Loar era f-4 nut width

[Jim Hilburn]

I have a friend with an early ('22 I think) F-4. I made a note that it had a 1 3/16" nut. Did they reduce this to about the same as the F-5's in later production? It appears that way in most of the Archive photo's.

[danb]

Yes, that's correct Jim. It looks like the very first truss rod instruments were modifications on the original neck width, followed in '23 by a narrower peghead (similar to the truss rod/paddleheads vs the snakeheads).

[Bernie Daniel]

Dan, do you know anything written by Loar or the other early developers of the F-5 that reveals their thoughts as to why the nut should have been reduced 1/8 of an inch in the first place?

I played my '19 F-2 and '52 F-12 (both with 1 3/16 inch nuts) for years before buying an F-5. #I adjusted to the narrower neck but I see that it offers little in the way of improvement over the wider necks and is, in fact, a bit more difficult for large hands & fingers like mine.

Just wondering -- Loar looks to be slight build and of slim hands in the photos -- maybe that's the answer?

[danb]

I'm not sure about any written information. I always assumed that the reason was that the Style 5 instruments went to the more attractive Maple necks, and having the truss rod allowed them to make them slimmer. Did they need to really? not sure!

I have had several of each. Neither one really wins out by much for comfort or playability for me, I have quite large hands.

[Gail Hester]

I have a 1924 F4 and the nut width is 1 1/16 inch. I think Dan is correct although I've seen 1922 truss rod instruments with Loarish thin necks so it's like every other detail that you try to pin down, you can find exceptions.

[danb]

The change from wide to thin seemed to happen around serial 71xxx-72xxx, which is right about where the first snakeheads appear too