I'm about to route my first bass body and would like to hear your preferred workflow regarding the neckpocket. Do you prefer to route the neckpocket first and then proceed with the body shape, or do it the other way around and why do you prefer your method? Thanks!
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.
Routing the neckpocket first or not?
- Thread starter onestone
- Start date
I've only made 1 bolt on build, but making sure that the mechanical connection between the neck and body is perfect is kinda a critical step. and it makes sense to me to do that with the body as square as possible.
I recommend doing all the important internal things first. Neck pocket, pickup cavities, control cavity, bridge mounting holes. All the things that have to line up accurately. The perimeter of the body is the last step.
You can follow my general procedure for making a neck pocket jig and how it is used at THIS build topic link.
I prefer to complete the body shape and do preliminary sanding prior to routing the neck pocket. Here's the overview of the long game:
Since I'm mostly doing one-offs as a general rule, I complete my neck and then use it to form a neck pocket routing guide. The routing guide can be used at any stage of making the body, and the way I construct the guide mostly eliminates any need to accurately measure. Every time you need to accurately measure for a machining operation is another place where error can be introduced.
Why do I do it that way?
I do it this way to ensure that the pocket is a very close fit for the neck. Some folks like a bit of slop in the pocket to assist with getting everything to line up correctly, but I think its best to plan out your build steps and alignment so there's no need to "adjust" later.
Having the body in its final sanded form lets me position the neck on the body exactly where I want it to be. Alignment and position can be precisely determined with no need to measure. I like to temporarily use one bolt to hold the neck in place for this step. I can easily adjust the neck alignment so the strings will center where they should be, and where the bridge and pickup routes will be. (I determine the bridge location after the neck pocket route is done.)
When I'm satisfied with the neck position I then clamp the pocket guide on the body, remove the neck, and do the route.
Last edited:
I will keep your good advices in mind going further with my build.
Through the years working in different woodshops I'm always amazed at how different people can produce amazing work using entirly different workflows and methods. I'm the opposite from you in that I like to make sure the body turns out well before I invest the time in making all the important cuts. My nightmare is spending all the time routing neck pockets, pickup routes, etc., and then blowing out an edge or some other catastrophe when I'm cutting the outside profile. There are certainly advantages to your method as well, especially considering how much work you do with an overhead router. I'm sure square blanks are much eachier to secure to the machine than pre shaped bodies.
I don't know if you were following the other recent topic where folks were asking about blow out issues. A few of us band saw the basic body shape close to the outline and finish with a standard disc sander for the convex curves and a vertical oscillating sander for the concave portions. A couple light cuts with an appropriately sized round over router bit finishes the process.
My opinion is that if the neck joint is off, there's no reason to continue working on that body. If I've spent dozens of hours on shaping and carving a body, I'd want to be pretty sure that it's going to work when I'm done.
I just build neck-thrus so I avoid this problem all together. 
Hey Big B.;
Oh yeah, there are definitely different ways to approach projects. I come at a project from the engineering end. To me, the most important thing is that an instrument functions correctly. Not just correctly, but really well. There's a group of dimensions and alignments and holes that have to be right, for the bass to fit together and work. My focus is on them first. The rest is cosmetics, for a nice look and feel.
On a body, for example, I want to lock down all the engineering stuff first. Because it's fixed, and has to be in a particular place. When that's all good, then I add in the cosmetic features. Because they can be adjusted, if needed, to fit around the engineering stuff. Once the neck pocket, pickup cavities, bridge location, etc. are defined and set, then I can check and adjust the perimeter template to work best.
And yes, it's a lot easier to do the engineering stuff accurately, while holding on to a rectangular block. When I'm building a one-off body, cutting out the perimeter is one of the last steps I do.
To me, function is more important than beauty. I'm building a musical instrument which functions as well as I can make it. And I also try to make it handsome and attractive to appeal to customers. And make them want to pick it up and try it out.
I'm not trying to make a stunning artistic sculpture, which also functions as a mediocre electric bass. Too many Luthiers get so caught up in being artistic woodworkers that they neglect the function and engineering. Most of my writing here on TB is about helping them improve the engineering side.
Last edited:
