Recommend me an inexpensive flattop with a removable neck.

[DThomasC]

So I've been thinking of doing evil experiments on innocent guitars. In particular, I want to set the neck of a flattop at a steeper-than-normal angle, add an appropriately taller-than-normal saddle, and string 'er up with lighter than normal strings. The idea, of course, is to have something with very low action and light strings that plays easily. I don't want to say "plays like an electric" because I have electric guitars for that, but maybe an acoustic that plays as easily as an electric. Projection and volume is really not an issue for me; playing is for my own personal satisfaction only. The audience can go in the other room if they don't like it.

It's just an experiment. Eventually, if I get an idea of what might work, I might have something special made up by a local luthier.

Anyway, I know that a lot of flattops have "bolt on" necks, both cheap and expensive, but I don't really know which ones. I'm not looking to buy a Taylor (nor would I want to experiment with one even I got it for free) but there must be something playable and plentiful. Which ones have easily removable/shimmable necks? Epiphone, Yamaha, ???

 

[adorshki]

"DT", I'm sure others will have better knowledge about guitars that fit the criteria, but I'm curious why you think creating a sharper-than-normal neck angle and compensating for it at the saddle will be a "good" thing ?
I'm thinking you just need to look at short-scale instruments because the strings are inherently lower-tensioned at concert pitch.
Then string it up with "extra lights" (.010's) and have your luthier adjust action to your liking?
That was one of Guild's methods of achieving "easy to play as an electric" on the first generation F65ce for example.

 

[kostask]

Depending on the string tension and the height of the saddle, you are possibly looking at cracking/breaking off the front side of the bridge, at least in the longer term. in the shorter term, your tone may not be optimal unless a lot of things are calculated just right. Might be worth a try, but why not try what Al suggested?

 

[AcornHouse]

Older Japanese Epiphones (60s-70s) had a bolt on neck, and can be found fairly cheap.

Here's a 1970 example. You can see the neck bolts and plate in the pic of the back. https://reverb.com/item/2935221-epiphone-ft-145sb-1970-2-color-sunburst

 

[PTC Bernie]

Can I ask what you're after here? All you're going to wind up with is a taller saddle and more break angle than is useful. ???

 

[Rayk]

By an epiphone closet you'll get to an electric feel .
If you dare try to raise the saddle / bridge the guitar will sound like poo ! Unless you have a pickup and totally dig slide style .

Loss of volume , tone and intonation is what you'll have to look forward to and depending on how sever you go so much more the in ability to correct .

Not a win win . But I sure help ya do it ! Lol I like messing with things .

Yup +1 to Kostask post about the bridge tension .

 

[GardMan]

Another factor you should consider... the closer you move the strings to the frets (lower action and less relief), the more precise your fret plane will need to be to avoid buzzing.

With a sufficiently precise fret job (leveling, dressing, crowning), I would think almost ANY guitar can have its action and relief lowered so that it plays "like an electric," without adjusting the neck angle. As mentioned above, string tension is less on a short scale, making them even better candidates for an "easy playing" guitar.

 

[DThomasC]

Thanks Guys. I've put 10's on an acoustic and adjusted the action very low. That's a pretty obvious first effort. My intention with a larger break angle is to give the strings a little more leverage. I said a little.

For anyone that hasn't already thought about it, the mechanics of a flattop is fundamentally different from an archtop. With an archtop the load on the top is more or less straight into the top. The string tension produces a steady constant force and the vibrating strings add a component that is up and down. Both are a force straight into the top.

With a flattop the load is torsional; it twists the bridge lifting the top in the lower bout and pushing it down in front of the bridge. Again, you can think about it as having two components: the steady state part from string tension and the vibrating part from the vibrating strings. A well designed instrument will be constructed to withstand some particular torque at the bridge (which is the combination of static string tension and saddle height above the top) and will make the most beautiful music when the vibrating part of the torque on the bridge has some other certain value. No surprise, that depends on the vibrating part of the tension and the saddle height.

So, in theory, I can take that guitar that I have strung with 10's, the one that's meant to be strung with 13's, and readjust both the static torque on the bridge and the vibrating torque by raising the saddle the right amount. Of course then the neck angle needs to be adjusted to get the action right.

Will it work? Will it sound good or bad? I'm not sure because I haven't tried it yet, but I get the feeling that none of you guys have either, so unless you have, get off my back! No, seriously, I appreciate the well meaning advice, but I'm not talking about ruining the only guitar I'll ever own. I'm talking about experimenting with a cheap guitar that I might make awesome, but even if I completely destroy it the world will not miss it. (Some factory workers somewhere in Asia will get paid to work another day. How could that be bad?)

Anyway, guitar making has changed a little since I was an apprentice back in the '80s. As I understand it, dovetail neck joints are becoming less popular in favor of a straight mortise and some metal hardware. I assume that this must be especially true for factory made instruments, but what do I know? I guess I'll just start visiting music shops ...

 

[guildman63]

I just bought a NH F-50. Initially, the action was a touch high, so I had the saddle shaved a bit. I then replaced the 13's that were on it with a fresh set of 13 nickel bronze strings. Those strings were too stiff, so I replaced them with 11.5 Silk and Steel strings that are significantly softer. Meanwhile, I did not adjust the truss rod to compensate for the lower tension. The result after about a day was that the action became as low as my electrics, yet remained perfectly clean throughout the neck. The low end isn't quite as strong as I prefer, but it sounds pretty good and with good projection. It also now plays as easily as my AP Aristocrat. I'm still experimenting with strings, but this setup could be one to go back to in the end.

 

[evenkeel]

Sixties, seventies Epiphones as mentioned. Other 70's Japanese makers also used bolt on necks. I see these in pawn shops. Eko used bolt ons, but are fairly rare.

Since what you are describing also seems to be fairly easy to "reverse" why not try a one series Taylor? If it does not work, return to original and press on.

 

[txbumper57]

Another option would be an older Fender Palomino or Kingman. From the late 60's through the early 70's Fender made several models of Acoustic guitars with Bolt on Stratocaster necks and some can be found for very reasonable prices. I think they may have reissued some of them by making them overseas in the last few years. You could possibly find one of the foreign reissue models for a couple of hundred bucks. They also made a few at New Hartford as Custom shop models but those sell for around $1K. Just a suggestion.


TX

 

[DThomasC]

I do remember those Fenders... They weren't the worst sounding instruments, but I have a feeling few of them have lasted. I'll keep my eyes open for the older Epis.

evenkeel, are one series Taylors available for reasonable prices? Don't ask me what reasonable means, I really don't have a strict budget, but in my brief search it seemed all the Taylors I saw were VERY expensive. I'll keep looking.

 

[kostask]

Probably the easiest way to get an adjustable neck acoustic guitar is to seek out an early Norman guitar (Canadian made). These guitars had a two bolt system that came out at the back of the guitar, below the neck block. Loosen both bolts, and the neck angle could be moved. Tighten down the neck bolts, and the neck angle was held steady.

Two possible issues present themselves:
-Can you find an old Norman guitar in your part of the world, or on eBay/Reverb? Guitars like this are easy to identify, they have two metal caps on the back, up near the neck block.Also, the necks have no heel.
-I don't know how long the slots are in the end of the neck, so depending on how much neck angle you want to put in, they may not be long enough.

Example is here: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Norman-B20-...508864?hash=item4892618100:g:9ukAAOSwMgdX0X8h

 

[evenkeel]

I've seen 110 Taylor's for $400-450. More in really good shape.

If in fact your idea is reversible per my theory then a Taylor 110 in good shape can be fairly easily sold. So more $$ up front, but you'll get most of it back if your idea does not work out.

 

[DThomasC]

I went to the Rochester, NY Guitar Center to get some perspective on what's available, just to play a variety of instruments side-by-side. I wasn't looking to buy anything (ha! ha! ha!) and I didn't. I played a whole lot of crap, most of which made me wonder who's buying this stuff. But there was a little Taylor GS Mini that got my attention. Spruce and rosewood and at $580 it was just slightly more than I could spend on impulse right there. But I know myself well enough to know that I'll probably own that guitar in a few days.

 

[adorshki]

So, in theory, I can take that guitar that I have strung with 10's, the one that's meant to be strung with 13's, and readjust both the static torque on the bridge and the vibrating torque by raising the saddle the right amount. Of course then the neck angle needs to be adjusted to get the action right.

So, the armchair engineer in me looks at that and says, essentially you want to make the saddle a longer "lever" to multiply torque.
That's why Kostas mentioned the dangers of either saddle breaking, or bridge splitting, and why others mentioned ideal break angle because that also affects how much vibration and tension is applied. How much height are you thinking?
I'm sure there's some point of diminishing returns and that's why traditional ideal combined bridge and saddle height of roughly a 1/2" was discovered to be the ideal over the history of development of the instrument.
NOT that I discourage the experiment, WTH, it would be interesting to hear what you discover.
Let us know if yo decide to proceed, eh?
In case that Taylor becomes a no-go.
:friendly_wink:

 

[adorshki]

So, in theory, I can take that guitar that I have strung with 10's, the one that's meant to be strung with 13's, and readjust both the static torque on the bridge and the vibrating torque by raising the saddle the right amount. Of course then the neck angle needs to be adjusted to get the action right.

So, the armchair engineer in me looks at that and says, essentially you want to make the saddle a longer "lever" to multiply torque.
That's why Kostas mentioned the dangers of either saddle breaking, or bridge splitting, and why others mentioned ideal break angle because that also affects how much vibration and tension is applied. How much height are you thinking?
I'm sure there's some point of diminishing returns and that's why traditional ideal combined bridge and saddle height of roughly a 1/2" was discovered to be the ideal over the history of development of the instrument.
NOT that I discourage the experiment, WTH, it would be interesting to hear what you discover.
Let us know if yo decide to proceed, eh?

 

[DThomasC]

Hi adorshki, as far as breaking things goes, remember that I'm talking about using much lighter strings. As for how high, I really don't know. That's something that needs to be determined through experimentation.

And, as predicted, I did get the GS Mini. The 23.5" scale is a little short. 24.75" would probably be better, but this is such a sweet guitar...

 

[johnny3j]

If you end up not using the GS Mini, here are four acoustic guitars with bolt-on necks for under $300

1960 Welson:
https://www.gbase.com/gear/welson-flat-top-1960

1961 Goya:
https://www.gbase.com/gear/goya-s14-1961-natural

Breedlove D200:
https://www.gbase.com/gear/breedlove-d200-natural

2012 Taylor Big Baby:
https://www.gbase.com/gear/taylor-bbt-big-baby-2012-

I have two acoustic guitars whose necks are easily removeable, a Gurian with a mortise & tenon neck and a Taylor Big Baby with a bolt-on neck.

 

[DThomasC]

Hi Johnny,

Thanks for the tips. I probably should have picked up a Big Baby with its 25.5" scale. (It's never too late!) I really like the small body of the GS Mini, but the 23.5" scale takes some getting used to. Really, I wish they made a 112 or 212 model. Those would be entry level with the smaller Grand Concert body.

In any case, the Taylor neck system is perfect for my needs. Now to get Taylor to send me a set of shims.