Constructing The Neck

[ArieBombarie]

He there, yet another question from me...

for my Les Paul style guitar, I buidling the neck out of mahogany. The piece of mahogany I have is quater-sawn, but it is not thick enough (about 4,4 cm that's about 1.7 inch) to get the entire neck out of it including the (angled) head. So my question is, what to do?

1) Do I cut the wood and make a laminated neck so the neck and headstock are made out of the same piece of wood? Note the wood-grain in set-up won't be perpendicular to the fretboard.

2) Make the neck out of the mahogany and keep it quatersawn and attach an extra piece of wood for the headstock to be cut out off?

I guess the question is, what is more important, quatersawn wood or a one-piece head?

Grz Arjan

[anderekel]

Someone else can correct me if I'm wrong, but you reallllllllllly need to rethink how to do that neck. With what you have, I would suggest that you should just scarf the headstock.

[fryovanni]

Someone else can correct me if I'm wrong, but you reallllllllllly need to rethink how to do that neck. With what you have, I would suggest that you should just scarf the headstock.

+1 A scarf joint will be faster and easier to work with, as well as provide a better orientation(reduce runnout).

[ArieBombarie]

Alright,

so the scarf joint should be something like this:

So what you guys are saying is that having the graindirection in the neck qutersawn, is more important then having a single piece neck-head... right?

AJ

[anderekel]

It depends on what you mean by a single piece headstock, cause a single piece headstock is important, at least the way you were lookin' at it in the first mockups. A single piece neck, however, isn't. A scarf joint is stronger than a single piece neck. Here's a good tutorial from perry ormsby about how he does scarfed necks. He uses a jointer but you could certainly do it with a regular hand plane, it would just take a little more time and patience. http://projectguitar.ibforums.com/index.php?showtopic=30212

[killemall8]

i would not do it like that either. what you do is you cut your angle on the headstock, and use the same piece you cut off and flip it upside down. hold on a minute while i take some pics.

ok, this is how you should do it.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb262/k...ngelbody003.jpg

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb262/k...ngelbody004.jpg

Edited May 12, 2008 by killemall8

[Geo]

Definitely do the scarf joint and reinforce it with a hardwood plate. It'll be stronger than a 1-piece head with short grain going across it.

[ArieBombarie]

i would not do it like that either. what you do is you cut your angle on the headstock, and use the same piece you cut off and flip it upside down. hold on a minute while i take some pics.

ok, this is how you should do it.

<< pictures >>

Thanks Killemall8 ! its perfectly clear to me now...

Grz Arjan

[Xanthus]

http://images34.fotki.com/v1125/photos/9/9...carfCuts-vi.jpg

[stringkilla]

http://images34.fotki.com/v1125/photos/9/9...carfCuts-vi.jpg

The third option is the only correct option for a strong joint. All scarf joints are done in this way. There is no other that is stronger and more economic in materials.

[guitar2005]

http://images34.fotki.com/v1125/photos/9/9...carfCuts-vi.jpg

The third option is the only correct option for a strong joint. All scarf joints are done in this way. There is no other that is stronger and more economic in materials.

You probably meant "glueing option 2"

[killemall8]

even so, it i dont think 2 is better than option 1. sure it has a line down the middle, and you have to veneer the top, but i dont see it being less strong.

[fryovanni]

even so, it i dont think 2 is better than option 1. sure it has a line down the middle, and you have to veneer the top, but i dont see it being less strong.

There is no advantage per sey in the scarf joint itself, your getting the same glueing surface. The difference is in the orientation of the grain. Option #1 is more as a neck cut from a single piece of wood would be in the nut area. Option #2 offers less runnout exposure at the nut itself (shifts that combination of grain orientation under the fretboard). Personally I don't hesitate to use either option, or even a single piece for a blank with no scarf. I do use volutes, and I like using headstock veneers.

I don't really agree with this statement(understood opt. #3 means #2).

The third option is the only correct option for a strong joint. All scarf joints are done in this way. There is no other that is stronger and more economic in materials.

Rich

[Mattia]

http://images34.fotki.com/v1125/photos/9/9...carfCuts-vi.jpg

The third option is the only correct option for a strong joint. All scarf joints are done in this way. There is no other that is stronger and more economic in materials.

I'm assuming you mean the one labelled 'gluing option 2', in which case you are 100%, completely and utterly dead...wrong.

You can do it both ways, yes, and I've done it both ways, but these days I almost always use 'gluing option 1'. There are a number of reasons for this:

1) Larger glue joint surface area. Option 2 carves away a large portion when carving the neck. This depends in part on your headstock shape and thickness and neck thickness, but a back of the napkin calculation for my own common figures/shapes certainly confirms this for my guitars.

2) Glue plane is not in a position where shear forces can cause fingerboard humps: glues like titebond, if left in a hot car, can let Option 2 shift under string tension, leaving you with a subtle but present hump.

3) Option 1 can be reinforced by headstock veneers (and thereby also prevent the shifting mentioned under point 2), option 2 not so much (the joint itself, I mean)

4) Option 1 can be hidden/seamlessly integrated into the neck with the aid of backstrapping (elegance AND hiding the joint AND adding significant stiffness to the headstock all rolled into one.

Ergo, my choice? Option 1. Option 2 can be fun, though, if you use a contrasting headstock, maybe even add contrasting veneer to accent the joint.

To be fair, none of the guitars I've made the other way have failed or shifted, and millions of guitars have likely been made with option 2 that are just fine, but it's definitely neither the only nor the best nor the most economic way to do a scarf joint.

[fryovanni]

Mattia,

You know I didn't even think about post carved scarfed surface. You are right though, you would retain a much larger glued joint after carving if the joint was in the headstock vs under the fretboard.

You don't miss much do you

[protex]

+1 on gluing option 1. and what Mattia said.

[ToddW]

Well then -1 from me on the strength issue. I think you guys are too easy to sway

I think that if you really want to compare the joint strength, which seems silly to me, then you need to add the equivalent of 50% of the length of the glue line in option 2. It's not really glue line, but look at it this way.

The headstock is about 1/2" thick in option 1 at the glue line.

The neck is about 1/2" thick at the glue line in option 2, and it gets carved. That's why Mattia is saying it'll be weaker.

But the fingerboard is ~1/4" thick and is reinforcing the joint in option 2. So to figure out the strength of option 2's joint, you'd need to essentially continue the glue line in option 2 through the fingerboard and work out that surface area.

But since the wood is as likely to fail as the glue line in both option one and option two, this is sort of silly IMHO. I think two has a trivial advantage in grain orientation, one may have other advantages as mentioned by Mattia, but these should be very close if you do them right.

And of course if the glue line is bad, either of them will have issues. . .

Ok rebut me

Todd

[fryovanni]

Todd,

I think you swayed me .

Personally I don't hesitate to use either option, or even a single piece for a blank with no scarf.

Peace,Rich

[jmrentis]

I think most of the talk was intended to disprove the initial statement that option 2 is the only way to create a quality scarf. The people who contributed and disagreed with that statement said they've never had issues with either and both work fine, as in no failures. I think the pros and cons were mentioned for those rare situations that a joint may be put to the test, such as Mattia said left in a hot car. Also to add to what you were saying about adding 50% to the amount of glue joint for option 2, you're right as the fretboard holds it in much like a wedge. Though on the other hand, when doing option 1 many people prefer to have both caps front and back which seems to add even more strength and hold than the fretboard does in option 2, just for the sake of argument.

As I said, I think most of what was brought up was in defense of option 1 as it was stated that option 2 was the only way to go. I definitely have the desire to try option 2 on an upcoming neck, especially with some contrasting veneers, I think it looks great. To me if you're going to have the scarf showing so obviously, might as well make it a feature, if not with option 1 you can completely hide the scarf which is cool as well, either way works. J

[Mattia]

Quite. Laminating front and back of the joint with multiple veneers (I quite commonly use a thin and a thick veneer on both front AND back of headstocks these days, amounting to 5 plys in the headstock) are stronger than a mere fingerboard capping one end of the joint. But either way, both methods have proven their suitability; I just feel one method is more suitable than the other, since both joints are capped in my building style. You can further 'stabilise' the joint I like by adding headstock wings, if you want, that will 'lock' the joint in from the sides. Not that it makes much difference, but if you're really **** about how the joint looks, this can make the scarf 99% invisible instead of a mere 90% invisible...

[ToddW]

Todd,

I think you swayed me .

Personally I don't hesitate to use either option, or even a single piece for a blank with no scarf.

Peace,Rich

Yeah, I think we all agree both are good. The front and back laminates are a good point J, although they don't make the line longer unless you use a volute like Rich does. I just wanted to point out that the surface areas of the joint weren't really an issue that was in favor of option 1.

I used option 2 on the neck I'm carving right now, but would like to try the other method on a 23" scale guitar my daughter wants to build. The only problem I have with doing it that way is that the blank is shaped for a neck thru and the back was just cut on a bandsaw. It's why I did the neck I'm working on now using option 2. I can't run the back over the jointer to get a perfectly flat joint surface and I'm not sure I want to try and hand plane it. Paduak tears out pretty easily. Heck, she might just go with a fender style headstock

Todd

[ArieBombarie]

Thanks guys for all the feedback...

I made a sawing jig for sawing the headstock angle...

I think I'll go for gluing option 2 as I will be laminating the headstock with the same wood as the topwood of the body (zebrawood)

I'll be posting some pics of the neck soon..

Arjan

[guitar2005]

1) Larger glue joint surface area. Option 2 carves away a large portion when carving the neck. This depends in part on your headstock shape and thickness and neck thickness, but a back of the napkin calculation for my own common figures/shapes certainly confirms this for my guitars.

2) Glue plane is not in a position where shear forces can cause fingerboard humps: glues like titebond, if left in a hot car, can let Option 2 shift under string tension, leaving you with a subtle but present hump.

3) Option 1 can be reinforced by headstock veneers (and thereby also prevent the shifting mentioned under point 2), option 2 not so much (the joint itself, I mean)

4) Option 1 can be hidden/seamlessly integrated into the neck with the aid of backstrapping (elegance AND hiding the joint AND adding significant stiffness to the headstock all rolled into one.

Ergo, my choice? Option 1. Option 2 can be fun, though, if you use a contrasting headstock, maybe even add contrasting veneer to accent the joint.

To be fair, none of the guitars I've made the other way have failed or shifted, and millions of guitars have likely been made with option 2 that are just fine, but it's definitely neither the only nor the best nor the most economic way to do a scarf joint.

I use option 2 because:

1- That's the way Ibanez makes their joints.

2- The fretboard sits on top of the joint, adding more strength (in my opinion - and voids the "shifting" argument... again... in my opinion.). I've left one of my own builds overnight and into the early afternooon in my car once or twice and I've had no issues at all - Of course, it wasn't boiling hot in the car, but the temp was certainly getting up there.

3- It just looks cool.

I actually screwed up a scarf joint neck blank once and out of frustration, I tried to destroy it by placing the the neck a concrete basement floor and jumping on it. Well... it never broke. I still have that neck as a reminder. That's one solid joint.

Edited May 19, 2008 by guitar2005

[Mattia]

There are plenty of repairpeople who've seen the shifting with that joint, despite the fingerboard (which is also glued down with non-heat resistant glue, as a rule). It doesn't happen that much, but it can happen. The fingerboard isn't that stiff, after all, what with all the fret slots in it. Net thickness isn't the full 1/4"

[ArieBombarie]

Any pointers on how best to clamp the headstock when gluing it?

Grz Arjan