Official Luthiers Forum!

Dovetail necks, I would argue, fall on both sides of the things to copy/things to avoid divide. Maybe the jury is still out. I certainly appreciate the speed of re-setting a Taylor neck with shims but there are problems with many bolt on neck designs. Darwin may have not had enough time yet to separate the wheat from the chaff. A Martin almost always needs a reset because the neck joint has lasted until the rest of the instrument is distorted, not because the joint has failed. I don't subscribe to tone arguments, and don't advocate the dovetail joint as religion but I'm not sure I'm ready to relegate it to history. It's done a good job for a long time.

Thanks folks lots of really great stuff here.

The idea for this thread was actually something else: a stalking horse for many future threads where we might discuss each one of the things that we think suck.... er.... are not best practices in f*ctory land guitars.

As such I would prefer that we not debate the validity of any submission to this thread beyond trying not to list personal preference considerations.

Thanks and keep em coming. So far I can see 15 or more future threads that may as David F. suggests be a pretty good guide for areas that individual Luthiers might endeavor to provide a greater level of value over f*ctory instruments with their own creations. If this also translates to greater serviceability over f*ctory instruments too that will make me personally pretty happy....

Very true.

I wasn't suggesting a structural weakness to the dovetail (that would be stupid). The point from the prior post was ... one that has gotten a reset and one that will need one. That is, eventually that joint gets serviced.



What are they? You could add these to this thread.

Andy

Mostly what I have seen is cracked heals and/or inserts that have let go of the wood surrounding them. As far as designs go, joints that butt to the body, with little tenon or "meat" on the body end of the neck are a tricky engineering challenge. It's not that it can't be done, or that re-setting a dovetail isn't involved, but many dovetails are in service 80 years later with just some new shims and a little bit off the heal. After 80+ years of re-torqueing bolts, the joint may not look quite like the slam dunk it appears to be today.
I'm not a luddite. Really. I Just think real, lasting improvements in design can be suprizingly difficult to achieve. Even if improvement is the goal, not just being different.

Sorry Hesh, I saw your post too late. I'll crimp the lid back on this can.

I don't want to the get into the what's better discussion -- but I can assure you that DT joints fail plenty!!!

And likely this is another "worst practice" -- if a DT the joint is not properly fit seems some choose to glop in the glue to fill the gap -- obviously not good. I think we had a recent report of this happening on a newish Martin?

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

I would say that factory guitars from smaller factories and high end models from larger ones actually have much to emulate depending on who you are building for. One glaring exception as mentioned, is the big hole Gibson puts in a high stress region of the neck. Don't copy that! Unslotted bridge pins are also the way to go as Hesh mentioned. You can do those things out of the gate.

I'd say the biggest thing to consider modifying are the specs. Top thickness, brace dimensions, bridge plate size, tucking lower bout braces etc. They are all to some degree a bit over built out of necessity.

On the other hand if the customer is a pro that is on the road a lot and plays mostly plugged in a sturdy ax is a good thing.

I think for the early years of building, copying some of the better small factory guitars is a great way to go. You have a good baseline, a decent sounding guitar, and can make little tweaks as you go along to get your signature sound. Don't try to reinvent the wheel out of the gate.

This is thread drift content but I think when starting out you need to get as many under your belt in as short a time as possible to learn voicing, fretwork, angular neck body relationships, setup etc. The stuff that makes a guitar sound and play well. That takes a lot of guitars. Ivoroid/plastic binding, simple appointments ( fretboard dots vs. tree of life) etc take a lot less time. Neck joint choice? Toss up, but pick one, learn it's quriks, and get good at doing it.

_________________
It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you do know that's wrong.

Terry sorry for quoting you incompletely but I wanted to highlight your suggestion that f*ctory instruments are often over built and depending on who's playing it and how it has to live this can be unnecessary and come with a hefty price too, less responsiveness. Great addition to the list, over building!

Thanks everyone for the additions to the list so far.

As mentioned anyone and everyone who wants to explore any of these topics further please feel very free to start the thread and get it going, that's why I started this thread.

Let's hear some more things that are areas where individual Luthiers may.... have a better way forward than what we see on f*ctory instruments?

Also my intent is not at all to bash the production instruments, far from it. Instead I wanted to get people thinking about just exactly what your individual "value-add" that you incorporate into your instruments might be AND how this might differentiate your creations from the usual, production suspects.

Here's one that I personally believe to he HUGE as well:

F*ctory instruments these days are often not set-up in the final set-up sense. With Mom & Pop music stores continuing to fail often because of Internet or chain store competition (although I personally see a way to play in this world, well too...) many instruments find their way into the client hands never having been set-up properly at all.... In my experience many folks, especially beginners won't notice this and struggle for a while before someone suggests to them that their ax could play better.

Super short truss rod cover screws that tend to strip, bottom out on the rod, or chip out into the adjustment opening.

I would add that in addition to the slotted bridge pins being an issue, most factories don't slot the bridge itself in order to ensure proper break ange of the string over the saddle. They also have a tendancy to place bridge pins in a fashion that isn't parallel to the angle of the saddle (once again preventing propper break angle.) They tend to do this because it's not a pleasing to the eye as a nice arcing layout, but it can have an affect on evenness of tone from string to string.

In short: Lack of attention to detail when it comes to string break angle at the saddle.

Another issue is when cheap manufacturers use crap tonewood (zebra wood for example) as the soundboard for a guitar just because they know it'll catch someone's eye and sell better than a plain old spruce top guitar that sound 10x better. I know looks sell, but it somehow always seemed like a dirty sales tactic to me...

_________________
Chris Alvarado
www.ChrisAlvaradoLive.com
www.Driftwood-Guitars.com

David you just reminded me of one too, thanks!

Truss rod access configurations either on the headstock or in the box that are difficult to access:

One example is the headstock mounted adjusters where the headstock cavity has not been milled out enough for the wrench and needs additional material removed.

And... the biggie for me in the box adjustment systems that require special, OEM wrenches..... making them a bit of a pain to do a simple rod adjustment if the owner of the ax did not retain the wrench and keep it in their cases. We have all the wrenches but not everyone does.

Truss rod adjustment should be a simple thing to do.

I'll also add original Fender style systems where you have to pop the neck to access the adjustor..... Way more complicated than is should be in my thinking...

Just wondering here and not looking for replies but has anyone noticed things that we ourselves may have incorporated into our creations at one time or another that we won't or don't do now because we found a better way from what has been listed in this thread?

I have.....

One example that I did early on but will never do again.... is finish a guitar with the neck on.... Looks great and no problem until neck reset time... Then the finish at the joint has to be sliced open and there is more finish touch-up required to make it look perfect. When combined with a bolt-on system that was selected for it's ease of serviceability finishing a guitar with the neck on and the resulting extra effort required at neck reset/adjustment time it seems counter to making the joint serviceable with a bolt-on system.

Ah.... we live and learn....

Here's another one.

Designs that have the X legs right smack under the corner of the saddle where if a pup system is installed and happens to be a UST (under saddle transducer) it's easy to drill the wire hole right through the X leg..... Not good.

In my marketing scheme innovations are a turn-off. I hope there is room for a little discussion here rather than simply stating what I would prognosticate.

I'm not saying others should not innovate, in my opinion. I'm just saying there is a case to be made for not promoting it in your personal marketing.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
Ken

Tucked braces.

Good for reducing the the amount of factory warranty repairs due to popped braces.

Bad because it also reduces the responsiveness of the top.

90 degree saddle slots.



Argument here.
http://luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=47075

Anyone?

As long as it's a scarf joint or the neck and paddle are made with vertical laminations. I have no problem with the 17 degree angle on my Les Paul. Except it was broken at the headstock when I got it on eBay. Fixed it with a sort of double scarf joint.

Alex

_________________
"Indecision is the key to flexibility" .... Bumper sticker

I've never kept records but I would guess that we see G*bson's with head stock breaks at least 2 to one over ALL others combined.....

Just found out that I can't "thank" myself..... no other suggestions please....

Great thread folks, keep em coming!

Yep they break.
If we decide to build a 17° angle headstock yet reinforce with splines it might be stronger.

I learned a lot from the restorers and repairers though. There's always room for the evolution and discussion of what constitutes an improvement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
Ken

Is there a better angle? Was my point. I thought the neck failure was more due to the weakened area around the truss rod access.

I actually have nothing against 17° pegheads with one piece necks. The angle itself actually carries other benefits, and their tendency to break (which often bypasses the truss rod cavity completely) seems linked to how much the owner has had to drink. It's not the guitar's fault, just that Gibson electric players tend to party harder than others. I see plenty of 14° pegheads break as well.

And since we're on topic of electrics as well - Tele jack cups, Gibson fret spacing, and binding over fret ends. There are three simple things where I see no reason whatsoever to continue, beyond stubborn demand from the market against ever changing anything from how it's always been done.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

Do you mean for break angle of the strings over the nut, Danny?
The weakened area is made worse by the extreme short grain where the neck and head stock transition,when a one piece neck is used, without any additional reinforcement.
Lutes look like they have an almost 90 deg. angle at the head, so I guess it just comes down to construction methods, preference, and tradition.

Alex

_________________
"Indecision is the key to flexibility" .... Bumper sticker

Yep the short grain issue.
Plus the 17 degree headstock angle does not improve sustain or any other properties despite popular belief IMHO
And the extra pressure on the nut worsens friction and tuning problems.