Lakland - Lack of string height adjustment

[MultiScaleMale]

Rich, I just got back from a weeks vacation and thought about this again. This is a '90 FCS. Notice how the neck and body joined has a built in backwards tilt. This is with no shim. All of mine, ranging from '85 to '94, are the same in that regard. I'm curious if the new builds are like this or just a straight cut pocket/neck like 99% of all the other bolt on basses out there.
View attachment 5194794

This is the after picture. With the angle that was on the bass' neck when I got it the action was really high, I don't have a pic of the neck at that point, but it was lower than what is in your pic.

 

[BAG]

The idea of shaving down the bottom of the saddle is interesting. It was mentioned earlier in the thread. I have a Sandberg that has this problem. The neck is set up perfect but I would like to get the strings a bit lower and don't think it will cause a fret buzz issue. Thanks p12bassnut! Cool idea. I like this better than shimming the neck.

There's about .007" relief. To measure, I capo at the first fret and then where the body meets the neck - and then use a feeler gauge halfway in between. I don't think neck adjustment will give me the string action I desire. I actually bought a used Lakland bridge and then ground one of the saddles down to make a 55-02 G string playable but I'm not going to mess with that on this bass. I appreciate all the suggestions.

Each to their own, but I can't understand going to the effort of grinding off metal from a saddle, which is an irreversible modification, rather than just putting a small shim in the neck which is not only reversible but is not visible in any way.
If I was looking at buying a second hand bass and saw that a saddle had been ground down to facilitate a lower action (and with most bridges that likely leaves sharp grub screws poking out the top of the saddle) I'd most likely haggle for a lower price or pass.

 

[gln1955]

Each to their own, but I can't understand going to the effort of grinding off metal from a saddle, which is an irreversible modification, rather than just putting a small shim in the neck which is not only reversible but is not visible in any way.
If I was looking at buying a second hand bass and saw that a saddle had been ground down to facilitate a lower action (and with most bridges that likely leaves sharp grub screws poking out the top of the saddle) I'd most likely haggle for a lower price or pass.

I agree. Ground down saddles are just a sign of someone trying to "fix" their bass but not knowing what they're doing.

 

[Relsom]

Each to their own, but I can't understand going to the effort of grinding off metal from a saddle, which is an irreversible modification, rather than just putting a small shim in the neck which is not only reversible but is not visible in any way.
If I was looking at buying a second hand bass and saw that a saddle had been ground down to facilitate a lower action (and with most bridges that likely leaves sharp grub screws poking out the top of the saddle) I'd most likely haggle for a lower price or pass.

I agree. Ground down saddles are just a sign of someone trying to "fix" their bass but not knowing what they're doing.

Right or wrong, on a neck through, its going to be your only option.

 

[BAG]

Right or wrong, on a neck through, its going to be your only option.

But the OP (and others who suggested this) were referring to a bolt-on instrument where a shim is a neater solution and easily reversible.
I'd also hesitate to buy any neck-through that had ground down saddles. It indicates that either the neck has already moved since new or that it wasn't built accurately in the first place.

Would I grind down a saddle on a neck-through that I already owned and loved to keep it playable? Possibly.
I'd probably first look at a different bridge with a lower profile which is a reversible mod as long as the mounting holes are the same or at least covered by the bridge. Another irreversible fix (but one that is neater if done well) would be to route out a little from the body to drop the bridge a bit.

 

[Stranger Danger]

Based on what factors? How many have you actually played? A bold statement like that deserves bold justification.

I thought he was joking. Was he serious?

 

[Stranger Danger]

I have to agree. Real workmanship would prevent this. In fact, I own 5 basses, none more than $2100 and none of them require a shim. They are a NASH PB-63, Fender US HIGHWAY One Jazz, Fender American Series Precision bass, Fender Mustang and best of all Yamaha TRBX505.
No shims, all tone. You need to try before you buy.

So, your position is that Fender (Fender!!) has better "workmanship" than Lakland and because of this, Fenders don't require shims all the time (as is the case in the real world)?

That is, um, certainly an opinion.

 

[chris_b]

If the OP wants a lower action than the bridge can provide, my suggestion is to replace the bridge saddles with a smaller radius.

 

[SJan3]

So, your position is that Fender (Fender!!) has better "workmanship" than Lakland and because of this, Fenders don't require shims all the time (as is the case in the real world)?

That is, um, certainly an opinion.

Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Johnny Alien]

Neck angle is just another setup part of bolt on neck guitars. The fact that you CAN do that is a huge plus to bolt ons for me. Fender tried to make it an actual easy to adjust point with the micro-tilt but for some people didn't like it. So saying NO well made instrument should need one is like saying no well made instrument should need adjustable saddles or a truss rod that can be adjusted. People like different setups and different pieces of wood react differently even with tight tolerances and good QA. Shims are not bad things they are just part of bass setups. I use them all the time on pretty much everything because I like my action stupid low.

 

[Stranger Danger]

Don't put words in my mouth.

Ok I must have misunderstood what you meant then. Have a good one

 

[wvbass]

Rich, I just got back from a weeks vacation and thought about this again. This is a '90 FCS. Notice how the neck and body joined has a built in backwards tilt. This is with no shim. All of mine, ranging from '85 to '94, are the same in that regard. I'm curious if the new builds are like this or just a straight cut pocket/neck like 99% of all the other bolt on basses out there.
View attachment 5194794

This bass looks like a Kubicki?

 

[Relsom]

This bass looks like a Kubicki?

That it is.

 

[getBAK]

Late to the party here, but I have to agree with the OP. On a Bass that costs north of $3000, I expect the factory setup to be dead on. That 'dead on' can mean they shim the neck, but I'm paying a premimum to not have to shim the neck myself. Same goes for fret work and nut-work. I should able to take the bass out of the box, set the truss rod and go.

 

[SkylineFiver]

Late to the party here, but I have to agree with the OP. On a Bass that costs north of $3000, I expect the factory setup to be dead on. That 'dead on' can mean they shim the neck, but I'm paying a premimum to not have to shim the neck myself. Same goes for fret work and nut-work. I should able to take the bass out of the box, set the truss rod and go.

Agree.
You should not have to shim to achieve factory specs.
Is it possible the QC isn’t as good as it use to be?
My Korean made 55-02D was flawless (low action) and there is plenty room to lower the saddle.

 

[Deleted member 394512]

I've owned 6 or 7 Lakland 5 strings, all either 55-02's or 55-94. The last couple (a 55-94 and a 55-02) suffered from a lack of string height adjustment on the G string. With the saddle all the way down, I couldn't achieve better than 3.5 mm. I contacted Lakland about the 55-94, and their response was to shim the neck. For a USA-made bass costing several thousand dollars, I didn't think that was an acceptable solution. I found a used custom 55-94 on Guitar Center last week, and was hoping-praying-that it wouldn't suffer from the same issue. This one is the worst yet. Four of the five saddles have no adjustment downward left, and the middle string is nearly there. This bass was $3500 used, I'm sure a bit more brand new. It looks great, sounds great - but it's going back. Has anyone else experienced this issue with Laklands?

My 44-94 built Jan 2023 is like that. My E saddle is about bottomed out. I need to drop another 2/64ths.

Lakland's website states "Our instruments are set in the factory at (5/64″ under the G-string) (5.5/64 under the E-string) (6/64 under the B-string)." I can't lower either high or low side under 9/64" so I guess I'll keep looking for that "elusive" bass that doesn't need to be shimmed to meet factory specs...

I can attest that my 44-94 was not at Lakland specs when I received it. Higher action, and yes the relief was in Lakland specs using Carls method of measuring.

Not a fan of bottomed out saddles...of course you can shim but why not build it that the strings can pretty much bet set down to right on the frets in the first place? From there you can always raise the action plenty...had some neckthroughs with bottomed out saddles. No way to shim there. Depending on the bridge design you cant always file down the saddle either. A well designed and constructed bass (neck) should be able to take the set up and string gauge of your preference.

All that said I never had a Ken Smith in my hands with a bottomed out saddle. All could be set up whatever way you like. Perfect neck angle and overall design. Yes it can be done.

Agreed. I feel the same way.

Agree.
You should not have to shim to achieve factory specs.
Is it possible the QC isn’t as good as it use to be?
My Korean made 55-02D was flawless (low action) and there is plenty room to lower the saddle.

I don't know what is going on there. I have a pretty bad story of my experience.

I let my issue be as my bass was built with a big discount.