The standard nutwidth on Seagull guitars is 1.8 inches.
This is wider that practically any other manufacturer. A few Seagull models (The Entourage and the S-6 Original "slim" feature a 1.72 inch nut and the high-end Peppino D'Agostino model is actually a whopping 1.9 inches.
Today I played a very nice Breedlove that had a 1.68 inch and I could barely form chords. I could live with a 1.75 inch nut which is fairly common among major guitar makers.
Personally, I chose my Seagull in large part because the 1.8 inch nut made it easier for me to play with my big old slightly arthritic fingers. In looking for my next guitar, nut width will be a big factor in my decision.
How about you??
Thanks for introducing me to the power cords, now I know what the hack the others are talking about LOL.
Two guitars with same 'nominal' nut width may differ greatly in string-to-sting distances and/or 1st-to-6th distances.
'Nominal' nut width specified may be misleading if fretboard has a binding. The 1st to 6th distance may be reduced to accommodate that binding, effectively reducing 'nominal' nut width.
An example of this:
I keep saying 'nominal' because that's what it is.. it is not the measure that affects playability, It is just a guideline.
String to string and string span (1st to 6th) are the actual important measurements, but are too difficult for marketing to make understandably ;)
Nut width is simple and can be misleading.
I had the same experience when I bought a Larrivee several years ago. It has a 1.75" nut (1 3/4) but the strings were set out with the top e so close to the edge that the fleshy part of my lower index finger would mute the string on certain chords or runs, as you have described. So within 30 minutes of owning this relatively (for me) expensive guitar, I had her on the bench and replaced the tusq nut with a bone one with a new string layout. So when I decided I wanted a smaller guitar, nut width was a factor and my Seagull cedar folk is just the bees knees. I love everything about it and the Larrivee has taken second place in my armoury. I will keep it though because I believe that solid wood guitars will become something of a rarity in the not too distant future, and someone in my family might be grateful.
Hope ya'll don't mind the thread resurrection. Being new here, I just found this and wanted to add my 2 cents.
Nut width has become the single biggest factor (other than expense) in deciding which acoustic guitars I would even consider buying. The 1.75" nut on my Martin has spoiled me for anything narrower. Interestingly, I don't mind (and even prefer) skinny necks on electrics. Probably because cleanly fretting open chords on an electric is generally easier (and likely not as important when playing The Who, AC/DC, VanHalen, etc.)
When looking for a relatively inexpensive (yet high quality) "second" acoustic, I was thrilled to find the Seagull Maritime MJ. There seems to be VERY few guitars under the $1000 mark that offer the wider nut width. Which in reality is probably a good thing for me, as it helps keep my GAS in check.
P.S. - I've got a Taylor Big Baby that I've had for about a decade now. I'm pretty sure I would have spent a lot more time with it if it had the wider nut of its more expensive siblings.