• Ernie Ball
  • MusicMan
  • Sterling by MusicMan

beej

Moderator
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
12,355
Location
Toronto, Canada
I should clarify ... one of the LIIIs came stock with larger stainless frets, but I've had two others refretted with the same material.
 

Rbg

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2022
Messages
364
Location
USA
So 0.047x0.104? I am considering those vs 0.051x0.100. I also was thinking about 0.057x0.110, but I am afraid those would be too big for miniature Luke necks
 

DrKev

Moderator
Joined
Jul 8, 2006
Messages
7,535
Location
Somewhere between Paris, Dublin, and Buffalo
So 0.047x0.104? I am considering those vs 0.051x0.100. I also was thinking about 0.057x0.110, but I am afraid those would be too big for miniature Luke necks
I've measured frets on two Cutlass necks and they came in around 0.040" x 0.095" and 0.044" x 0.094". Obviously those measurements are +/- 0.001" and the finished fret height will vary a little from guitar-to-guitar because of the fret levelling process).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rbg

ruger9

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2022
Messages
179
Location
NJ
Before I bought my Luke III, I was seriously concerned about all the reports of "tiny frets" (I like big frets). If I had the inclination, I wouldn't mind regretting my Luke with SS, but to be honest... then "small fret thing" doesn't bother me. I don't even notice. I really don't feel much difference between it and my DGT (jumbo frets)... fret size seems alot less relevant than neck size/shape to me. There's a HUGE difference between the two guitars there. Luke's neck is small and DGT's neck is hefty.

The change to SS on one of my other guitars was way more impressive than the change in size. SS is the way to go for me, I'll never have anything refretted with nickel again, and frankly if I had a reliable luthier nearby I'd probably refret all my guitars with SS, one at a time.
 
Top Bottom