Width at the nut on a JF30-12

hansmoust

Enlightened Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
9,227
Reaction score
3,587
Location
Netherlands
hansmoust said:
MrBoZiffer said:
Also, wouldn't the nut width be 1-13/16"? They didn't start using 1-7/8" nut width until Fender took over, correct?

I've personally seen JF30-12s from that particular period with both 1-13/16" and 1-7/8" wide nuts.
With the way that Guilds were manufactured a difference of 1/16" at the nut between two instruments of the same model would be nothing unusual.

Chazmo said:
Not to make it even more confusing, but my my '92 is actually 1-27/32" (i.e., it's in the middle). I'm not lyin'; I've measured it with my ruler and my caliper.

Hello Chazmo,

No, that doesn't make it more confusing. What I actually tried to say in my posting is that even though the specs. for that particular period called for a 1-13/16" wide nut, some necks did get less additional sanding after they were shaped on the machine. That could mean that the final width of the neck ended up being 1-7/8" at the nut. In that scenario a neck with a 1-27/32" wide nut would obviously be a possibility as well; and, within reason, all the variables that you can think of. After all we're 'Talking Guild'.

Sincerely,

Hans Moust
http://www.guitarsgalore.nl
 

MrBoZiffer

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
272
Reaction score
1
OK, so obviously there is more variation than I thought. That's cool. I'll have to try them out myself. Although, those differences are so small, I wonder if I'll really notice. :mrgreen:
 

chazmo

Super Moderator
Gold Supporting
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
26,180
Reaction score
7,566
Location
Central Massachusetts
hansmoust said:
Hello Chazmo,

No, that doesn't make it more confusing. What I actually tried to say in my posting is that even though the specs. for that particular period called for a 1-13/16" wide nut, some necks did get less additional sanding after they were shaped on the machine. That could mean that the final width of the neck ended up being 1-7/8" at the nut. In that scenario a neck with a 1-27/32" wide nut would obviously be a possibility as well; and, within reason, all the variables that you can think of. After all we're 'Talking Guild'.

Sincerely,

Hans Moust
http://www.guitarsgalore.nl
Indeed we are, Hans. Indeed we are!!!

Hans, do you think there's any reason to believe that the use of maple for the necks had any bearing on the tools or cutters that were used to shape it? Maybe inaccuracies were due to different or unfamiliar equipment needed for this wood? Just a thought.

Also, please forgive me, folks... My guitar was built in 1994, not 1992. It seems I had a bit of a brain spaz yesterday when I responded to this post. I must have been on a coffee defecit yesterday as I was working from my home. I had lots of fun with the ruler and the micrometer, but I got my date wrong! :)

IMG_0848.jpg


Oh, and also folks, I just want to point out that the this JF-30-12 headstock on my 1994 is put together with "wings." Which is to say that two wedge strips of maple are glued onto the headstock at the outer edges to allow it to widen out as it approaches the crown. This picture shows the marvelous tiger-striping better than the wings, but I think you'll get the idea.

IMG_0874.jpg
 

MrBoZiffer

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
272
Reaction score
1
:shock: That neck looks amazing. I hope I can one that looks that good.
 

workedinwesterly

Gone But Not Forgotten
Gone But Not Forgotten
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
149
Reaction score
0
Location
RI
Chazmo,
there were no differences in machines between maple and mahogany necks.
a shaper with a sharp cutter doesn't know the difference between species of wood...nor does it care.

There were some 'model specific' jigs for the neck shapers...but those were based on length and thickness of the neck, heel shape etc.

All guild headstocks had wings glued to the side. Sometimes we even got a good color and grain match...sometimes not so much.
It helped reduce waste by not having to start with such a thick piece of stock...it did add labor ( making the blocks ,gluing them on , machining them flush ) but that was required to get that big headstock. You'll notice Martin doesn't have to do it because their headstock is narrow.

As far as variation in nut width, you need to remember that these things were mass produced with a lot of hand work. That caused countless variations.
The factory had been set up by cabinet makers back in the late 60's, using model specific jigs for standard woodworking machines.
That remained virtually unchanged until 2001 when fender threw it all in the dumpster.
 

hansmoust

Enlightened Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
9,227
Reaction score
3,587
Location
Netherlands
Chazmo said:
Hans, do you think there's any reason to believe that the use of maple for the necks had any bearing on the tools or cutters that were used to shape it? Maybe inaccuracies were due to different or unfamiliar equipment needed for this wood? Just a thought.

Chazmo,

Not sure what your question is. Guild used maple for necks since day one, so I'm not sure what part they would be unfamiliar with. Also, any theories like that would not explain the differences between necks from the same period with the same species of wood.
The hardness and the direction of the grain would have had an influence on the cleanliness of the cuts, which in turn would dictate the amount of sanding that would be necessary after the shaping operation. The final sanding procedure would in my opinion be the main cause for the variations in final size and shape.

Sincerely,

Hans Moust
http://www.guitarsgalore.nl
 

chazmo

Super Moderator
Gold Supporting
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
26,180
Reaction score
7,566
Location
Central Massachusetts
Yeah, Hans... I was just thinking out loud, and you're right maple necks were nothing new. What you and WiW are saying makes sense; nut width is just variable due to sanding.

WiW, as for the wings, I didn't know that was true on all the models. Thanks. Also, that was an interesting comment about Martin. Their headstocks may not flare as widely as Guilds do at the crown, but they *do* indeed have wings on many of them. You should hear those guys bitch and moan about it over in the UMGF. Ridiculous. The amount of wood saved by using this technique is clearly a big win. You'd think they'd appreciate that kind of thinking (some do, I guess, others bemoan it). I think Guild did a pretty good job with the wings I've seen; clearly some care was taken to try to match things up.

Taylor chose a different route; they cut the headstock from a different piece of wood and join it to the neck. Needless to say, that joint has raised its share of eyebrows over the years. More nonsense. Although, I must say, this finger joint that I had on my maple neck is really quite visible in certain light (I guess in this case I'd go for wings over the finger joint if I had a choice). In mahogany, you almost can't spot it at all though... These days, Taylor uses a scarf joint which almost has the appearance of a volute. Most folks don't object to that.

IMG_0638.jpg
 

workedinwesterly

Gone But Not Forgotten
Gone But Not Forgotten
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
149
Reaction score
0
Location
RI
chazmo,

thanks for posting that pic.
while that finger joint presents lots of glue surface and is quite strong, it sure is ugly. and somehow a scarf joint just reminds me of a chinese guitar....
guess i've gotten used to just seeing the guild method.
 

chazmo

Super Moderator
Gold Supporting
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
26,180
Reaction score
7,566
Location
Central Massachusetts
workedinwesterly said:
chazmo,

thanks for posting that pic.
while that finger joint presents lots of glue surface and is quite strong, it sure is ugly. and somehow a scarf joint just reminds me of a chinese guitar....
guess i've gotten used to just seeing the guild method.

Yeah, exactly, WiW... It just dependis on the angle and the light whether you'd see the runout on this finger joint or not -- on a light wood like maple, it can be quite visible. Honestly it never bothered me, but I agree with your assessment. In any case, I did not buy or sell the guitar due to the finger joint; that maple GS was a lovely guitar and really built beautifully. It had to go, though, to make room for my beloved Guilds. :)
 
Top