Backdoor Bolt-on?

[Mickguard]

Just waking up, got my coffee, staring into space...and a question popped into my mind.

Has anyone (i.e., company or luthier) ever tried a rear-mounted bolt on neck design?

My thought would be a neck with a longish tenon-like extension--but that gets fitted into a cavity routed in the BACK of the guitar.

The upper part of the neck could be routed into a shallow U-shape--that way part of the top of the neck (or just the fingerboard, as you prefer) will rest against the top of the guitar. You could slide the neck into the pocket--if your tolerances are right, the result would be a very tight join.

Use inserts for the screws. You could probaby get away with just two --one inserted acoustic style (parallel to the body) the other inserted vertically. (Of course, you could also make a setneck)

I'm not at the computer with autocad in it, otherwise, I'd make a quick drawing to show what I mean.

But in this way, the string tension will be pulling the neck up INTO the body. Rather than pulling away from the body as in most neck joint designs.

I realize there are some technical issues --mounting a neck pickup might be tricky, depending on how much body wood remains above the tenon (although with a single cutaway shape like LP or Telecaster type body shape, the tenon can be housed in the upper bout area).

And you'd need a pretty deep neck blank --an ordinary Fender type wouldn't work.

But I'm just curious to know if this has been attempted (sure, it must have been)? Maybe there's something obvious that I'm missing as to why it just would never work?

[Mattia]

It would still be pulling it away from the body, just that the 'hinge' would be more of a sharp edge, rather than the entire butt-end of the neck. Additionally, you're probably increasing the torque on the 'rotation' bit, because you're moving the joint further away from the plane of the strings, ie larger lever arm (I think...too lazy to draw this out).

Guitar strings pull the neck into the body more than away anyway, simply because of their orientation. Frankly, I don't see why you'd bother over-complicating something like this, without there being any real benefit I can think up; it'd be more annoying to shim, adjust, remove, build, etc.

[Mickguard]

Frankly, I don't see why you'd bother over-complicating something like this, without there being any real benefit I can think up; it'd be more annoying to shim, adjust, remove, build, etc.

'Cause I'm American. We see a mountain, we wonder which president we should carve into it.

But yes, I'm seeing all the complicated parts of it--but not the twisting/torquing, part. Settles that question!