| Official Luthiers Forum! http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Nut Depth http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=10245 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | dmills [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
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 |
|
| Author: | Robbie O'Brien [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
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! 
|
|
| Author: | peterm [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I wouldn't worry about it and would just use a 1/4" nut! Save yourself some time and agravation! 
|
|
| Author: | Joe Beaver [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
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. |
|
| Author: | dmills [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 3:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
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. |
|
| Author: | David Collins [ Mon Jan 08, 2007 6:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
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. |
|
| Author: | TonyKarol [ Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah, about 3/16ths or so is what I shoot for. |
|
| Author: | Dave Rickard [ Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
.25 is what I use most of the time |
|
| Author: | burbank [ Tue Jan 09, 2007 3:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[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. |
|
| Author: | Rod True [ Tue Jan 09, 2007 3:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
3/16" here too. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|