When is a neck reset no longer possible?

I have a '70 D-25 with good action (5.5/64"), but the bridge has been shaved and the strings are only about 3/8" off the top at the bridge. My luthier says he'd prefer not to perform a reset as there is not much of the heel left to shave off and fix the angle. I am just hoping the guitar is stable for decades to come. The heel is 3/8" thick at the "heel cap" point. Whether 3/8" is the limit or not, anyone have a rule of thumb as to when a guitar is done? I have been looking at a '66 F-47 and the heel is 7/16" thick at the heel cap. I sent pics to the same luthier who's response was "boy, that is getting pretty thin." Do I find a new luthier or does a reset get risky at some point?

It is largely an aesthetic (cosmetic) issue with those numbers, not structural. That bottom section of the heel can go down to zero (if you can stand to look at it), so long as the upper 2/3 of the dovetail is fitted with excellence.

You can always rebuild the heel (cut it off, glue on a new block, reshape it and re-spray it), so if you really like the guitar, I say, “Invest in it."

I have a ‘73 D-35 in basically the same shape. The action has not budged in over a decade. My luthier doesn’t feel like it needs to be addressed.

Yes, having strings only 3/8” off of the soundboard is not optimal. But having a shaved bridge decreases its mass, allowing for a livelier soundboard, IMO. Several of my old Gibsons are just like it, and they are wonderful guitars.

The only thing I did was have the slots on the D-35 ramped to increase the break angle. The guitar plays fine and sounds great!

Neal said:

But having a shaved bridge decreases its mass, allowing for a livelier soundboard, IMO.

Click to expand...

There are reasons people might not go the neck reset route when the action on their guitar gets high: the expense; finding a competent luthier to do the work, etc.

You might sand the bridge as a way to bring the action down, but I've always heard that that solution is best avoided. Supposedly less mass in the bridge hurts the sound. Is this anecdotal or something that's been confirmed in tests?

wileypickett said:

There are reasons people might not go the neck reset route when the action on their guitar gets high: the expense; finding a competent luthier to do the work, etc.

You might sand the bridge as a way to bring the action down, but I've always heard that that solution is best avoided. Supposedly less mass in the bridge hurts the sound. Is this anecdotal or something that's been confirmed in tests?

Click to expand...

I wouldn’t ever sand a bridge. My D-25 with the shaved bridge is VERY resonant, but to the point the K&K mini output seems kinda muddy. It’s like there are too many vibrations bouncing around. I love it unplugged, but not as much plugged in.

When you reset it you may want to consider replacing the bridge with one of the correct height. Then it’s like starting from new all over again.

It should also be noted though, that factories often have bridges of various heights/thicknesses, so a sanded/shaved bridge isn't inherently bad, although it obviously can be.

plaidseason said:

It should also be noted though, that factories often have bridges of various heights/thicknesses, so a sanded/shaved bridge isn't inherently bad, although it obviously can be.

Click to expand...

For sure, but by D-25's is 0.22" tall. I have never heard of a factory installing one well below 1/4". It is also slightly concave under the D and G strings, they are almost always convex!

E-Type said:

I wouldn’t ever sand a bridge. My D-25 with the shaved bridge is VERY resonant, but to the point the K&K mini output seems kinda muddy. It’s like there are too many vibrations bouncing around. I love it unplugged, but not as much plugged in.

Click to expand...

That may well be related to the weight of the bridge, etc. I'll bet it feeds back like crazy.

But, E-Type, I wouldn't do surgery on the guitar unless it's not playable or you don't like the sound your getting unamplified. Amplified sound is an entirely different question. I.e., don't mod your guitar to satisfy your K&K system.

K&Ks have no feedback protection and they sound quacky (to me) compared with other modern blended electronics. You might want to look into the James May Ultra-Tonic UTP v3.2-CK pickup system which is an add-on to your existing K&K. It has a unique feedback control mechanism, and it's been recommended by a few folks who know their stuff.

In my previous post, I did not mean to suggest that shaving a bridge was ever a proper alternative to a neck reset. It is not.

However, the bridge on the OP’s guitar is already shaved. The question here is whether to leave it alone, given
that it plays just fine, or invest in a neck reset and new, taller bridge.

My advice, based on my own guitar, is to leave it be.

chazmo said:

That may well be related to the weight of the bridge, etc. I'll bet it feeds back like crazy.

But, E-Type, I wouldn't do surgery on the guitar unless it's not playable or you don't like the sound your getting unamplified. Amplified sound is an entirely different question. I.e., don't mod your guitar to satisfy your K&K system.

K&Ks have no feedback protection and they sound quacky (to me) compared with other modern blended electronics. You might want to look into the James May Ultra-Tonic UTP v3.2-CK pickup system which is an add-on to your existing K&K. It has a unique feedback control mechanism, and it's been recommended by a few folks who know their stuff.

Click to expand...

Haha, it does feedback more than others.
I’m leaving if for now. My original question was about a ‘66 f-47 that has had at least one reset and might need another soon. At least the bridge on that one is 3/8” thick at its height.

Many luthiers will give you any excuse not to do a Guild neck reset, because the shape of the heel leads to finish issues they don't want to deal with. When I had my 70 D 35s neck reset, they told me they liked the fact someone had sanded the finish off the neck. It was going to get resprayed at any rate, so damage would not matter. The issue is, do you want to spend $1000 on the guitar. New bridge, saddle, nut, frets, and the reset are going to cost. I'm not going to tell you it's not worth it. It's a shame about the bridge though, as it is likely Brazilian Rosewood. Mr. Fixit can do his magic on the guitar.

so long as the upper 2/3 of the dovetail is fitted with excellence.

Click to expand...

It's actually the lower 2/3 of the dovetail that must be fitted with excellence. The upper 1/3 doesn't do much.

When the neck warps and twists so bad there’s no fixing it . Rather to the point but I digress.

F-412Spec said:

It's actually the lower 2/3 of the dovetail that must be fitted with excellence. The upper 1/3 doesn't do much.

Click to expand...

I believe I mixed messages, and could have said, "That bottom section of the heel can go down to zero (if you can stand to look at it), so long as the upper 2/3 of the HEEL dovetail is fitted with excellence.” As you can see in the photo, below, that lower 1/3 of the HEEL is not doing much heavy lifting. As a result, the bottom exterior of the HEEL of the neck (section #3) can be taken down quite thin (in an effort to correct the neck geometry) and the dovetail joint still be viable, though the neck heel becomes visually unattractive.

In the case of the implementation of the “twin compression rods” found in the older Guild 12 strings, there is a large section of dovetail missing from the tenon in that upper 1/3 (section #1). I am not defending the design. In fact, I don’t care for it at all, as it certainly compromises the effectiveness of the upper section of the dovetail, the area of the greatest potential strength.

In the photo, below, the Guild neck in the forefront has had these steel rods replaced with carbon fiber, so the voids that exist(ed) as a result of the drilling for the compression rods have been filled with epoxy. This restored the surface area of the tenon. In the (brand new) neck in the background, it should be clear to see that there is greater surface area available to the joint to be found in sections #1 and #2 (the initial 2/3rds) than you can find in sections #2 and #3. I can (and have) completely removed section #3 (and all of section #2, as well) with no deleterious effect on the stability of the joint. Note that these are wide dovetails having steep, reinforced sides, steeper than found in the necks of old. Perfectly fitted, they *don’t* move.



Here is a photo of an older Guild 12 string Maple neck heel. On this neck I had left the compression rods in place, but rebuilt the slendor tenon, filling the voids that were left by drilling for the rods with more Maple, adding Maple to the sides of the tenon, and adding CF reinforcement to the surface of those sides. With the entire heel in view, I trust it is easier to visualize where the heavy lifting of the joint is occurring.

Great expertise, Christopher!

"When is a neck reset no longer possible?

Just play it.

Pretty much when you don't want to pay for it anymore. I can't recall any of the many repair videos I've watched having a I can't repair this neck joint any more segment. I guess at some point it would be new neck time.