date='Aug 16 2009, 12:45 AM']This should be interesting. I always found the U necks too thick on the 4 strings, although they didn't feel so bad on the sixes where the dimensions seemed to work better.

Cheers
Alun[/quote]

And the fives, too.
I don't mind the (old!) 4 profile, but I'd hardly call it my favourite.

[i]Edit for afterthought[/i]- it might also make the necks a little lighter, helping to stop the (mild) neck-dive that some models suffer from

Edited August 16, 2009 by Lfalex v1.1

[peted]

[quote name='simon1964' post='570308' date='Aug 15 2009, 11:23 PM']Bit of a shame IMO. I actually really like the fatter "U" shape. I suspect I'm in a minority though.[/quote]
+1. I love the chunkiness of my 4 string neck. My custom Shuker is getting a neck profile with the U shape and Warwick dimensions.

[metalmickey]

I never could get on with 100% of the Wicks I had tried: I remember the Thumb NT 4 being the last one I REALLY got on with, but for that price everything needed to be right. Oh well, I look forward to getting my hands on a new one (and the new Rockbass line).

[Leftbass]

I've got a new Corvette Standard and there is definately a difference in the feel compared to my old Thumb. Better for those used to a slimmer neck I think

[ahpook]

changing the shape of the neck [i]and[/i] shrinking the size of the rockbass logo on the RB basses...

whatever next ?

[Kev]

a very good move by warwick imo, very good indeed.

[BarnacleBob]

Dont mind whether a neck has a C or a D profile.
I play a Dolphin NT and alternate with much slimmer necked basses - i find the width of the board and string spacing much more important than the depth or profile. IMHO

BB

[budget bassist]

[quote name='ahpook' post='570800' date='Aug 16 2009, 04:52 PM']changing the shape of the neck [i]and[/i] shrinking the size of the rockbass logo on the RB basses...

whatever next ?

[/quote]
shrinking the size? more like doing away with and replacing with a warwick logo
in fairness i would like one of the new rockbasses, whenever they decide to release them this decade

[ahpook]

[quote name='budget bassist' post='571297' date='Aug 17 2009, 04:02 AM']shrinking the size? more like doing away with and replacing with a warwick logo
in fairness i would like one of the new rockbasses, whenever they decide to release them this decade [/quote]

i'm very tempted by one of the new rb fortresses....but as you say [i]when[/i] they come out.

[peted]

Ooh, I forgot about the Warwick Rockbasses. If I remember correctly the necks use the same dimensions as the German Warwicks. I wonder if they Rockbasses will also be going from 'U' to 'C' to match??? I'll pop Warwick an email asking...

[Doc B]

[quote name='peted' post='571359' date='Aug 17 2009, 09:20 AM']Ooh, I forgot about the Warwick Rockbasses. If I remember correctly the necks use the same dimensions as the German Warwicks. I wonder if they Rockbasses will also be going from 'U' to 'C' to match??? I'll pop Warwick an email asking...[/quote]

There's been posts on the Warwick forum saying that the Rockbasses will have the new new dimensions (along with the 2 piece bridge and 'W' logo).

[Mikey D]

A singlecut and the new neck profile (I hated the old necks). I'm keeping a close eye on them now.

[LukeFRC]

its a bit "well we used to make these amazing thin necks, then we mass produced more basses and cocked it up somehow so they weren't stable enough had to make fat necks to compensate for this. Luckily technology has got better so we can go slim again."

btw when did they start going fat? I'm not sure if mine is fat or not.

[budget bassist]

i'm not sure if the SS1's got the fat necks, as they are neck thru and fairly stable, but i've never played one so i don't know. I do know that all of the bolt on models have the same necks though, so i'd imagine they're referring to that if the profile on the NT models isn't the same

[morsefull]

What! 20 posts and nothing from Warwicksell?............................... er I mean hunt.

[Chris2112]

Very good news indeed! I have a '99 Thumb with a rather slim neck on it (for a Warwick, anyway!). I much prefer that profile to some of the clubbier models of the new millenium.

[xilddx]

[quote name='simon1964' post='570308' date='Aug 15 2009, 11:23 PM']Bit of a shame IMO. I actually really like the fatter "U" shape. I suspect I'm in a minority though.[/quote]

This is weird, I have a 2007 Corvette $$ 4 and I LOVE it's U neck. I got a 2009 Corvette STD fretless a few weeks ago and I got a real surprise when the neck was much shallower. I was a bit disappointed TBH. I would much prefer it with the U neck. I knew nothing about the change.

[tauzero]

I've got a JD Thumb which has the lovely shallow neck - best neck I've ever played. It looks like they're only slimming them down a bit, not to the old dimensions.

[fatgoogle]

So when did they slim down ,2009 or earlier.

Im interested around 2 years ago i tried my first Warwick a $$ and STD and hated them both couldn't handle them, and then last week or so in the bass cellar Ive got huge gas for Warwick know, so is it the neck or me that has changed. And is a jazz C shape or is it chunkier still.