Q about Seagull epoxy neck

[notbob]

I'm starting to get into the nitty-gritty on Seagulls. Evidently,
they were bolt necks up till '05, then became epoxied. My 35+ yr old
Yammy FG is epoxied and I've never had a prob with it. I've also read
Taylors were bolt necks up till ??, but have since changed to epoxy.
How big a deali is this? My only bolt neck was a 3 hole strat, which
I since sold in favor of my Aria Pro II (lemme look) 4 bolt neck (ok,
had two). Bottom line, I've NEVER hadda worry about neck "re-set".
Is this a whole lotta ta'do over nothing?

One of the major reasons I'm considering a new Seagull is the neck
width. I think I'd benefit from it. I like wider SGs fer jes this
reason. Also, a new Seagull might not be that much more than a refret
of my beloved FG.

All opinions welcome. ;)

nb

[Tony Done]

You sure about Taylors being epoxy? The last time I looked at a couple
about a month ago they were bolt-on, and I'm fairly sure that they were
emphasizing this in their blurb on the Mexi models. A bit of google
research would soon answer the question.

I am paranoid about resettable necks. There is no way I would buy
anything but a super-cheapo in steel string that didn't have one.

--
Tony Done

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=784456

http://www.flickr.com/photos/done_family/

[RichL]

"notbob" <not...@nothome.com> wrote in message
news:bfciq7...@mid.individual.net...

My view? Much. Ado. About. Nothing.

Unless you're a tinkerer and want to swap necks, I don't think there's any
advantage to a bolt-on neck. I've got guitars that I've owned for up to 48
years (!!) that have set necks and the only time I had a problem with a set
neck was decades ago when a kid my ex was baby-sitting ran right into a
guitar stand holding my Gretsch. Snapped that headstock off clean.

I didn't realize Seagulls used to have bolt-on necks. Mine has a set neck
(it's a Portrait Artist model electric/acoustic, and I love it).

I'm not fussy about neck widths at all. The Seagull and the Gretsch (since
repaired) have pretty wide necks, and I have a '66 SG with a pretty narrow
width. That 1965 Rick that I've owned since it was new is even narrower,
and so's the newer Rick 12-string. For me at least, it's no biggie - I've
got skinny fingers.

[Tony Done]

You're talkng about acoustics? There isn't any indication that they are
going banana-shaped? - The top compresses and the area around the
soundhole falls inwards, causing the action to get higher. A hump can
also develop at the bridge, though I've never had the impression that
this is as problematic as the banana syndrome. It is a function a string
tension, so light strings aren't as likely to cause geometry
deterioration as medium or the heavies they used in the 60s.

[Bruce Morgen]

"RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"notbob" <not...@nothome.com> wrote in message
>news:bfciq7...@mid.individual.net...
>> I'm starting to get into the nitty-gritty on Seagulls. Evidently,
>> they were bolt necks up till '05, then became epoxied. My 35+ yr old
>> Yammy FG is epoxied and I've never had a prob with it. I've also read
>> Taylors were bolt necks up till ??, but have since changed to epoxy.
>> How big a deali is this? My only bolt neck was a 3 hole strat, which
>> I since sold in favor of my Aria Pro II (lemme look) 4 bolt neck (ok,
>> had two). Bottom line, I've NEVER hadda worry about neck "re-set".
>> Is this a whole lotta ta'do over nothing?
>>
>> One of the major reasons I'm considering a new Seagull is the neck
>> width. I think I'd benefit from it. I like wider SGs fer jes this
>> reason. Also, a new Seagull might not be that much more than a refret
>> of my beloved FG.
>>
>> All opinions welcome. ;)
>
>My view? Much. Ado. About. Nothing.
>
>Unless you're a tinkerer and want to swap necks, I don't think there's any
>advantage to a bolt-on neck. I've got guitars that I've owned for up to 48
>years (!!) that have set necks and the only time I had a problem with a set
>neck was decades ago when a kid my ex was baby-sitting ran right into a
>guitar stand holding my Gretsch. Snapped that headstock off clean.

Which has nothing to do with
the neck attachment method.
I like bolt-on necks because
(a) you can fine tune the
neck angle with simple shims
and (b) a neck reset job by
a reputable shop can cost
several hundred $USD, and if
you keep a set-neck acoustic
long enough it's gonna have
to be done. Worth it for my
old Martin, but for the
typical sub-$500USD flat-top
usually not so much.

NNB

[Bruce Morgen]

AN old Martin isn't even
broken in until the top
bulges, necessitating a
pricey neck reset to
compensate.

[notbob]

On 2013-11-23, Bruce Morgen <edi...@juno.com> wrote:

> AN old Martin isn't even
> broken in until the top
> bulges, necessitating a
> pricey neck reset to
> compensate.

I've never even heard of a "neck reset". Not that I've owned a
gazillion gits, but I thought neck/string proximity was the province
of truss rods. I admit to not being a gee-tar guru. ;)

nb

[Bruce Morgen]

Two different issues -- the
truss rod compensates for
curves developing in the
neck itself, only a neck
reset can do the same for a
pulled top making the action
sky-high and messing up
intonation. On the other
hand, a neck reset cannot
straighten a warped neck,
which is a problem for older
Martins because they don't
have adjustable truss rods.

Back in the day, Martin
removed my D-18's fretboard
and sanded the mating
surface of the neck flat to
compensate for a warp -- I
understand that nowadays the
preferred method is
straightening with steam and
and a press or jig of some
sort. Modern Martins have
truss rods, of course, but
if the top pulls they still
require a neck reset.

[RichL]

"Tony Done" <tony...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:l6rch3$l6h$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Well, I was thinking both electrics and acoustics. The oldest acoustic
guitar I have (excepting my Framus classical) is an Ovation Legend that I
bought in the late 70s/early 80s. Gradually over time it started doing what
you mentioned, but even after that long a period of time, removing a couple
of the shims under the bridge brought the action back to "normal".

[RichL]

"Bruce Morgen" <edi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:djf2999lqh0tg8n80...@4ax.com...

Technically true, except that at least when it comes to electrics, the use
of set necks seems to correlate with a steeper break angle of the headstock
relative to the rest of the neck (which makes the guitar more susceptible to
headstock breaks).

[Bruce Morgen]

Absolutely correct -- I
should have appended my
statement with, ", at
least not directly." :-)
The gentler angle of a
Fender-style headstock
makes for a much sturdier
instrument, the only
downside being the need
a string tree to get a
suitable break angle over
the nut for the high E
and B strings.

[Twibil]

On Saturday, November 23, 2013 3:54:42 PM UTC-8, Bruce Morgen wrote:
>
>
> I like bolt-on necks because
> (a) you can fine tune the
> neck angle with simple shims
> and (b) a neck reset job by
> a reputable shop can cost
> several hundred $USD, and if
> you keep a set-neck acoustic
> long enough it's gonna have
> to be done.

Huh? Bruce, that's pure fiction.

I've been doing major repairs -neck
resets included- since the 1960s and
the main reason people want resets done
is not that the action has become higher
over the years but because Gibson, Martin,
et all used to set their necks on
different angle than they do now, and lower
actions are now required for the stuff a
lot of players are doing.

It's dead easy to tell a guitar that's warped
over time -and now needs a reset- because
those guitars will either show a significant
dip in the top where the fingerboard meets
the soundhole, and/or the top will have bowed
upwards circa 1/8" beneath the bridge.

But if a guitar shows neither sign of having
warped (and rather few high-quality guitars
ever do) then it simply has a high action
because that's the way it was built.

High quality set-neck acoustics generally stay
rather close to where they were intended to stay,
and rather few of them will ever need a neck
reset; much less "if you keep a set-neck acoustic

long enough it's gonna have to be done."

As a general rule, it won't. Not unless you get
unlucky.

~Pete

[Twibil]

On Saturday, November 23, 2013 3:56:43 PM UTC-8, Bruce Morgen wrote:
>
>
> AN old Martin isn't even
> broken in until the top
> bulges, necessitating a
> pricey neck reset to
> compensate.

Like anything made of wood -which varies
considerably from one balk to the next- some
Martins can bulge up to 3/32" behind the
bridge......and some bulge barely at all: my
'53 D-28 being an example at circa 3/64".

In any case, Martin is perfectly aware that the
guitar is going to "bell in", which is what it's
called, and they make their saddles quite high so
that you can lower them as the bell develops and
you will not need a neck reset.

I dunno where you got these ideas, but they bear
no relationship to the reality I worked with on
a daily basis during 18 years as a Martin/Gibson
warrantee repairman.

High quality set-necked acoustic guitars rather
rarely need neck resets. It's not a common
problem at all: much less is it universal.

~Pete

[Twibil]

On Saturday, November 23, 2013 5:20:49 PM UTC-8, Bruce Morgen wrote:
> On the other
> hand, a neck reset cannot
> straighten a warped neck,
> which is a problem for older
> Martins because they don't
> have adjustable truss rods.

It isn't a problem for old Martins unless
they're so old that they used barre frets.

Since Martin has been using modern tanged
fretwire (1934) they've also made (and still
have available) fretwire with three different
gauges of tang so that a repair/warrantee
guy can straighten a bent neck by simply
refretting it with a thicker-tanged wire.

Works fine. I've done it dozens of times and
still have several yards of the fat-tanged wire
sitting in my shop.

> Back in the day, Martin
> removed my D-18's fretboard
> and sanded the mating
> surface of the neck flat to
> compensate for a warp --

Difficult to believe, because removing
wood from either the neck itself *or*
the fingerboard significantly weakens
the structure. Only reason I can think
of that they'd do that would be to save
time and $$ on the repair rather than do
it right.

> I understand that nowadays the
> preferred method is
> straightening with steam and
> and a press or jig of some
> sort.

Heat-bending a neck works okay, but it's
only a temporary fix. Wood develops a
"memory",and a heat-bent neck will most
often eventually try to return to where
it was before it was heat-treated.