Current Love Rock neck size and Catalogue

Tokai Forum

Help Support Tokai Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

trubolp

Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2018
Messages
21
Reaction score
2
Hi. I've noticed that current Tokai Love Rock neck profile is described as "Asymmetric U shape" on a few websites, eg: http://www.tokai-guitars.nl/ls136f.html
They didn't use to be described like that (last I checked was around 2017/2018). I wonder whether this means the profile has changed?
How does it compare to older neck profiles, from around 2011?
I've owned a couple lower end MIJ 2010-2011 ones and 2012 LS260. I wonder whether the "Asymmetric U shape" on Ls129/136 is any slimmer.
A comparison with recent Gibson Historics or Gibson USA guitars would also be welcome.

Secondly, the official catalogue on https://tokaijapan.com/ weirdly doesn't list Love Rocks (Les Pauls)? I don't believe they've stopped making them -- or have they?
 
Email Tokai Gakki direct for neck profile information.
Love Rocks are still made but some distributors are specifying there own requirements so there are too many variants. Then there's the lower end Chinese made under licence versions.
 
IMHO nothing about neck profile/size means a thing, unless you have a specific example in hand.
I have had enough similar/same examples in hand, from respective manufacturers, to know that not all neck profiles/sizes are created equal, within any particular model line.
Some makers have demonstrated more consistency than others but differences still have been documented.

AFA a particular era in Tokai production (not from the 2011 time frame), embossed serial # LS examples had consistently smaller neck profiles, all while inked aka inkie examples had consistently larger neck profiles.

Having thrown that out as an example, it still remains, there is nothing like having a particular/specific example in hand to actually offer a truly informed opinion.

YMMV
 
I'm well aware of there being variation. However, I would imagine that the better the maker is, the greater the consistency is (variation is not as wild). Regardless, the neck shape description has changed recently (and I've seen it in a few guitar stores) -- which made me wonder whether that comes with an actual profile/size change, or is it just different words to describe the same thing? I shot Tokai an email, but I don't imagine they'll get back to me any time soon.
 
I have no idea how to classify how any maker is the better maker, nor how consistent any maker is within their own set, quality control standard(s).
Having been heavily involved with engineered, and manufactured products, over a multi decade period, I have seen how most any manufacturer sets manufacturing standards, how they apply those standards to the items they produce, and how they quantify the items they allow out of the door of their facilities for public consumption aka for sale.

Since we are discussing guitar neck profiles, I will throw out a known (to me) set of data for a particular model of carved top Les Paul style instrument from a particular (MIJ) manufacturer; one that I won't name here.
The following neck thicknesses were measured, extremely accurately, at fret 1.
Please, keep in mind, all nine of these instruments were produced within roughly a time frame of one year so, one might believe these neck thickness measurements may have been a bit more consistent. Who knows. None the less there are nine measurements offered here. Also, these measurements represent a random sampling of a serial number range of only about 600 instruments. Think about that. 600 guitars produced over the course of about 1 year of production. Also, keep in mind those 600 instruments were not all this particular model. That is a biggy.
.896"
.903"
.930"
.908"
.909"
.897"
.900"
.916"
.858"

The difference between the thickest neck (.930") & thinnest neck (.858"), at fret 1, is .072", which is basically 3 mm.
The average of those nine measurements is .901".
The difference between that average & the thickest neck is over 1mm.
The difference between that average & the thinnest neck is 1.81mm.
Extrapolate those nine examples over 100 examples; then you have the opportunity for a very large difference in neck profiles/thicknesses.

The company that produced these guitars is known for their consistency of manufacture, materials, and build quality so, one might expect the neck profiles they produce may be more consistent. That is a reasonable assumption but at the end of the day, the math actually does not support said assumption; at least not as far as the neck profiles are concerned.
If that scenario occurs within a company that is widely known for consistency of manufacture within their product range, then consider how that might parlay into a company that is known for having specs that are not as well regulated.

As I stated earlier: any example will need to be judged in hand.
 
The whole thing astounds me, the production of guitars.

I assume that the necks are hand sanded and shaped to a degree.

I read a story somewhere about the origin of the V neck at Fender. It had something to do with the regular guy being off and the replacement not sanding the necks the same way. May not be an accurate story but points to how much variation there would reasonably be if any part of the production is hand made. I would guess they have jigs or forms to shoot towards, but it’s still an art I would guess.

Thank god for the imperfections. That’s often where the gems are to be found.

Now what was I talking about? :lol:
 
Guys, guys, guys. Sure, no man ever enters the same river. But don't manufacturer's aim for certain specification? Why would then Gibson have 50s and 60s neck profile?
I've tried a tonne of custom shop Gibsons made since 2016-17, and the necks are consistent enough that I don't notice the difference from guitar to guitar -- of the same model. Sometimes I do -- very rarely. They may be a little bit off if you measure, but before a certain threshold, one can't really feel. So I'd say their consistency and tolerance is pretty tight in that regard. There's plenty of reports of '59 neck on a '58 reissue and vice versa -- but that's pre-2015. So I'm not saying that variations aren't there; I'm saying that it's possible to be pretty consistent, to the point where you buy can blind-buy a '59 reissue and it will FEEL like (not necessarily "measure precisely like") other Gibson '59 reissues, and not like Gibson '58 reissues. Will there be a 1 mil variation? You bet -- will one feel it? Most likely not.
Seeing how people like to claim MIJ Tokaii are above Gibson USA and (by some accounts) on par with Gibson custom shop, and given how Japanese have this myth about being super attentive to detail, I see no reason for them to be less consistent than Gibson. In other words, I expect the drunken temp worker do V-shaped necks not to happen at Tokai.

So with that out of the way...

...my question was: Tokai changed the description of their necks -- does it come with an actual change (the change in what they AIM FOR), or is that just different wording just to make it look like they've refreshed the specs?
First of all, they use "U" to describe the shape -- while normally Les Pauls are associated with "D" (at least in Gibsonland), and from Tokaii I owned, I'd "D" seems a suitable description.
Secondly, they used the word "asymmetric" -- which I have only heard in relation to modern Gibson Les Pauls (and that purists tend to hate asymmetric necks).
I wouldn't have asked if the new description didn't sound considerably different from the old one. If these are indeed legitimate "U asymmetric" necks, they would have to feel different from the old ones. Otherwise it would just be misleading marketing speak. I wonder which one it is.
 
It’s a good question. Unfortunately I don’t have a good answer.

All of the Tokai LPs I have had have been from the 90s and earlier.

I did look it up thinking that was only on one line of guitars but looks like even their vintage line has an asymmetrical profile.

Wondering how pronounced it is? I guess you are too?

Do you live somewhere that sells new Tokais?

I’m in the US so I don’t have access to new Tokais nearby.
 
guitar hiro said:
The difference between the thickest neck (.930") & thinnest neck (.858"), at fret 1, is .072", which is basically 3 mm.

@guitar hero - 0.072" is 1.8 mm ;)
 
Hi. I've verified that current Tokai Love Rock neck profile is described as "Asymmetric U shape" but in this site there are 2 (two) types of U shape
http://www.tokai-guitars.nl/ls136f.html in this site if you take a look at USA models, you can notice the "Asymmetric 60 U shape" while for the other series you will notice "Asymmetric U shape".
The 60's profile is intended for slim-taper and, if unspecified is intended for rounded 50's
Yesterday I have played some of the new arrivals at "Guitar Point" Shop in my town. There were: six UALS62 in various colors, one SG style, and two TOKAI ULS 150F 3A CS SPECIAL EDITION JAPAN.
I've not checked the last 2 because too expensive to me...
The neck of these guitars were like my Gibson SG 50's round profile, only slightly slimmer.
(I have also a Gibson ES-335 with a real 60's slim-taper to caught the difference)
To give a idea, the Tokai UALS62 I've checked are similar to a 59 Gibson shape (that is slimmer than a 58) but defiinitely thicker than a 60's slim taper.
BTW would be distinguished U from D. Many people think that U is deeper but the very difference lies in the edges: the U shape rises vertically towards the keyboard; the D shape rises slight horizontally, and both can be round or slim.
Gibson and Fender often call "C" shape some slim taper necks, defining it: "Modern-C".
In conclusion (my experience) Tokai UALS62 have a round profile, deeper than a slim-taper.
Don't know the ULS 150F 3A CS SPECIAL EDITION JAPAN.
Of course the LS129 and LS136 (USA series) would have a real 60's slim-taper neck.
Hope to be helpful
 

Latest posts

Back
Top