Here's some Pics of What I think is pretty High up on the "Good" side of Necks. Plus It plays nice on the '63 AVRI Body.
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.
Sizing up a Neck - quality evaluation
- Thread starter Turnaround
- Start date
Is that the roadworn neck?. The warm finish bears some resemblance to my roadworn example in #34. I’ve read on multiple occasions that they hand selected better quality woods for that line (at least in the early runs anyway).
Yes it is a Roadworn. The pictures don't do it justice as far as how sweet the Grain is. The grain is so tight up and down each side. The 1st 1/2 inch running parallel with the fingerboard is tight and has tons of Fleck.
I would have never have known how to size up a Flat-sawn without this thread. I had another MIM Mark Hoppus neck that was nowhere near this good as far as Grain/Fleck. It still was a very sweet neck as many MIM necks are.
This neck is also nearly identical on each side of the Skunk Stripe. Almost like it was book matched but it is one piece.
I have run across several discussions that suggest that a quarter-sawn neck is better than a flat sawn one. The claim is that quarter-sawn is stiffer than flat sawn. But that's a myth. There are many studies that have shown that there is no significant difference in stiffness of quarter sawn vs flat sawn wood- The Journal of Wood Science and Technology (April 2005), tests done by Forest Products Research, Unite Mixte de Recherche Ecologie des Forets de Guyane (Jan 2017), etc. you can look them up. Or here's a simple test you can perform yourself.
In this test I used a piece of oak dowel, 36" long and 3/4" in diameter. I used dowel because it has the same cross-sectional size regardless of how it is oriented along its long axis. I fixed one end in a vise, drove a nail into the other end to act as a pointer and set up a scale at the free end to measure deflection. I adjusted the scale so that the pointer on the dowel was right at an inch mark. Then I suspended a 250 gram weight from the dowel, 2" from the free end, and measured the deflection on the scale.
When you orient the end grain in a horizontal position the flex load will be against the grain orientation of a flat-sawn board. Rotate the dowel 90 degrees and the deflection will be as that on a quarter-sawn board. Perhaps some pics will help. I first tested in the flat sawn orientation. Here's a view of the end of the dowel in the vise:
The grain (growth rings) are positioned horizontally the same way that would be in a piece of flat sawn wood lying on a table. Once clamped I adjusted the rule at the other end so the pointer was at the 6" mark:
Then I hung the weight 2" back from the pointer and the deflection looked like this:
About 3/8" deflection. I re-oriented the dowel so that it would be in a quarter sawn position:
I zeroed the pointer end again at the 6" mark and added the weight to the same position. The result:
3/8" deflection.
I intended to run the same test on different species to show here, but ran out of time today. Maybe later.
In this test I used a piece of oak dowel, 36" long and 3/4" in diameter. I used dowel because it has the same cross-sectional size regardless of how it is oriented along its long axis. I fixed one end in a vise, drove a nail into the other end to act as a pointer and set up a scale at the free end to measure deflection. I adjusted the scale so that the pointer on the dowel was right at an inch mark. Then I suspended a 250 gram weight from the dowel, 2" from the free end, and measured the deflection on the scale.
When you orient the end grain in a horizontal position the flex load will be against the grain orientation of a flat-sawn board. Rotate the dowel 90 degrees and the deflection will be as that on a quarter-sawn board. Perhaps some pics will help. I first tested in the flat sawn orientation. Here's a view of the end of the dowel in the vise:
The grain (growth rings) are positioned horizontally the same way that would be in a piece of flat sawn wood lying on a table. Once clamped I adjusted the rule at the other end so the pointer was at the 6" mark:
Then I hung the weight 2" back from the pointer and the deflection looked like this:
About 3/8" deflection. I re-oriented the dowel so that it would be in a quarter sawn position:
I zeroed the pointer end again at the 6" mark and added the weight to the same position. The result:
3/8" deflection.
I intended to run the same test on different species to show here, but ran out of time today. Maybe later.
Thanks for the excellent information here. I used to have a 70s maple fingerboard P-bass when I was younger and I've been casually on the lookout for one again and this is very helpful.
Are there any specific things to look out for when looking at a "one-piece" maple neck/fingerboard?
Are there any specific things to look out for when looking at a "one-piece" maple neck/fingerboard?
Same things apply for one-piece neck/fboard pieces. Straight, close-grained, little runout.
Sometimes "pretty" is only "pretty bad".
Last edited:
To further muddy the waters, there's the whole subject of laminated multi-piece necks, often done as much for visual decorative effect as stability issues. I'm wondering how much of the undesirable grain characteristics can be negated by the presence of the glue itself, and by mirror-image use of grain orientation? On this Ric clone in progress, I arranged the grain pattern to please my eye, and how I'd seen it done on other instruments, hoping that just the fact of laminate construction would stiffen and stabilize the whole structure, but with no real understanding of what this may do long-term.
Looking at it more closely, although both maple outer laminates have some similar figure, they are also a bit different. The walnut stringers are just flat sawn lumber.
Looking at it more closely, although both maple outer laminates have some similar figure, they are also a bit different. The walnut stringers are just flat sawn lumber.
There is a science to creating "laminated" wood for structural stability.
Fist rule is not to mix quarter-sawn with flat sawn pieces. Where it originally seemed like a good idea, there were structural failures discovered as early as the 1920's that showed that this was not a good practice.
Secondly, for best stability the laminated piece is cut from a single board, not two different boards put together. The board is cut end to end and one piece is flipped, either end to end, face to face, or both, and reglued in that orientation.
Thirdly, the introduction of other species in the laminate has the tendency to reduce structural integrity. Probably not significant in a bass neck though.
Fist rule is not to mix quarter-sawn with flat sawn pieces. Where it originally seemed like a good idea, there were structural failures discovered as early as the 1920's that showed that this was not a good practice.
Secondly, for best stability the laminated piece is cut from a single board, not two different boards put together. The board is cut end to end and one piece is flipped, either end to end, face to face, or both, and reglued in that orientation.
Thirdly, the introduction of other species in the laminate has the tendency to reduce structural integrity. Probably not significant in a bass neck though.
Well, i broke two of those rules, alternate species stringers from flat sawn. I did cut all the maple from one board. Go me! It does look purdy, hope it works long term.
There is a maker in Japan that used thermal wood. I figure it is something like roasated wood. One of the guys I know personally at the biggest guitar store in Japan told me that, this thermal wood is actually really brittle.
He has had 3 people with cracked necks. All of them just cracked for reason at all. Warranty didnt cover it so he told me that the store would gradually be phasing this type of instrument out.
I am just not sure if roasted is the same as thermally treated wood. The process sounds the same but the guitar maker (I forget which one) said it was some proprietary method.
You can call it "roasted", "toasted", "thermal treated" or "torrified" - I think it is all the same. But the process is tricky.
When you expose the wood to high temperatures (relatively speaking) moisture is driven out of the wood. When that happens, the cell structure can collapse causing internal fractures as well as external cracks. When kiln drying wood, moisture is injected into the kiln at times during the process. This keeps the wood from drying too fast. If the drying process is slowed down the wood structure adapts gradually to the change in its moisture content and that allows the internal stresses to even out.
The same kind of care must be taken when roasting. Simply heating it up to a toasty temperature will introduce stresses in the wood that can also cause fractures and cracks. I have acquired some roasted maple from a premier supplier and, though it looked good on the surface, when milled the wood showed internal cracks and it began to warp quite badly. It's tricky!
When you expose the wood to high temperatures (relatively speaking) moisture is driven out of the wood. When that happens, the cell structure can collapse causing internal fractures as well as external cracks. When kiln drying wood, moisture is injected into the kiln at times during the process. This keeps the wood from drying too fast. If the drying process is slowed down the wood structure adapts gradually to the change in its moisture content and that allows the internal stresses to even out.
The same kind of care must be taken when roasting. Simply heating it up to a toasty temperature will introduce stresses in the wood that can also cause fractures and cracks. I have acquired some roasted maple from a premier supplier and, though it looked good on the surface, when milled the wood showed internal cracks and it began to warp quite badly. It's tricky!
@Turnaround ...Thank you for such an invaluable lesson....I wish I had seen this thread a month ago!
But what great knowledge you have shared
I am a bit surprised this thread seemed a bit hidden before I found it....should be a sticky in the Bass guitars forum
But what great knowledge you have shared
I am a bit surprised this thread seemed a bit hidden before I found it....should be a sticky in the Bass guitars forum
This is really useful and informative when you are sizing up definitions of quarter sawn etc, thanks for posting!
Is there study on difference of humidity absorption rom various cuts?
For example, quarter sawn absorbs less than flat sawn?
Also I still don't get one thing. How could humidity possibly get through lacquer? It's coated in some sort of polymer and I always thought it was literaly water proof. Finger board is less than 25% of the neck and some are lacquered, some aren't. So if I have a maple neck with maple fingerboard, theoretically it's totally sealed. No moisture can get in or out. Can a fingerboard affect the bow/back bow of the neck this much?
The proof is, the body. I have yet to hear of anyone telling me that their body warped.
Why does the neck bend depending on humidity when it's mostly painted? Could it be the strings reacting to humidity and temperature?
For example, quarter sawn absorbs less than flat sawn?
Also I still don't get one thing. How could humidity possibly get through lacquer? It's coated in some sort of polymer and I always thought it was literaly water proof. Finger board is less than 25% of the neck and some are lacquered, some aren't. So if I have a maple neck with maple fingerboard, theoretically it's totally sealed. No moisture can get in or out. Can a fingerboard affect the bow/back bow of the neck this much?
The proof is, the body. I have yet to hear of anyone telling me that their body warped.
Why does the neck bend depending on humidity when it's mostly painted? Could it be the strings reacting to humidity and temperature?
If there’s no finish at all the neck is very susceptible to warping from all the moisture going in and out seasonally. This is why Warmoth won’t guarantee necks that you don’t put a solid finish on . Oil is not good enough for them to guarantee (at least with maple anyways). Solid finishes are very good at keeping those exchanges down but over time moisture does get in and out, possibly mainly from the fret slots alone. I don’t believe the different cuts absorb water differently, but they do behave differently from those exchanges. A quartersawn neck will swell or contract width wise, while flatsawn will go up and down.
Really interesting thread! I am now deathly afraid to scrutinize the necks on my basses....
...But I'll be more knowledgable in the future!
...But I'll be more knowledgable in the future!
Flatsawn swells and shrinks primarily across its width, while quartersawn swells and shrinks primarily in thickness.
There is no difference in moisture absorption based on the angle of the saw cut.
Lacquer is water resistant, not waterproof. Have you ever seen a white ring on a table top where someone left a wet glass? Water got through the lacquer finish.
A good water resistant finish will inhibit moisture exchange. Lacquer is pretty good, poly is better, oil is mediocre at best and wax is poor on its own. Glossy finishes tend to be better than satin. And in every case thicker is better. So a thick glossy poly is a good choice for a neck. Except of course that many folk hate thickly finished glossy necks. Care for a compromise anyone?
