24.594"

[garrettb]

Let's put this misconception to bed:

The McCarty 594 DOES NOT have a shorter scale length than a modern-era Gibson.

The scale length is actually 1/32" LONGER than modern Gibson. This confusion comes about due to the way Gibson measures and reports scale length.

To measure the scale length of a guitar, one will generally measure from the inside of the nut to the center of the 12th fret and multiply that number by 2. For example, my HBII is 12.5" x 2 = 25".

Gibson however, measure from the inside of the nut to where the low E string breaks over the saddle. This exaggerates the scale length due to the compensation required for proper intonation. On my HBII, this measurement is 25 1/8".

This chart from Stewart MacDonald shows numbers using the "nut to 12th fret x 2" method:
http://www.stewmac.com/How-To/Onlin...retting_and_Fretw/Scale_Length_Explained.html

When measured apples-to-apples, you will see:

• Modern Gibson guitars are 24 9/16" scale.
• The 24 1/2" scale of the Santana and all the "245" series guitars is only 1/16" shorter than modern Gibson.
• The McCarty 594 with its 24 19/32" scale is 1/32" longer than modern Gibson.

tl;dr: Actual scale length of modern Gibson = 24 9/16". McCarty 594 = 24 19/32".

 

[garrettb]

And, in slight contradiction to StewMac, according to the man himself:

http://www.musicradar.com/reviews/guitars/prs-mccarty-594-639655

It takes its name, primarily, from its scale length of 24.594 inches or, as Paul Reed Smith told us earlier this year, "It's a '59 spec guitar with four knobs."

Smith expands: "In the 50s, Gibson's scale length was 24.594 inches [624.7mm]," not the quoted 24.75-inches and is "three thirty-secondths of an inch longer than our 24.5-inch [622mm] scale," used primarily on PRS's Singlecut models, and 0.4-inch (10.3mm) shorter than PRS's standard 25-inch scale.​

 

[László]

What I try to keep in mind is whether the guitar suits me as a player, and not what Gibson did in 1959 when I was only 717 years old and still playing the accordion.

 

[garrettb]

What I try to keep in mind is whether the guitar suits me as a player, and not what Gibson did in 1959 when I was only 717 years old and still playing the accordion.

The topic at hand is very related to your point, though. Scale length helps inform many players on the suitability of an instrument.

And what Gibson was doing in 1959 (and before and beyond) has inspired all the fantastic PRS guitars we all own.

 

[gush]

I'm just as confused as before I read this?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

[gush]

What I try to keep in mind is whether the guitar suits me as a player, and not what Gibson did in 1959 when I was only 717 years old and still playing the accordion.

What was the scale length of your accordion???

 

[sergiodeblanc]

594, 595, whatever it takes.

 

[django49]

Where is Spinal Tap when we need them? "595! Its one better now, init?"

 

[garrettb]

I'm just as confused as before I read this?!?!?!?!?!?!

Gibson uses a different measurement for scale length than PRS, Fender, etc. that leads people to think the scale length is longer than it actually is. I've seen/ heard on forums, YouTube, and in-person where people call the 594 a shorter scale than a Les Paul, which leads to some false assumptions. In reality the two guitars' scale lengths are about the same.

Same goes for the 245 guitars. People think the difference in scale between an SC245 and a Les Paul is much bigger than it really is. Some people think their fingers will be more cramped on the PRS, which isn't so unless you have magic fingers that can detect a minuscule difference in fret spacing.

In short, any confusion is Gibson's fault. Buy PRS.

 

[László]

What was the scale length of your accordion???

144 buttons.

 

[László]

The topic at hand is very related to your point, though. Scale length helps inform many players on the suitability of an instrument.

I know. I like to keed.

 

[HANGAR18]

If you really want to split hairs, there are six strings on a normal guitar and each string has its own "scale length" which is correct for that particular string. In other words, if a guitar has a scale length of, let's say, 24&3/4"... each string is not exactly 24&3/4" from the nut to the point where it touches the bridge saddle. Yet, we still call it a 24&3/4" scale length. (Ever notice how the nut is always straight across but the nut saddles are set at different distances away from the nut?)

So I'm wondering what your real point to your OP might be. Are you just looking for a reason to call Paul Smith a liar? First of all, I don't remember anyone ever using the term "modern era" when promoting the McCarty 594 and making references to Gibson's scale lengths. As I type this, Gibson currently uses a number of very similar scale lengths which are either exactly 62.865 cm / 24.75" or they are very close to 24.75" and they round it off and call it an "Equal Tempered 24.75" scale length or whatever.

The bottom line is this. The advertised scale length of a Gibson Les Paul is 24.75". The advertised scale length of a PRS McCarty 594 is 24.594".
24.594" is shorter than 24.75" all day long.

 

[garrettb]

If you really want to split hairs, there are six strings on a normal guitar and each string has its own "scale length" which is correct for that particular string. In other words, if a guitar has a scale length of, let's say, 24&3/4"... each string is not exactly 24&3/4" from the nut to the point where it touches the bridge saddle. Yet, we still call it a 24&3/4" scale length. (Ever notice how the nut is always straight across but the nut saddles are set at different distances away from the nut?)

So I'm wondering what your real point to your OP might be. Are you just looking for a reason to call Paul Smith a liar? First of all, I don't remember anyone ever using the term "modern era" when promoting the McCarty 594 and making references to Gibson's scale lengths. As I type this, Gibson currently uses a number of very similar scale lengths which are either exactly 62.865 cm / 24.75" or they are very close to 24.75" and they round it off and call it an "Equal Tempered 24.75" scale length or whatever.

The bottom line is this. The advertised scale length of a Gibson Les Paul is 24.75". The advertised scale length of a PRS McCarty 594 is 24.594".
24.594" is shorter than 24.75" all day long.

The key word in your post is advertised. In my OP I mentioned two methods of measuring scale length. Gibson uses one method, whereas PRS and many other builders use the other. If you're capturing data using two different methods, accurate comparisons are not possible. When you measure by the same method, you can make an accurate comparison and you will find the actual spec is very, very close.

My original point was to illustrate that the difference in scale of the shorter PRS guitars and a Gibson is not as far apart as is advertised. I have seen people (not manufacturers) comment along the lines of they wouldn't want an SC245 because the scale is too short (by a measly 1/16" [actual] not 1/4" [advertised]) or that since the McCarty 594 scale is shorter (a measly actual 1/32" longer) that must be why.

Perhaps I haven't explained well enough. Perhaps this is deeper than people care to dig into. I took the day off work yesterday to relax and my mind took hold and channeled my energy into analysis anyway!

 

[Sam]

I'm just as confused as before I read this?!?!?!?!?!?!

It would be much less confusing if we were talking millimetres rather than fractions of inches!

 

[HANGAR18]

The key word in your post is advertised. In my OP I mentioned two methods of measuring scale length. Gibson uses one method, whereas PRS and many other builders use the other. If you're capturing data using two different methods, accurate comparisons are not possible. When you measure by the same method, you can make an accurate comparison and you will find the actual spec is very, very close.

My original point was to illustrate that the difference in scale of the shorter PRS guitars and a Gibson is not as far apart as is advertised. I have seen people (not manufacturers) comment along the lines of they wouldn't want an SC245 because the scale is too short (by a measly 1/16" [actual] not 1/4" [advertised]) or that since the McCarty 594 scale is shorter (a measly actual 1/32" longer) that must be why.

Perhaps I haven't explained well enough. Perhaps this is deeper than people care to dig into. I took the day off work yesterday to relax and my mind took hold and channeled my energy into analysis anyway!

What I did find interesting about your post was that it got me checking my facts which led to the discovery that Gibson is currently using more than one scale length on their Les Paul guitars. The first two Les Pauls I compared were the Traditional series LP and the LP Standards. The Traditional was 62.865 cm / 24.75" on the money while the Standard was "Equal Tempered 24.75" as they put it. So, clearly they are using slightly different scale lengths in their current production guitars in addition to their historical usage of different scale lengths.

 

[garrettb]

What I did find interesting about your post was that it got me checking my facts which led to the discovery that Gibson is currently using more than one scale length on their Les Paul guitars. The first two Les Pauls I compared were the Traditional series LP and the LP Standards. The Traditional was 62.865 cm / 24.75" on the money while the Standard was "Equal Tempered 24.75" as they put it. So, clearly they are using slightly different scale lengths in their current production guitars in addition to their historical usage of different scale lengths.

Ah, but how did you measure? Inside edge of the nut to center of 12th fret, multiplied by 2?

 

[garrettb]

It would be much less confusing if we were talking millimetres rather than fractions of inches!

Agreed, but we Americans are a stubborn lot sticking to our oddball measurements.

 

[gush]

[QUOTEan, post: 287973, member: 812"]144 buttons.[/QUOTE]
Did you measure from the inside of your nut? I hear that's important!

 

[HANGAR18]

Ah, but how did you measure? Inside edge of the nut to center of 12th fret, multiplied by 2?

I was quoting the specs on the Gibson web site for those individual models. If I were to do any measuring, it would be the full length of the string. Especially since each string requires its own specific length.

 

[garrettb]

I was quoting the specs on the Gibson web site for those individual models. If I were to do any measuring, it would be the full length of the string. Especially since each string requires its own specific length.

Again, the advertised Gibson spec is collected using a different method from PRS (and Fender, etc.) and gives a different result. Apples and oranges.

So let's flip the script and talk in terms of measuring string length instead of nut to 12th fret x 2:

• If you measure the vibrating length of each string on a PRS (or a Fender, etc.), you will find the HIGH E comes closest to the advertised scale length and the others will be longer.
• If you measure the vibrating length of each string on a Gibson, you will find the LOW E comes closest to the advertised scale length and the others will be shorter.