fronobulax
Bassist, GAD and the Hot Mess Mods
- Joined
- May 3, 2007
- Messages
- 24,726
- Reaction score
- 8,859
- Location
- Central Virginia, USA
- Guild Total
- 5
I'm posting this in Bass "just because".
This is a listing for a '67 SF I on eBay. There are two points of interest to me.
First it has a "crack" in the back of the neck. According to the seller, the seller's luthier said "that the channel for the truss rods are too deep on these Guild basses, leaving not much wood and if someone over tightens the truss rod, the back of the neck is prone to split." This makes sense to me but it is a failure I have never heard of before. On the other hand I knew a lot of people who were afraid of truss rod adjustments because there was a potential for major damage. Is the luthier correct? Is this a legitimate concern or does worrying about a neck split move from rationality to paranoia?
Second, there is some discussion about the neck/fretboard that I believe was initiated by our own Mellogerman.
I have never built a bass or guitar or even paid much attention to one during construction. Imagine that a neck is built either by shaping a solid piece of wood or by putting two or three pieces together. If it was a single piece of wood the side by the stings could be finished and the frets put on. Otherwise there would be a layer of some other wood "laminated" to the string side and then the frets installed. This laminated layer would be called the fingerboard and could often be of a different wood than the neck.
The bass in question looks as if there is no fingerboard, to the extent that my definition and understanding above is correct. There is a lot of grain visible between the frets and I would guess that there was never a "laminated layer" or that it had been removed.
Mellowgerman and I both seem to agree that the "fingerboard" is unusual and could be the result of post-factory work. The seller's luthier says "The fretboard has been re-finished" and "The fretboard is original and has not been replaced" which seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
I would say that the factory fretboard has been removed and the neck refinished. To the extent that the new fretboard is the original neck I could get in a p*ssing contest about the meaning of specific words but note that there is clearly something original about the wood that is currently serving as the fretboard. I would also suggest that repairing a truss rod channel crack might involve removing a laminated fingerboard.
Any comments? Is my ignorance of neck construction leading me down the wrong path? Since the body does appear to have a wonderful factory natural finish, was a "natural" fretboard and finish a corresponding factory option?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Thanks.
This is a listing for a '67 SF I on eBay. There are two points of interest to me.
First it has a "crack" in the back of the neck. According to the seller, the seller's luthier said "that the channel for the truss rods are too deep on these Guild basses, leaving not much wood and if someone over tightens the truss rod, the back of the neck is prone to split." This makes sense to me but it is a failure I have never heard of before. On the other hand I knew a lot of people who were afraid of truss rod adjustments because there was a potential for major damage. Is the luthier correct? Is this a legitimate concern or does worrying about a neck split move from rationality to paranoia?
Second, there is some discussion about the neck/fretboard that I believe was initiated by our own Mellogerman.
I have never built a bass or guitar or even paid much attention to one during construction. Imagine that a neck is built either by shaping a solid piece of wood or by putting two or three pieces together. If it was a single piece of wood the side by the stings could be finished and the frets put on. Otherwise there would be a layer of some other wood "laminated" to the string side and then the frets installed. This laminated layer would be called the fingerboard and could often be of a different wood than the neck.
The bass in question looks as if there is no fingerboard, to the extent that my definition and understanding above is correct. There is a lot of grain visible between the frets and I would guess that there was never a "laminated layer" or that it had been removed.
Mellowgerman and I both seem to agree that the "fingerboard" is unusual and could be the result of post-factory work. The seller's luthier says "The fretboard has been re-finished" and "The fretboard is original and has not been replaced" which seems to be a bit of a contradiction.
I would say that the factory fretboard has been removed and the neck refinished. To the extent that the new fretboard is the original neck I could get in a p*ssing contest about the meaning of specific words but note that there is clearly something original about the wood that is currently serving as the fretboard. I would also suggest that repairing a truss rod channel crack might involve removing a laminated fingerboard.
Any comments? Is my ignorance of neck construction leading me down the wrong path? Since the body does appear to have a wonderful factory natural finish, was a "natural" fretboard and finish a corresponding factory option?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Thanks.