Official Luthiers Forum!

I find it odd that in the electric world, bolt on necks are treated as "second-class" citizens. When you consider how many fine guitars are built with bolt on necks in the acoustic world(not to mention Fender), one wonders. I am using threaded inserts and 10-32 stainless button head screws and thick plates. I take care to assure full contact for coupling. Your comments, please. Mike T

I'm not sure who is doing the knocking, Mike. IMO, it's a technique that's paid its dues and needs no waste of my time defending bolted necks. As always, there are other alternatives to satisfy the opinions and choices of others.

Bolt On my friend!

_________________
JJ
Napa, CA
http://www.DonohueGuitars.com

its one of those sagas that has rumbled on for years.

MAYBE it stemmed from bolt ons being easier and therefore cheaper than set necks, "obviously" they're inferior.

I've done both and care not a jot!

_________________
My soundclick xx luthier blog xx luthier soundclick

My personal electric aresenal includes an American Standard Strat, a Les Paul Classic, and, believe it or not, a lime-green Squier Stagemaster...all do their thing well and all sound great...I never pick one up and think, "oh, this one has a bolt-on neck"....both have advantages and disadvantages in both construction and maintainence...do what works best for you and you'll do fine!

_________________
http://www.presnallguitars.com

I've built bolt-on and neck-through basses and guitars, with good results all around. For the last four years I've been attaching my bolt-on necks as shown in the picture, and I think this improves the coupling between neck and body. I haven't used a neck plate since.

_________________
---Steve

I tend to think it is a "snooty" thing. The set neck Les Paul I am doing is for me and is pretty much a replica. And it gets Michael Payne's beautiful "Mustang" inlay on the headstock, Andy's beautiful bordered abalone neck block inlays and a center stripe of abalone, ivoroid and black. I wanted to do a very nice burst and other things like plastic binding. I like the LP for its soft action and dark/woody sound. I really like Bigsbys but I am resisting putting one on it. That old time quality casting work just softly says quality. It will get the pickguard and the vote is not in on gold hardware.
To get a feel for it I am doing a prelim bolt neck( I have no experience with bursts-I may chicken out and call upon Tony K.) with the same attention to detail and first rate materials. Then I want to put both in the hands of a player, my brother, who can give them a thorough and perceptive comparison and workout. Since he has kept his promise and not sold my Lucille, I might let him keep one.

thanks for the thoughts. Mike T.

Historically, Strats were cheaper/plainer than Les Pauls, so set necks are used on the more "high-end" electrics. I personally think it would be easier to do a set neck than a proper bolt-on.

_________________
John Lewis
Wannabe builder owned by 2 crazy dachshunds

C'mon, is it really that odd? They're both fantastic types of instrument (lets simplify to strat and les paul for the sake of simplicity), but the fact of the matter is that Leo Fender's creations are also in no small part (fantastic) examples of industrial design. Easy to fabricate, easy to exchange parts, designed to be build with cheap, readily available timbers (Alder and ash, 2-3 pieces on average, 1.75 == the thickness of planed 8/4 stock, flatsawn maple necks, straight headstock == made of a planed piece of 4/4 maple stock). The neck joints are highly visible, fairly bulky, and are part of the industrial design aesthetic that style of instrument has.

Fenders are products of the industrial revolution, and in terms of design have more in common with a Model-T Ford than with traditional lutherie. On the other hand, Gibson echoes archtops which in turn echo orchestral instrument (carved tops, maple, mahogany, set necks) construction. They flow from the old-world lutherie tradition in ways Fender's instruments definitely do not.

As for acoustics: you can't tell which neck joint is used from the outside, so the 'inustrial' aesthetic is completely hidden. Unless you're talking Howe-Orme or one of Rick Turner's visible hardware approaches, and methinks there's going to be a big opinion split on that subject among builders and players alike as to whether its desirable (I like it, for the record).

Is one easier to build than the other? IMO, a resounding yes; strats and telecasters are really quite simple beasts in their basic incarnations. Making a neck joint is a high tolerance thing either way - a well made bolt on is just as 'hard' to make as a well-made set neck, as I fell both should be a tight/snug fit. You've got more leeway with the bolt-on, obviously, but you may sacrifice some sustain/tone if you're too sloppy about how you do things. A non-angle headstock neck is simpler to make, a flat body (no matter how many laminations) is easier to make, and contouring armrests and ribrests is far simpler than doing a good top carve. Add binding (on a carved instrument) to the mix and things get even more complex. My strat/telecaster builds took me, in terms of hours, half the time my carved top and back set neck guitars took me. I prefer the feel of a nicely carved heel transition as well, hence my preference for set neck guitars. Making the neck joints takes me equally long for both, perhaps a little longer on the set necks because I need to set the neck angle.

Is one inferior to the other as an instrument? Hell no! They do very different things, and the construction (scale, woods, bolt-on) makes a huge contribution to each specific, very desirable sound. Both are fantastic tools for making music with, but there is a fairly obvious difference in terms of the techniques and work required to build each style.

While I can appreciate the "classicness" of the traditional methods, I'm very much into the innovative and moving forward crowd of thinking. For MYSELF, I prefer 24 frets (to "round out" the playing area), and no neck heel whatsoever. You can get this with a bolt-IN neck, but the traditional design of the bolt-on heel is far too bulky for me (I actually use all 24 frets).

This however, is not "knocking" on them or their design. They are different tools for different applications. What's better:plastic handled or wood handled chisels? Wood sure looks nicer, and feels more comfortable, but sometimes you just really need to whack it with a huge mallet. That's where plastic's better. So it is with the neck setting. Works better in some applications (the sound of a neck pickup on a 22 fret is what I miss the most playing by 24 fret necks), but in others (higher fret access) it's just not my bag.

My 2 cents anyway.

Kyle

Bolt on necks are definitely easier to build. In addition to the sloppy tolerances that you can get away with on the fit between the neck and the body, you can also finish the neck separate from the body.

Tonally, I think there are bigger fish to fry than whether the heel has bolts in it or not. As long as you have a good tight fit, then you shouldn't really run into any issues in either case (bolted or set).

_________________
http://www.PeakeGuitars.com

As a player, I like both, but if I could only have one type, it would be a bolt-on, for several reasons. It's user-friendly, ie; it can be replaced if damaged or warped, and neck angle is easily adjusted to suit personal preference. As for sustain, IMHO, having owned and played both I can say that my bolt-ons have comparable sustain to any set neck design I've owned(again, MHO. I realise others experience may differ). I've never lacked sustain in any of my guitars, otherwise I get rid of them and find one more to my liking. Tonewise there is so much involved in the differences between different guitars that it would be difficult for me to pin the differences down to the neck joint. As far as access to the higher frets, I hear all the time that set necks offer easier access, but IMHO and experience, many traditional set neck instruments(especially LP-types) have a heel where the neck joins the body that is every bit as thick and bulky as the heel of a bolt-on. Again, IME, the difference is minimal there as well. I'm not sensitive to this in either case, and I play plenty of lead in the higher registers, including a 24 fret bolt on.They're both good designs if executed right, and bad ones if not. BUT, the set neck IS a more traditional style of building, if that matters to you. It doesn't to me. Both make great guitars, and I'll pick whichever one does the job I need it to, regardless of the neck joint. My first scratch-built will be a bolt-on, but after I've built a few I may try my hand at a set-neck design as well, just for the experience.

_________________
Mike

The only thing nescessary for evil to thrive is for good men to do nothing.

I think we are too often headstock bigots . I have heard great guitars that I don't care what neck joint is used. My ears tell me what I like. I just built a simple P bass with EMG passives. This thing is a killer bass.
I am following with a Les Paul bolt on neck. I am more concerned with my pickup selection. The ease of adjusting a bolt on neck so I have the bridge height and pickup clearances. Still traditionalist will want what they want.
Being a Martin guy , and looking at the history , electrics are more a modern invention , so I won't as closed minded . I am a dovetail guy on acoustics but open to modern connections on electrics.
Love building and will do a neck through soon.
john hall

_________________
John Hall
blues creek guitars
Authorized CF Martin Repair
Co President of ASIA
You Don't know what you don't know until you know it

Interestingly enough... an A.L. from the not to distant past had an article comparing the bolt on, vs. the neck through, vs. the bolt on, and the bolt on had significantly more sustain than either of the other two. It was a great article. The bolt on came through pretty much all the tests with flying colors.

I like the look of a set neck much better than the bolt on, but I admit there is something pretty cool about breaking down a guitar with a few bolts.

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

Honestly, I think a lot of people knock bolt-ons because they always need something to look down on or be stuck up about.

Aside from aesthetic preference, I don't see any way a bolt-on is inferior to a set neck and most testing has proven this. While there's something to be said about tradition, there's plenty more to be said about practicality, innovation, and results. Devotion to tradition should never hold us back from accepting progress. Yes, you can argue that set necks are more akin to the classical instruments of old and that bolt-on designs are a product of the industrial revolution, but isn't the entire premise of the ELECTRIC guitar a product of progress and technology? Unless scientific testing unequivocally proves that the bolt-on design is somehow inferior, then I don't see any reason to dismiss it.

That being said, I still prefer set necks just because I like the look. I do wish that they had many of the conveniences that bolt-ons offer, but you can't have your cake and eat it too, I guess...

set and neck through design look cooler, but bolt ons are easier to maintain... its the same thing with floyd rose bridges... everyone hates the perfectly capable edge 3 and love the edge pro... if they were blind they probably would love the sound of that bolt-on

lol true... we need to steer away from 'tradition" or well end up like people in india, takin dumps on the lawn

Please note that the flagrantly racist views above are not typical of all Canadians and that we frown hard enough to sprain our faces upon such conduct. Seriously, WTF?

_________________
Bob Garrish
Former Canonized Purveyor of Fine CNC Luthier Services

From a player's standpoint and an aesthetic standpoint I prefer a smooth transition. I spent of LOT of time on my own body to make the neck/body transition as smooth as possible. Full access to the upper registers can be impeded with bolt on necks.

I'm toying with the idea of creating a progressively tapered neck-through design that transitions over the space of about 9". In this design there is no heel of any kind...just a smooth transition from about the 10th fret into the body. I think that would be interesting to play and would facilitate high register chording. The truss rod selection keeps me up at nights on this one.

I don't mind bolt on necks but I do like to avoid metal and plastic on a guitar when it make sense to do so.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

its from an episode of vanguard i saw... in India its tradition to keep the bathroom away from your home... so people do it in the lawn...

wasn't tryin to be racist... sorry if i offended anyone

WTF²

_________________
Francis Richer, Montréal
Les Guitares F&M Guitars

^agreed.

I find that a set neck is actually much easier to do than a bolt on, much less a bolt IN. The only difference between the two is actually attaching the two to each other. With a bolt on/in neck, you have to drill and align all of your holes perfectly or it won't work. With a set neck, you don't. You just put some glue in the cavity and clamp. It makes a lot of sense to me to say that bolt on/in necks will have the superior sound, simply because the glue will inhibit the wood to wood contact that a bolt on/in joint will offer. In that regard, it simply is superior. I also really like being able to take my instruments apart when I need to as I build. Isn't it odd that in the electric world all hardware like bridges MUST be adjustable whereas in the acoustic world most everything isn't?

I think people just use it as an excuse to make their guitar cheaper. "I don't want anything fancy, just a bolt-neck. Is that cheaper?"

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

it's an old thing.
gibson lover dis fender lovers since the beginning of time.
i thing they both sound great, and have their own tone.
i think it's more important to like what each git has to offer.
i like the strat tone better than a paul.
so what, dat just me.
i like the strat pickups.
poof.