Official Luthiers Forum!

Sorry for the sophomoric question but I’m using a pre-machined neck and fingerboard from LMI on my first build and am now concentrating on the neck related work and have a question. If I align the 14the fret on the fingerboard with the beginning of the tendon at the end of the neck, I have exactly a .250” flat space from the zero fret position to the break angle point for the headstock which is exactly the width of the nut blank I have.

Is .250” common/acceptable for the nut depth or do I need to thin the top surface of the headstock which will move the break angle point closer to the end of the fretboard and reduce the nut thickness? I seem to remember thinner values than .250 in previous readings.

thanks

_________________
Doug Mills
Chicago, Illinois

Doug,
I use .2 inch or 5mm for the thickness of the nut. If I understand your question correctly, planing the face of the peghead will reduce the thickness of the nut. Be careful not to bring the break angle back too much or you could misalign the 14th fret with the body. Also, check the thickness of your peghead to make sure you have the correct measurement. Don't get it too thin.

Happy building!    

I wouldn't worry about it and would just use a 1/4" nut!
Save yourself some time and agravation!

_________________
Peter M.
Cornerstone Guitars
http://www.cornerstoneukes.com

Yes sir.....1/4" nut sounds about right. Seems like the good folks at LMI planned it that way.

Smooth finishing and a little polishing shouldn't make a difference.

_________________
Joe Beaver
Maker of Sawdust

Thanks for the suggestions guys. Took the nut landing zone from 250 down to about 200 with some quick work on the belt sander. I had to thin it down any way. In fact it's going to have to have it's thickness reduced even further from the backside of the headstock to accomodate the tuners.

_________________
Doug Mills
Chicago, Illinois

Good choice. You certainly can use a .250" thick nut, but I really think they
look rather awkward and coarse. I personally feel .220" is about as thick they
should be before they start to stand out and appear a little off balance or
crude. .200" is where I like them, and less than .180" is crossing the line
from elegant to being a bit too dainty for my taste. And sanding off from the
headstock is the same route I would have recommended.

Okay, maybe I'm a bit particular, but the difference between excellent and
breathtaking is in the sum of all the tiniest little details.David Collins39091.1026273148

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

Yeah, about 3/16ths or so is what I shoot for.

_________________
Tony Karol
www.karol-guitars.com
"let my passion .. fulfill yours"

.25 is what I use most of the time

_________________
Say what you do, Do what you say.

[QUOTE=dmills] I had to thin it down any way. In fact it's going to have to
have it's thickness reduced even further from the backside of the headstock
to accomodate the tuners.[/QUOTE]

Yup, LMI's necks and pegheads are on the beefy side.

_________________
now known around here as Pat Foster
_________________
http://www.patfosterguitars.com

3/16" here too.

_________________
My Facebook Guitar Page

"There's really no wrong way, as long as the results are what's desired." Charles Fox

"We have to constantly remind ourselves what we're doing....No Luthier is putting a man on the moon!" Harry Fleishman

"Generosity is always different in the eye of the person who didn't receive anything, but who wanted some." Waddy Thomson