• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

I'm Afraid of Set Necks

As far as I understand them, set necks are a dovetail joint attaching the body and neck together along with some sort of adhesive. I have read that this is supposedly just as strong as a bolt on but I'm not so sure. Even with glue I feel like the wood could move or bend or compress even just a little bit and compromise the joint. I'm definitely more comfortable with bolt on at this point.

I guess I'm asking for my mind to be set at ease. There is a bass I really think I want except for its set neck.
The same kind of neck is in tons and tons of guitars (Les Pauls, SGs, and basically all acoustics) and tons of basses. It's been used for centuries now (with acoustic instruments).
 
For smashing up guitars on stage, Pete Townshend favored hollow-bodied set-neck Rickenbackers. You don't want the neck joint to fail, because then the body would just fly off rather than get smashed, and you want a hollow body because it smashes more easily. That's probably why nobody smashed Les Pauls on stage, and why Jimi Hendrix set Stratocasters on fire rather than smashing them.
He also smashed Les Pauls. And SGs. And Fender Strats.
 
I get that, but if you were to grab a bass by his neck and moving around a little bit or swing it or grab it are you telling me that would not lose its Integrity the same way as a bolt on?

If so, why are so few basses made this way?
Why would it lose its integrity? And are you intending on abusing your instruments thusly?

Thousands upon thousands of guitars have been made with set necks. While most basses copy Fender, the bolt-on neck was done for manufacturing convenience, not because it's better or worse than a set neck.

A good neck joint is stronger than the wood around it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcake
As far as I understand them, set necks are a dovetail joint attaching the body and neck together along with some sort of adhesive. I have read that this is supposedly just as strong as a bolt on but I'm not so sure. Even with glue I feel like the wood could move or bend or compress even just a little bit and compromise the joint. I'm definitely more comfortable with bolt on at this point.

I guess I'm asking for my mind to be set at ease. There is a bass I really think I want except for its set neck.

Let me tell you a story. I have a Hamer USA bass - set neck, mahogany neck/body (AFAIK). I once fell from a stage, to on top of that particular bass. Neck and body join is still solid and the bass has no tuning issues. So quality construction + luck = no problem.
 
I get that, but if you were to grab a bass by his neck and moving around a little bit or swing it or grab it are you telling me that would not lose its Integrity the same way as a bolt on?

If so, why are so few basses made this way?
I would say the main company that does this type construction (Gibson) doesn't really take us seriously. - Fodera still does a set neck.
 
That’s what we’re telling you.



Costs more. Harder to fix if you screw up. People no longer care if the instrument has a bolt-on neck.

That wasn’t always the case. There was a time when most guitarists and bassists felt a screw on (even today most most “bolt-ons” still use woodscrews rather than actual bolts and collets) neck was a bad idea and preferred to get a set neck instrument if they could afford one.
Yes. This is an important "note".

Most bolt ons are just screwed in, which is a much lousier way to secure a neck than glue... now if they really were bolted, that would be very strong. To add insult to injury... After losing a strap button in 1992, I got into the silly habit of removing the strap button screws of all new guitars, and then reinstalling them with crazy glue on the threads.

As the years went on and I started installing strap locks, machine heads, bridges, pups, and different PG's on ALL of my new basses, I began using the crazy glue technique on all of the screws. Guess what I found?

Better than 35% of the screws on all of my USA Fenders and G&Ls were stripped from the factory. So, my trick works very well, but the glue is better than the screw...

I too have always been scared of set necks and I try to avoid them, but I'm also smart enough to know that I'm basing it on foolish OCD nonsense. If Slash, ACE, and Angus are using them, then I suspect you can too.
 


To me it is not about strength, but cost of fixing/replacing a neck. I can work on a bolt on myself, but would need a luthier to fix a set neck (if at all possible).

That said, I think I want to look into better bolt on methods than wood screws. Like thread inserts or something...
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlueMINI
I get that, but if you were to grab a bass by his neck and moving around a little bit or swing it or grab it are you telling me that would not lose its Integrity the same way as a bolt on?

The two designs will respond differently. A bolt-on neck can, and will, shift in the pocket. This will throw off string alignment. A set neck might not do anything. Traditionally in set-neck instruments the headstock is the weak link. If you look at images of smashed Fenders, it seems fairly rare for the neck bolts to rip out the neck itself, before the neck of body decides to break.
 
...

When guitarists and bassists used to smash their instruments on purpose, the neck bolts would often give out early and the neck would stay intact until hit again separately. Trying to smash a Gibson wasn't done, because the neck joint was too strong. (And were too expensive, I bet).

For smashing up guitars on stage, Pete Townshend favored hollow-bodied set-neck Rickenbackers. You don't want the neck joint to fail, because then the body would just fly off rather than get smashed, and you want a hollow body because it smashes more easily. That's probably why nobody smashed Les Pauls on stage, and why Jimi Hendrix set Stratocasters on fire rather than smashing them.

upload_2018-6-18_8-38-16.jpeg
 
I dislike set necks and neckthroughs because I like to tinker with my instruments, the "cool factor" of the guitar for me is that I can do anything I want with it. Set necks and neck throughs seem limiting in terms of modding. Aside from that, they're solid, as is bolt on construction.
 
Oh! You just reminded me that I actually have a bolt-on acoustic guitar! The Taylor Big Baby uses two screws THOUGH THE FRETBOARD. it's wild. IIRC, they're just bog standard home depot wood screws too.

you can actually remove the taylor big baby neck if you're traveling, stick it and the neck in a suitcase - with the strings still on - and thus protect the neck joint (which isn't a neck joint while it's separated) while traveling. easiest guitar to do a neck reset on anywhere :D
 
Yes. This is an important "note".

Most bolt ons are just screwed in, which is a much lousier way to secure a neck than glue... now if they really were bolted, that would be very strong. To add insult to injury... After losing a strap button in 1992, I got into the silly habit of removing the strap button screws of all new guitars, and then reinstalling them with crazy glue on the threads.

As the years went on and I started installing strap locks, machine heads, bridges, pups, and different PG's on ALL of my new basses, I began using the crazy glue technique on all of the screws. Guess what I found?

Better than 35% of the screws on all of my USA Fenders and G&Ls were stripped from the factory. So, my trick works very well, but the glue is better than the screw...

I too have always been scared of set necks and I try to avoid them, but I'm also smart enough to know that I'm basing it on foolish OCD nonsense. If Slash, ACE, and Angus are using them, then I suspect you can too.

Interestingly enough, unless you got a really top notch neck-through, you’re taking a bigger chance. Damage a neck-through and you’re out the entire bass. Replacement is impossible since the neck is effectively the instrument.

In my experience, many neck-through basses also have truss rod issues because you’re attempting to put a forward or back bow on only half the length of a piece of wood. And that piece of wood is also the body. I’ve noticed in many less expensive neck-throughs that adjusting the truss does absolutely nothing. Sometimes you can see warping at the spot where the truss rod anchors. On the hippie sandwich style basses you’ll even see minute stress fractures and delamination on the side wings since the body part of the neck is starting to bend at that point. So if you get a neck-through, buy the best you can possibly afford. Because you’re putting all your eggs in one basket.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: armyadarkness
Interestingly enough, unless you got a really top notch neck-through, you’re taking a bigger chance. Damage a neck-through and you’re out the entire bass. Replacement is impossible since the neck is effectively the instrument.

In my experience, many neck-through basses also have truss rod issues because you’re attempting to put a forward or back bow on only half the length of a piece of wood. And that piece of wood is also the body. I’ve noticed in many less expensive neck-throughs that adjusting the truss does absolutely nothing. Sometimes you can even see warping at the spot where the truss rod anchors. On the hippie sandwich style basses you’ll even see minute stress fractures and delamination on the side wings since the body part of the neck is starting to bend at that point. So if you get a neck-through, buy the best you can possibly afford. Because you’re putting all your eggs in one basket.
Lol. I only have one neck through, but I often envision having to rout it for a G&L neck some day. Hopefully not!!!!
6f3.jpg