It’s been a range over the years. 17 degrees is probably on the higher end of the range but not unheard of. That’s another factor in the “issue.” When an LP or SG falls on its back it tends to hit headstock tip first…
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
headstock joint
- Thread starter Billdog
- Start date
It’s been a range over the years. 17 degrees is probably on the higher end of the range but not unheard of. That’s another factor in the “issue.” When an LP or SG falls on its back it tends to hit headstock tip first…
- Apr 18, 2008
- 16,020
- 1
- 31,740
- Disclosures
- I'm highly opinionated and extremely self-assured
And because Gibson removes a hell of a lot of wood for truss rod access.
The mahogany neck construction on Gibson's is definitely part of the problem, it just isn't a particularly good material for neck construction in short grain orientations, but any bass with a big headstock, no scarf, no volute, etc. is vulnerable to breakage, usually right at the TRC pocket. This Rickenbacker a prime example. It's less common on Rics because maple is just tougher to break, but I have personally witnessed exactly this type of break on a dropped Ric.
I already assume the answer, buy I'm asking because I don't truly know (no wiseguy).
Regardless of wood species or design, has it ever been common for any of the modern electric models , in any era, to simply fail at the headstock or struggle to stay in tune from headstock flex from string tension alone?
Or, is that basically unheard of and all breaks are from falls or other impacts?
Regardless of wood species or design, has it ever been common for any of the modern electric models , in any era, to simply fail at the headstock or struggle to stay in tune from headstock flex from string tension alone?
Or, is that basically unheard of and all breaks are from falls or other impacts?
- Apr 18, 2008
- 16,020
- 1
- 31,740
- Disclosures
- I'm highly opinionated and extremely self-assured
That's nuts!
Is that common with mahogany, or just the Gibson design?
If that was common, you'd think a switch to maple would be in order.
A long time ago.
And it's probably cheaper too.
are you, mr banjo squirel, taking about nuts? what's the scurry consensus on pecans?
hog is a little more flexible but the situation is more indicative of the grain orientation on the LP's headstock.
maple would sound different although there are some models with maple necks. i think the zakk wylde is one of them.
the world was a different place in the early 50's when the lp was designed. not sure why the neck choice was hog, but it matches the body and sounds good imo. the gibson factory was all about mahogany for both acoustic and electric guitar.
hog is a little more flexible but the situation is more indicative of the grain orientation on the LP's headstock.
maple would sound different although there are some models with maple necks. i think the zakk wylde is one of them.
the world was a different place in the early 50's when the lp was designed. not sure why the neck choice was hog, but it matches the body and sounds good imo. the gibson factory was all about mahogany for both acoustic and electric guitar.
I honestly wasn't expecting anyone to say they've experienced headstock flex. Just surprised. I haven't owned a lot of basses in my time and none had mahogany necks. My only experience working with it was the back half of body wings on the last build.
Gibson's design is quite literally worst case.
Biggest angle of any common design.
No scarf.
No volute.
Relatively thin headstock.
Bad material choice.
Huge truss rod routing.
It's a testament to how powerful "tradition" is, and how strongly the guitar buying public resists any change.
Biggest angle of any common design.
No scarf.
No volute.
Relatively thin headstock.
Bad material choice.
Huge truss rod routing.
It's a testament to how powerful "tradition" is, and how strongly the guitar buying public resists any change.
It's a testament to how powerful "tradition" is, and how strongly the guitar buying public resists any change.[/QUOTE]
-Biggest angle of any common design.
probably true. if you've ever owned a gib you need to make sure to check clearance in the case or you'll be sorry. even the cali-girl cases are tight. this one had me checking neck angles around the house. steepest we've got is my old charvel with a 17 deg setback which seems to have been carried on with modern jacksons. but they both use a scarf and no volute.
-Bad material choice.
i wouldn't buy into this. hog is a good neck wood. ime, gib's application/use of it was/is the issue.
-Huge truss rod routing.
yep. definitely over did it here. access to the hex nut is cavernous.
-It's a testament to how powerful "tradition" is, and how strongly the guitar buying public resists any change.
yep. even more so with steel string acoustic instruments and much worse with nylon string classicals. probably has taken nearly 50+ years for the public to accept a guitar with a headstock that doesn't look like a paddle head martin. hell, even martin didn't have an adjustable t-rod until 1980-ish. talk about stick in the mud thinking. one of the ways to date a martin (for ex.) is the earlier ones have sharper corner radii at the headstock. this was when "the" template was new. 1/2 century later that template was getting worn out and the guitars started having rounder corners to the headstock before "the" template was replaced.
-Biggest angle of any common design.
probably true. if you've ever owned a gib you need to make sure to check clearance in the case or you'll be sorry. even the cali-girl cases are tight. this one had me checking neck angles around the house. steepest we've got is my old charvel with a 17 deg setback which seems to have been carried on with modern jacksons. but they both use a scarf and no volute.
-Bad material choice.
i wouldn't buy into this. hog is a good neck wood. ime, gib's application/use of it was/is the issue.
-Huge truss rod routing.
yep. definitely over did it here. access to the hex nut is cavernous.
-It's a testament to how powerful "tradition" is, and how strongly the guitar buying public resists any change.
yep. even more so with steel string acoustic instruments and much worse with nylon string classicals. probably has taken nearly 50+ years for the public to accept a guitar with a headstock that doesn't look like a paddle head martin. hell, even martin didn't have an adjustable t-rod until 1980-ish. talk about stick in the mud thinking. one of the ways to date a martin (for ex.) is the earlier ones have sharper corner radii at the headstock. this was when "the" template was new. 1/2 century later that template was getting worn out and the guitars started having rounder corners to the headstock before "the" template was replaced.
Last edited:
My mother was a terrible cook. Her pork chops were especially terrible.
She would cook pork chops for an hour and a half. It was like chewing on a leather belt.
One day, I stopped in and she asked if I wanted to eat dinner and I said, "what did you make". She said "pork chops".
"No, thanks".
She asked why I didn't want to eat.
Now, I grew up poor and hungry, so I don't turn food down or waste it. Let's just establish this.
anyway, after a lifetime of eating her crappy food (when there was any), I said, "look, the truth is, your pork chops are terrible. You cook them way too long and by the time it's done, it's so dry and tough, it's not edible. Pork doesn't take long to cook, especially thin pieces."
Her answer?
"I've been making them that way for 40 years!" Implying that because she's been doing it that way for that long, that somehow that means there's nothing wrong with it or it's how it should be.
My reply?
"Yeah, and you've been cooking them wrong for 40 years".
I thought it was funny.
I'm not a traditionalist when it comes to most things. So I don't relate when people get bent outta shape about changing/improving something like an instrument throughout it's lifetime.
If something sucks,......change it.
She would cook pork chops for an hour and a half. It was like chewing on a leather belt.
One day, I stopped in and she asked if I wanted to eat dinner and I said, "what did you make". She said "pork chops".
"No, thanks".
She asked why I didn't want to eat.
Now, I grew up poor and hungry, so I don't turn food down or waste it. Let's just establish this.
anyway, after a lifetime of eating her crappy food (when there was any), I said, "look, the truth is, your pork chops are terrible. You cook them way too long and by the time it's done, it's so dry and tough, it's not edible. Pork doesn't take long to cook, especially thin pieces."
Her answer?
"I've been making them that way for 40 years!" Implying that because she's been doing it that way for that long, that somehow that means there's nothing wrong with it or it's how it should be.
My reply?
"Yeah, and you've been cooking them wrong for 40 years".
I thought it was funny.
I'm not a traditionalist when it comes to most things. So I don't relate when people get bent outta shape about changing/improving something like an instrument throughout it's lifetime.
If something sucks,......change it.
Different situation here.My mother is a psychologist, minister and octogenarian. If I said anything like that to her, I can't even imagine the depth of consequence.
I had terrible parents and basically raised myself. She wasn't the greatest mother. I'll leave at that. And when my kids were babies, I left the first wife and raised them myself. My mother's 2nd husband got sick, so they bought a house and the deal was I would move in and we would help each other. Her husband died and I stayed for 13 yrs, raised the kids, took care of the house, paid most of the bills, drove her around, yada yada. (And she didn't help with the kids).
That was the first time I told her she couldn't cook. I was always nice to the woman.
But after all those years, I had think of my own well being for once. I'm not gonna gag down one more of those dam pork chops, I don't care who's feelings get hurt.
I'm not a fan of volutes from an aesthetic standpoint and I stopped using scarf joints because it's easy to misalign the joint and the joint itself tends to look odd if you carve an asymmetrical profile on the back of the neck. Now I prefer to glue up a 2 1/2" thick neck blank and saw two necks out of it.
In general I think a multi laminate neck is strong enough at the headstock angle to prevent any damage but as an extra precaution I started routing my carbon fiber rods into the headstock so they span and support the break angle.
In general I think a multi laminate neck is strong enough at the headstock angle to prevent any damage but as an extra precaution I started routing my carbon fiber rods into the headstock so they span and support the break angle.
Last edited:
