LUKE III neck Question.

GarMan

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
48
Hello. I don't post here much, but I have a question.

I played the LUKE standard and the LUKE III yesterday. The LUKE had a tiny neck, but the LUKE III had a nice comfortable neck. It was a little thicker, and had more of a C shape? The standard felt more like a V. The Luke III had a nice neck. Is that common? Do they have different neck carves? Thanks in advance!
 
Officially, the neck carves are identical but the differences in neck woods (maple, rosewood, roasted maple) and the hand finishing is what we here on the forum attribute to the differences that people feel.
 
Hello. I don't post here much, but I have a question.

I played the LUKE standard and the LUKE III yesterday. The LUKE had a tiny neck, but the LUKE III had a nice comfortable neck. It was a little thicker, and had more of a C shape? The standard felt more like a V. The Luke III had a nice neck. Is that common? Do they have different neck carves? Thanks in advance!

I would define the Luke I's V neck as a nice neck. Luke II's are a bit chunkier, but still quite nice, and by all accounts a lot of LIII's have much chunkier necks, so you see, it's not the same for everyone, For me the skinnier and more V shaped, the better!
 
I would define the Luke I's V neck as a nice neck. Luke II's are a bit chunkier, but still quite nice, and by all accounts a lot of LIII's have much chunkier necks, so you see, it's not the same for everyone, For me the skinnier and more V shaped, the better!

I liked that neck on the LIII. It felt just right.
 
I liked that neck on the LIII. It felt just right.

I'm sure they are good, and I will be getting an LIII at some point, but I do worry, because I have a big problem with chunky necked guitars. If the LIII neck was much more of a handful than the Luke II then I'd struggle.
 
Back
Top