My Blem CV-1 Arrived - Trainwreck Neck
- Thread starter Scratch
- Start date
zplay said:
Zeta, I retired the guitar on thursday, before going to work, and I took her at work. My coworkers noticed that and wanted to see her, although they aren't expert in musical instruments, they admired the quality of the woods and also the TKL case. Last evening I spend four hours trying to find a correct set up for the instrument, sanding the bridge saddle that, as a matter of fact, is real bone, because I'm used to play very low. I also took some cool picture of the guitar (and the block with the patent firebranded on the bracing, unfortunately, it was a hard day and I think I forgot in the office the cable to connect my phone with the computer, so I'll have to wait monday to upload the pics, but in the meantime I can write a complete review of the instrument in the acoustic section...
capnjuan said:Hi cuthbert; I guess I don't understand; that's the neck block in the pic below and nothing in the text you posted above describes it, does it?
It is my understanding that the block is the mating piece of the grphite rods in the neck and it's a part of the concept described in this patent, as a matter of fact on my guitar the patent nunber is on the brace that you see here with the Guild logo, just between the "horizontal" reinforcement and the block, here the maple rod is left blank, not so on my guitar, because I assume it's newer than the one in the picture ( that should be around 2007 if I recall correctly).
Unfortunately, due to my sleep deprivation and working overtime, I'll post the same shot of my guitar on monday, but I'm reasonably sure that the patent number, written so close to the block, refers to this "graphite reinforcement" that runs through the neck until the body, and it seems for my understanding that this configuration was thought to give a more stable connection between body and neck. Ironically, the problems of various users indicates that the result is exactly the opposite.
cjd-player
Senior Member
That patent application was filed in 2002. Isn't that too early for Tacoma?
It looks to me like its just a Fender patent on truss rods (neck support rods); not the Tacoma neck block. All 53 claims refer to the neck: the support rods in the neck, the grooves in which the rods are placed, etc. There is no claim in the patent concerning attachment to the body. The description says (paraphrased): that the purpose of the invention is to have a straight neck. It has nothing to do with the body block, or neck to body attachment.
The fact that you have the patent number inside the guitar simply means that your guitar may have those support rods in the neck.
It is possible that the use of the patented support rod neck is a prerequsite for use of the neck block; but the referenced patent has nothing to do with the attachment to the body. The bock must be covered in a different patent application.
It looks to me like its just a Fender patent on truss rods (neck support rods); not the Tacoma neck block. All 53 claims refer to the neck: the support rods in the neck, the grooves in which the rods are placed, etc. There is no claim in the patent concerning attachment to the body. The description says (paraphrased): that the purpose of the invention is to have a straight neck. It has nothing to do with the body block, or neck to body attachment.
The fact that you have the patent number inside the guitar simply means that your guitar may have those support rods in the neck.
It is possible that the use of the patented support rod neck is a prerequsite for use of the neck block; but the referenced patent has nothing to do with the attachment to the body. The bock must be covered in a different patent application.
zplay
Member
cjd-player said:
This all makes sense to me, cjd. It does seem that this support rod structure could have been designed to mate with a conventional block, albeit a bolt-on, and not necessarily the graphite block with the graphite upper bout supports in the Contemps. And what's going on from the block on into the body could have warranted another patent.
Thanks Carl; I thought there was a patent (or one pending) for what's in the pic. Based on the adverlit, I understood that to be the 'patented neck block' device to which the literature was referring. Apparently, there's another patent (or one pending) for the support rod. Interesting that they call it a 'support rod' and not a 'truss rod' and that its patent (or patent-applied-for) is under two individual's names and not FMIC's. Assuming there is or ever was a patent, pending or otherwise, for the chunky black thing in the pic, I wonder if it's under an individual's name too. I spent some time chasing down variations of 'neck / block / Guild / FMIC / graphite / support / patent' .... bupkis.cjd-player said:
capnjuan said:
This is the pic of the patent number into the guitar:
For the record, the patents are registered under the names of the inventors, in this case Dan Smith, who's the chief of Fender's R& D since the 80s (as a matter of fact the first Strat with small headstock of the CBS era, the '82 model, is called "Dan Smith" Stratocaster), so it makes sense that being the Big Boss he got the credit for the invention...
...in my company it works exactly the same way.
Hi cuthbert; thanks for the pic. Since the # can't be read, I guess it's the same number on the patent. The FMIC literature refers to a 'neck block' system ... which is readily visible in the pic I posted ... while the patent covers a 'support rod' which formerly would have been called a truss rod. I didn't see anything in the patent that suggested that the support rod was adjustable, did you? Further, the on-line patent doesn't contain drawings of the object inside the guitar to which the support bar connects. The drawable inferences are that the object in the picture is not covered by the patent (no drawings), covered under another patent (but none found), or, for whatever reasons, didn't require a patent in the first place.
This thread began with Scratch reporting problems with the neck on his guitar and, later, Jeff reported problems on his guitar that a qualified luthier couldn't correct. It remains to be seen whether Scratch's luthier can fix his neck or not. My interest in this subject is limited to understanding how the rod/block assembly connect. I had hoped that seeing a drawing of the block would shed some light on the subject. At the end of the day, if the neck can't be separated from the body or without some other means of adjusting the neck angle, I think the ability to re-set the neck to the correct angle is compromised. CJ
This thread began with Scratch reporting problems with the neck on his guitar and, later, Jeff reported problems on his guitar that a qualified luthier couldn't correct. It remains to be seen whether Scratch's luthier can fix his neck or not. My interest in this subject is limited to understanding how the rod/block assembly connect. I had hoped that seeing a drawing of the block would shed some light on the subject. At the end of the day, if the neck can't be separated from the body or without some other means of adjusting the neck angle, I think the ability to re-set the neck to the correct angle is compromised. CJ
capnjuan said:
Yes actually I started to investigate on this patent after having seen it printed in the guitar, it's the only reference that I found on the instrument, there is nothing else, not even a "patent applied for" on the block that, by the way, looks slightly different than the one showed in the acoustic guitar magazine.
Anyway, at this point the only thing is to write to Fender and ask directly about this patent and if they can release drawings of the joint in order to allow the serviceability of the Contemporary Series instruments, I think they should at least give us the information we need to keep our guitars in playing conditions.
Hi cuthbert; I really hope that your guitars are trouble-free and that other CO/CV owners can get their guitars straightened out. I also hope that FMIC makes a stand-up effort to help with current and future problems in these models. Good luck with your new guitar! John
I was on vacation last week so I just caught up on this. I agree with you guys that the patent in question is not the Tacoma patent but some Fender thing.
I wonder if there was something else. If it's a pending patent, I don't think it'd be listed anywhere, and wouldn't have one of those numbers.
I wonder if there was something else. If it's a pending patent, I don't think it'd be listed anywhere, and wouldn't have one of those numbers.
capnjuan said:
From the infamous article in AGM:
This is the reason why I think the block and the rods are part of the same "concept" patented...anyway I wrote to Fender to ask them if they can disclosure informations about the joint and if 6888055 covers the block as well, I don't expect a clear answer but if I get valuable information I'll share.
P.S.A question for the contemporary owners: am I the only one who has a guitar with that patent number on the brace?
Hi CB and thanks for making the effort. I don't know how many warranted 'neck-block' guitars were sold, how many 'Used'/ex-warranty were sold, or how many FMIC has repaired/replaced under warranty but the 'patented neck-block system' could be, or already is, a costly warranty and public relations nightmare for FMIC. FMIC has started making Guilds at its New Hartford CT facility but according to the information on the F30 for example Here ... click on Specifications, it says the F30 has a dove-tail joint ... no mention of the 'patented neck-block system'; same for the D50 and the cutaway F47RC. If the system were so bullet-proof .... I think you get my point.cuthbert said:
I don't understand guitar construction enough to know whether there was something unique about the CO/CV structure that made it especially suitable for, or impossible to make without, the neck-block system but I think it's ominous that those Traditional models for which FMIC is disclosing specifications aren't using it. But the darkest theory would be that FMIC culled CO/CVs that it knew or suspected had neck issues, put superficial scratches on them, called them 'Used', and let them go knowing full well just how serious the actual or future deficiency might be. If all that were true and I have no way of knowing whether it is or isn't, that's the kind of issue that turns up in Class-Action lawsuits.
In the words of the immortal golfer Bobby Jones: "Not every shot lands on the green" ... but I wish the best for you Jeff, Scratch, and anyone else owning a 'neck-block' Guild. John
Ureka !!! The neck is off my CO1. Thanks to Cuthbert & Bazooka.
I showed Brady the Pics they posted & the discussion. We gave it another shot this afternoon. She came off clean, the problem seems to have been a bit of excess laquer on the inside of the neck that hadn't cured before the neck was bolted to the body.
I showed Brady the Pics they posted & the discussion. We gave it another shot this afternoon. She came off clean, the problem seems to have been a bit of excess laquer on the inside of the neck that hadn't cured before the neck was bolted to the body.
Jeff said:
Great!I hope that now you'll be able to solve the issue with your neck, resetting should be relatively easy...if you can provide some pics of the dissassembled neck and block it would be of great help for all the owners of contemporary Guilds.
Scratch
Enlightened Member
Update: I had hoped Ross the Magic Luthier would have the CV-1 ready by the end of this week. I talked with Ross yesterday, and it is now projected for mid/late next week. Why? He stated he had never seen anything quite like the neck joint of the CV-1. In so many words, he was not complimentary of Guild's attempt to engineer a bolt on neck. Ross has more than 35 years of luthier experience and is highly sought/regarded by Austin/Central Texas musicians. He raves about Guild dove tail joints and considers them among the best in the business. He said, for example, the neck on my Tacoma D40 is among the best he has seen from any production manfacturer. The contemporary series bolt on necks are a great idea without substantive engineering...
Bottom Line: The repair will more than likely run higher than the original estimate of 340.00. Ross is the best there is around these parts and I trust him completely. He has significantly more work to do to make 'The Duke' rock solid. I told him to just do it and I'll request stimulus money... :wink: He also said he's leaning strongly to making it to Arlington in October to meet the 'Guild Guys'...
For what it is worth, at this point, I suggest that you do not take advantage of the eBay CV-1, CV-2 or CD series used guitars that are easily available at bargain prices. These necks are very poorly engineered, not worthy of patent, and will require significant $$ to make them right. I estimate my $899.00 contemporary series bargain will now wind up around 1500.00 before it is up to professional standards. Update next week...
Bottom Line: The repair will more than likely run higher than the original estimate of 340.00. Ross is the best there is around these parts and I trust him completely. He has significantly more work to do to make 'The Duke' rock solid. I told him to just do it and I'll request stimulus money... :wink: He also said he's leaning strongly to making it to Arlington in October to meet the 'Guild Guys'...
For what it is worth, at this point, I suggest that you do not take advantage of the eBay CV-1, CV-2 or CD series used guitars that are easily available at bargain prices. These necks are very poorly engineered, not worthy of patent, and will require significant $$ to make them right. I estimate my $899.00 contemporary series bargain will now wind up around 1500.00 before it is up to professional standards. Update next week...
Graham
Venerated Member
Scratch said:
That would be way kewl! 8)
Scratch
Enlightened Member
Graham said:
Ross is the kind of guy you like right off the bat. He's an ole baby boomer hippie; schooled by Bob Taylor; easy going and more knowledgeable than you can imagine. I love just hanging around his shop smelling the sawdust and looking at big artist guitars in for minor/major work. I could listen to him for hours, but I forget more than half of what he tells me... Hope he makes it to Arlington; I'll keep the pressure on. Ross is da man, for sure...
Scratch said:
Scratch, I'm sorry to hear that it's going to be very expensive, out of curiosity, what doesn't your luthier like about this design?Once again, pics would be of great help.
On my side, I've been playing my CV-2C for more than a month now, the sound is gettin much, much better, the top resonates more that in the beginning. I and two luthiers checked the joint and the fretboard and they both agree that they're dead straight, the guitar didn't need a fret leveling and just working on the nut I've an action of 2 mm at the 12st fret, she plays like butter.
Honestly, if I didn't hear about this problem on this board I wouldn't have had any dubt on the solidity of the guitar, I agree that the design of the neck joint is very...original but I'm almost convinced that the problems many experienced are a result of a poor setup at the factory that cannot be corrected by the luthiers because the design is original and FMIC didn't release the information they need.
For ebay I'm considering purchasing another Cv-2C, sunburst, because I always wanted that finish, I know I shouldn't waste my money in this period of financial crisis but the GAS attack is pretty strong at the moment...
Scratch said:
Bummer dude. Brady was feeling confident he could fix my CO1, but..I haven't heard from him since we got the neck off my CO1. he too, said he has never seen a system like what's used on the Contemps.
p.s. Fender stopped answering my emails after I confirmed the repairs needed on my CO1 were not under warranty.
If it was me, looking for a deal on a Guild Contemporary model, I'd be expecting to pay considerably less that the prices I've seen. I came close to advertising mine here for about $400, things don't work out with Brady, I still may.