Does nut width really matter?

[MediumMando5722]

I started with a flat board with a very wide nut. After several months, I switched to an Eastman. The narrow nut worried me a little, but it was no problem at all. Maybe the radius made the difference, but it is easier to play than the other one.

[Eric Platt]

Am lucky in that I seemed to be able to adapt fairly quickly. But then again, I adapt fairly quickly on acoustic and electric guitars with different nut widths.

However, based on the OP description, I would definitely suggest the extra $40 for the Big Muddy. Or maybe try the Breedlove. Was able to play a used Cascade locally and it felt like a dream. If I wasn't restricting my MAS right now, would have been sorely tempted.

Others have mentioned Eastman. A week ago drove to one of the local shops to try a 515. The neck felt very similar to my The Loar LM-220. Maybe this was not normal, but I had no problem adjusting to it. Not saying you would like it, but it worked for me. Did not feel skinny in either width or depth.

[mandocrucian]

Re: Does nut width really matter? Take this simple test:

===========================================0=3==
==0===2===3===2==========0=2===3=2======0=2==========
====4===4===4===4======5=====5====5=4=5===============
================================================

Keep your middle finger down on the 4th fret while you play the notes on the A string in the first example; same thing with the 3rd finger on the 5th fret.

If you end up muting the strings and have to keep lifting your middle (or ring) finger on the D string, your neck needs to be wider (for your finger thickness)! If you can't keep the fingers down on adjacent strings and play clean notes, your playing technique is IMPEDED whether you realize it or not (at this stage).

Niles H

[Mike Snyder]

I probably could not do that on any width board. That has everything to do with a mutilated left hand and nothing to do with the board itself. But I cope well enough. I have an F5 with a 1 1/32 nut and a fairly deep V neck and an A4 with a 1 3/16 nut and shallower and rounder V neck. I am more comfortable with the F5 neck because I've played it for 12 years. The A4 is a great player also, just the new kid. Radius on both. The mandolin neck is just not much real estate whatever you've got and I only remember one that felt unplayable due to the neck and that was a Jethro two point red Gibson that was way shallow and flat on the back of the neck. Must have been whittled down.

[LadysSolo]

I agree with different nut widths AND neck configurations for different players. The main reason I switched to mandolin as main instrument from guitar is the thinner neck of mandolins. I have very short stubby fingers (if I hold my hand up palm to palm with an average size adult my fingers are a full joint shorter.) So to push for wide nuts would really disadvantage me.

[Jeff Hildreth]

sblock

" you do not get to define what an OM is"

You are absolutely right .. Martin gets to do that as they are the originators and the original was 14 frets, 1 3/4 " nut, 2 5/16ths to 2 3/8ths nut width and a 25.4 inch scale length.. Not Eastman's interpretation, which by definition being a short scale 1 1/16ths, 2 3/32nds saddle spacing,24.9 string length ... etc is NOT an OM it is a 000... also Martin's origination, not Eastman's.

As extreme as that may seem.. that is their (Martin's) call to define what was their original design.. and remains that way today.

People buy and play Loars, in my opinion, in spite of the narrow nuts.
Also note that early on in Gibson's mandolin production (I have owned a few) many were 1 1/4 nut width. As extreme as you may think this might be.. redirect your caustic remarks at them, not me.
.

Buy and play what you want, up to you.

However for many people, 1 1/16th is as ridiculous on a mandolin as is 1 11/16ths is on a guitar.
Many former narrow nutters have seen the light and gone up in dimension

And here is world class news.. people are larger 100 years later, to include hands and fingers. I know that may be a surprise to you, but some of us are aware of this. What a revelation.

PS

I have been building instruments since 1964.

PPS "ADAPT.. you mean compromise my playing because you think I should be tolerant of your narrow minded vision and of manufacturers disregard, if not disrespect for players/buyers needs.

Are you therefore criticizing Webber and Gibson, and Collings etc for making instruments with wider nuts. Spit a little of your venom their way. And why not post retorts to other posters who prefer wider nuts?

I make no assertion you should buy or play instruments that have features more suited to modern humans. Entirely your choice. Compromise never.. and in some factions of society that would be extreme. For you to suggest I should adapt...(aside from being pompous) ain't gonna happen.

[bratsche]

It matters very little to me. I know there's a huge difference of nut width in the various instruments I play (from viola to mandola to baritone uke to ...) but honestly, I never even measured them to begin with or pay them any mind at all. Same goes for radius - some have, some don't, it makes little if any difference to me. I'm a bit more sensitive to scale length, and to neck depth/profile differences, some of which have bugged me enough to get out the sandpaper to change.

But my general rule is if I like the sound of something, I will play it and adapt to the differences; and if I don't like the sound, well, why bother?

The one time someone built me an instrument (first and only mandola he ever made), I showed him how wide to cut the fingerboard by drawing a diagram on paper (that I never measured). He gave it "somewhat of a radius" by eyeballing it (no measuring). When it came the day to go get it, he decided to wait till then before stringing it up, and first let me show him where to cut the nut slots. I marked them in pencil (again, no measuring - I knew where I wanted them!) and he cut them, strung it up, made a few adjustments to the compensation on the one piece bridge (that I had made myself) to dial in intonation, and it was very, very good. I've had no problems with it whatsoever. (In fact, it's my "go-to mandola".)

I have smallish hands by most of your standards, just average sized ones for being a woman and all, but nevertheless tend to prefer larger instruments. The only thing I just can't play is a 13" scale mandolin - the fine motor movements needed to navigate those closely-spaced frets are just too extreme, and provoke enormous tension in my hand, regardless of how wide the fretboard might be.

bratsche

[Payton]

I once had a very talented mandolin player that owned and played a custom wide nut (1 3/16" to be specific) play my Eastman 815 at a jam. I ask him to play it because I wasn't very good (I'm still not), and it seemed at the time I was always seeking approval of my lesser instrument compared to others. He graciously took it and commenced to run up and down the neck playing various tunes before handing it back and saying it played like butter and it it had a very except able tone for a mandolin in its price range. I glad he didn't tell me it sucked and was unplayable. Not being able to afford something higher end I might have put it in the case and never attempted to learn to play any further. I've also seen a recent video of Jeremy Chapman and Sam Bush blistering the finger boards of a couple of Eastmans at the NAM show. Guess someone forgot to tell them they were unplayable as well. Just saying.

Payton

[NJmando]

Re: Does nut width really matter? Take this simple test:

===========================================0=3==
==0===2===3===2==========0=2===3=2======0=2==========
====4===4===4===4======5=====5====5=4=5===============
================================================

Niles H

Not a bad example. Even better though, is trying to use the pinkie finger on the 1st string. I have giant hands and only recently realized that the 1 1/16th nut width on my F9 is way too skinny. My "aha" moment happened when I was playing St Annes Reel. In the B section, I play that 7th fret note with my pinkie. It is painful and annoying on my F9. Switched over to my grandfather old A2 with a 1 1/4" nut and oh my god...now I'm obsessed with wider nuts. I'll probably get one of the new wide nut F9's that Harvey has been making at Gibson. Not cheap...but it will fit my needs. Generally agree though that people with average/smaller hands won't mind a standard width at all. To each his own!

[Shelagh Moore]

I guess it depends on the individual player's hands, style and preferences. I've been playing mandolin around 50 years and now much prefer a wider nut, as on my Taran and National RM-1. The 30mm nut on my Nava is also manageable but I had to sell on an otherwise lovely Daley A style because of the very narrow neck/nut... it simply wasn't comfortable to play for me. I also prefer a slightly wider nut on guitar.

[jab]

I just went through the process of choosing a standard or wide nut width on a new Collings MF model. Been playing a Kentucky KM1000 for ten years (older 1 1/16 nut width, which they may now make in 1 1/8), and just purchased a wide nut Collings MF (1 3/16). I had 7 days to try the Collings out out so went back and forth a hundred times b/w my Kentucky and Collings to see which nut width I prefer, and of course read every forum opinion I could find on the subject. I'm 6' 1", XL glove but not abnormally large hands. If I had to sum up my week with the 1 1/16 and the 1 3/16 I'd say a smaller nut a little easier to play as far as speed and chording go, chop chords/double stops a tad easier, but in comparison I played sloppier. Pick would hit other strings often on the smaller nut, and when you have to squeeze two fingertips on the same fret to play a chord, I find myself damping an adjacent string half of the time unless I am very precise with it. Wide nut on the other hand made those two finger/same fret chords clean and picking scales stayed clear of other strings, slightly more of a stretch needed for chopping, double stops, and the neck was a bit rounder/fatter so different than the skinnier neck pronounced V-shaped Kentucky (both comfortable, just different). Literally a 50/50 split on which I preferred for playability, I couldn't decide. So it came down to "hmm, should I learn to play cleaner and adjust to the extra room on the wide nut or keep the slightly faster/slimmer neck thing going". A wide nut is "non-traditional", should I do what most people do and buy the "normal" width? Will I protect my resale if I stay standard? I'm 56 - what if I get arthritis in coming years, won't smaller be better? Those kinds of things crossed my mind.

I "mentally" concluded something in the middle of the two would be the perfect answer, the best of both worlds. Lo and behold I checked the Collings specs and their standard nut width is 1 1/8 (right between the two I was experimenting with). On the 7th day I went back to the store "mentally" convinced the standard 1 1/8 was going to be the answer. I a/b'd the MF Collings standard nut width vs the MF wide nut for about half an hour, and was surprised I preferred the wide nut. There wasn't enough of a difference to differentiate b/w the smaller 1 1/16 Kentucky nut width with the standard 1 1/8 Collings width, nor between the standard Collings nut width and the 1 3/16 wide nut. Interesting perspective when you try it that way. Even on the Collings standard 1 1/8 nut width I was a bit sloppier on the picking, touching other strings a bit, a bit cramped on those same fret/two finger chords. Wide nut once again just a bit cleaner playing with the only noticeable difference in dexterity being an extra very slight reach needed on chops/double stops. It is important to note that the scale of the instrument did not change with nut width, meaning the frets were the same distance from each other, so the little extra stretch is only between strings. The neck was slightly chunkier on the wide nut but if I hadn't read a spec, I probably wouldn't have noticed. Much to my surprise I walked out with the wide nut with no doubts.

These "once in a lifetime purchases" can really make you obsess over these things. The right answer is always "try them out for yourself and then decide" but I'm sympathetic to those that don't have inventory choices where they live, so these forums are a way to help. I guess my lesson learned was good sized hands, but not overly large hands, works well with a wider nut. There is also something to be said for you'll get used to playing whatever instrument you're playing, just put the other one away for a while. And caveat I was comparing Collings vs Collings in the end. Neck size, scale, string spacing, and those other things vary from brand to brand so there are other considerations. Not easy making those "once in a lifetime choices" but truth is when I stop chasing better gear & tone I'll be taking a dirt nap.

[Br1ck]

If a company, any company, thought they could make more money going from x to y, or adding x to y, they would. If adding x to y costs more than just having x, why would they do it? Just because I don't like the new and "vastly improved" D 18 doesn't cause me to deride Martin. Give me a 65 D 18 any day. Most would disagree with me.

[rcc56]

"Does nut width really matter?"

For me, absolutely. And also for me, the shape of the neck is equally important.
Personally, I prefer a wide nut and a fairly substantial neck. Many of the modern narrow necks with steep sides are downright painful to me. But what fits one person might not fit another person.

Spend some time playing lots of different mandolins. That way, you'll figure out what fits your hand.

[OneChordTrick]

I started with a flat board with a very wide nut. After several months, I switched to an Eastman. The narrow nut worried me a little, but it was no problem at all. Maybe the radius made the difference, but it is easier to play than the other one.

Thanks I think you may have helped me make a big decision

[fatt-dad]

Once you decide, muscle memory seems more important. That said, I'd avoid a mandolin too narrow.

I'm bigger then folks from the '20s and my Gibson is at 1-1/4 and I do just fine.

f-d

[Phil Goodson]

I guess I'm the odd man out. I started with wide necks, usually about 1 3/16", and over the years have noticed that I'm more comfortable with 1 1/8" and actually, my favorite mandolin has a 1 1/16" nut.

I think my preference stems from the fact that 98% of my playing is rhythm and fills, playing with singers. I make a lot of chords using a fingertip to cover 2 courses and find that this helps economy of motion a lot. It doesn't matter if fingers touch strings on the nut side of where they're being fretted, as long as the fingertips get the proper strings to the frets.
Being pretty lazy, I really like 'economy of motion'.

Maybe if I played a lot of the complex melodies that some of you folks do, I'd change my mind.

[pops1]

The mandolin I played for many years was a Gibson with a 1 1/4" nut. I liked it just fine and had no trouble playing it, even with smaller hands. I got a few different mandolins with 1 1/8" and 1 3/32" and have no problem playing them except for one, which I sold, it was deeper in the neck. I used to like the depth, but now it is faster, easier and more comfortable to play a very shallow neck mandolin. I don't notice the nut width or flat or radius differences, but I sure notice the depth of the neck. For me that is the most important thing, next to sound, for playing or owning a mandolin. I can still play my Gibson with the wide neck, I miss the access to the upper neck, but I much prefer the narrower, shallower neck now.

[Capt. E]

A good player should be able to adjust easily to just about any nut width. I prefer the 1-1/4 nut on my 1920 Gibson A2, but have no problem playing my Weber "Bighorn" with a 1-1/8 nut. The narrower nut does somewhat improve fingering on barre chords. I have never tried a 1-1/16 nut. One thing that comes to mind is the spacing between strings as you go up the neck. Perhaps the spacing between strings on the bridge is more important than the nut width.

[Dan O'Sullivan]

I just went through the process of choosing a standard or wide nut width on a new Collings MF model. Been playing a Kentucky KM1000 for ten years (older 1 1/16 nut width, which they may now make in 1 1/8), and just purchased a wide nut Collings MF (1 3/16). I had 7 days to try the Collings out out so went back and forth a hundred times b/w my Kentucky and Collings to see which nut width I prefer, and of course read every forum opinion I could find on the subject. I'm 6' 1", XL glove but not abnormally large hands. If I had to sum up my week with the 1 1/16 and the 1 3/16 I'd say a smaller nut a little easier to play as far as speed and chording go, chop chords/double stops a tad easier, but in comparison I played sloppier. Pick would hit other strings often on the smaller nut, and when you have to squeeze two fingertips on the same fret to play a chord, I find myself damping an adjacent string half of the time unless I am very precise with it. Wide nut on the other hand made those two finger/same fret chords clean and picking scales stayed clear of other strings, slightly more of a stretch needed for chopping, double stops, and the neck was a bit rounder/fatter so different than the skinnier neck pronounced V-shaped Kentucky (both comfortable, just different). Literally a 50/50 split on which I preferred for playability, I couldn't decide. So it came down to "hmm, should I learn to play cleaner and adjust to the extra room on the wide nut or keep the slightly faster/slimmer neck thing going". A wide nut is "non-traditional", should I do what most people do and buy the "normal" width? Will I protect my resale if I stay standard? I'm 56 - what if I get arthritis in coming years, won't smaller be better? Those kinds of things crossed my mind.

I "mentally" concluded something in the middle of the two would be the perfect answer, the best of both worlds. Lo and behold I checked the Collings specs and their standard nut width is 1 1/8 (right between the two I was experimenting with). On the 7th day I went back to the store "mentally" convinced the standard 1 1/8 was going to be the answer. I a/b'd the MF Collings standard nut width vs the MF wide nut for about half an hour, and was surprised I preferred the wide nut. There wasn't enough of a difference to differentiate b/w the smaller 1 1/16 Kentucky nut width with the standard 1 1/8 Collings width, nor between the standard Collings nut width and the 1 3/16 wide nut. Interesting perspective when you try it that way. Even on the Collings standard 1 1/8 nut width I was a bit sloppier on the picking, touching other strings a bit, a bit cramped on those same fret/two finger chords. Wide nut once again just a bit cleaner playing with the only noticeable difference in dexterity being an extra very slight reach needed on chops/double stops. It is important to note that the scale of the instrument did not change with nut width, meaning the frets were the same distance from each other, so the little extra stretch is only between strings. The neck was slightly chunkier on the wide nut but if I hadn't read a spec, I probably wouldn't have noticed. Much to my surprise I walked out with the wide nut with no doubts.

These "once in a lifetime purchases" can really make you obsess over these things. The right answer is always "try them out for yourself and then decide" but I'm sympathetic to those that don't have inventory choices where they live, so these forums are a way to help. I guess my lesson learned was good sized hands, but not overly large hands, works well with a wider nut. There is also something to be said for you'll get used to playing whatever instrument you're playing, just put the other one away for a while. And caveat I was comparing Collings vs Collings in the end. Neck size, scale, string spacing, and those other things vary from brand to brand so there are other considerations. Not easy making those "once in a lifetime choices" but truth is when I stop chasing better gear & tone I'll be taking a dirt nap.

Yes, YES on the "once in a lifetime"...obsess.

[Steve L]

deleted post

[Jeff Hildreth]

"A good player should be able to adjust easily to just about any nut width."

There it is.. Right from the horses mouth.. I am, by definition, not a good player as I cannot, and will not, adapt from a playable nut width to a ridiculously narrow 1 1/16th.

[Mandoplumb]

"A good player should be able to adjust easily to just about any nut width."
There it is.. Right from the horses mouth.. I am, by definition, not a good player as I cannot, and will not, adapt from a playable nut width to a ridiculously narrow 1 1/16th.

Your loss

[Randi Gormley]

I'd think nut width preference would be just that -- a preference. if your hand likes it, than use what width you like. Will your hand notice a difference? certainly -- just as it would notice a difference in depth or whether the back is more U-shaped or V-shaped. Whether that matters is more up to you.

I've mentioned this before -- my go-to mando has a 1-inch nut and I prefer it over any of my other instruments, have no trouble playing cleanly and don't really get why anybody would want a wider nut... but, hey, if your preferred nut width is 2 inches, more power to you. In any group of objects, there will be outliers, like any other bell curve. There are perfectly serviceable instruments with -- like mine -- one-inch nuts that some musicians will not want to play and that's fine. More for me, as it were.

[Eric Hanson]

Once upon a time there was this wonderful little place in the world called the internet. It was the Mandolin Cafe. Almost everyone who visited it tended to be very helpful, and a fairly cautious about what they said, and how they said it. Encouraging words were the normal and expected tone of conversation and psoting.
It was a wonderful place where mandolin enthusists would visit at the end of a long day in the world of reality full of harsh words and vitriol, searching for solice, education, and enlightenment.
Sadly over time some decided to begin to visit and spread the unkindness of the world of reality. The education and concern for others began to be not as important to some. And the kindly bastion of enjoyment began to be sullied by some wanting to spread strong and agressive opinions.
Soon the wonderful little place in the widely expanding world was tainted by the feelings of pain that so many wanted to avoid. The education and concern for the feelings of others became not as important.
So sad.
Please all.
There have been some wonderful contributors in the past, who have left this website and its forum, or at least no longer comment nor post, due to the tone of discussions that started with pure curiosity, but turned to strong opinions stated in a manner that has tended to not be as educational and encouraging. Thankfully the owner of this site has blocked them. We no longer hear from them and their discomfort.
Many of us have some strong opinions about the instruments we play. The way that we play them. What we like or hate about certain players of mandolin family instruments, and the instruments they play.
I can remember when there was time when Chris Thile was the receiver of countless harsh words due to his voice and his playing style. Since then he has receive a MacArthur Foundation Award. Has produced numerous pieces of music, in many genres and styles, and gained quite the reputation as a formitable player. Too, he has done amazing things to promote the wonderful little instrument that we play, that has far too many times been referred to as anything from a little banjo, a weird looking ukelele, baby guitar, and so many other odd descriptions. For this alone we can be thankful that he has become an ambasador of remarkable benefit.
Do we think about what Mr. Monroe thought about Sam Bush? Another player of our instrument? “That ain’t no part of nothin!”. Where is he now? Awarded a special honor from the state of Kentucky for originating a new style of music now recognized as “Newgrass”. How about a little further back? I tend to wonder what people in the Country and Old Time music scene thought of Mr Monroe when he too played that mandolin of his and started doing things with it that no one else had ever done. On an instrument that was engineered to be a more prominent one for the playing of Classical music, of all things. And oh my! That Don Julian! WHAT!! Rock on Roll on a mandolin!! How wonderful for those enjoy such a thing.
How wonderful too that each of them took something that was dear to them and made it their own. Shared it with the world, and their works became something that we can look back on and find reason to motivate us to want to play better.
Opinions are like arm pits. Everyone has one, and with a little too much exercise they all begin to stink.
Can we at least put on a little more deodorant when we come to play in this wonderful little place called The Mandolin Cafe, in the ever vast and growing wode world of the internet? Making sure that when we express ourselves we do it in a non judgemental manner. Less dogamtic, and far more informational for teh enlightenment of all?

I will now step down from my borrowed soap box. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programing.

[J-45er]

There are always trade offs. If strings are narrower at the bridge, then it may be slightly easier to tremolo over double stops with a narrower nut. But a narrower nut may make it harder to do other things.