E-minor7 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 And it may sound wild : I own a refurbished 1966 Country and Western that sounds terrific. Problem is the neck. It's a 1-5/8. I bought the guitar on the Bay and the seller simply gave me the wrong measure – ups, , , or should I say s---. . . . . Chose to widen the string spacing and glued on a water-buffalo-horn nut. Immediately things got better, but a thought kept haunting me - I couldn't and can't escape the idea of taking the full step and get the (for me) proper/ideal width. The guitar isn't original. As said, it was fixed after a break-down in the early 80's, , , by a Gibson employee and colleague to the previous owner who worked there. This colleague/friend did a fine job. It got scalloped and had the sound hole moved further back, which created a louder, very full voice. Now it's time for another change. I have found/won a Gibson J-1000 1-3/4 neck (with totally cool mop diamonds) and want my luthier to mount it. It's a 25,5 and thus longer than the standard C&W, but he's willing to lift the task like I for my part is willing to accept the cosmetic price. Some of you might call it hazardous - will the guitar ever find itself - will it keep the extraordinary sound – will the magic of the original wood-blend disappear – can the nitro take it – what about the scars from the removed bridge etc. I'm a bit worried also, but have a gut-feeling it will work – exiting, we'll see. Btw. The 80's new bridge-plate seems to be broad enough to take another 6-hole-drill further back. One of the reasons I dared this in the first place. If any of you out there have alarms goin' about this or that, please post these concerns. I want to be able to prepare the good luthier as much as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buc McMaster Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 The 80's new bridge-plate seems to be broad enough to take another 6-hole-drill further back. One of the reasons I dared this in the first place. There's the only concern I would have: the bridge will no longer be directly over the bridge plate beneath the top. Could introduce some stresses that are out of the norm and create problems down the road. Good luck, sir! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dchristo Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 If your luthier is up for the challenge, I think it would work fine, with little cosmetic issues.... if your luthier wont do it, let me know, I know a luthier that can and will fix it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfox14 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Couple of things that are a bit confusing to me. How do you relocate the soundhole without re-topping the guitar? The same would apply to reshaping the bracing. The top had to have come off at some point. If the guitar is OK the way it is, even with the narrow neck, I would leave it alone. Changing out the neck for one with a longer scale length is a verey complicated process. You have to move the bridge & the bridge plate not to mention the neck change itself. When all is said & done, you might be better off buying another guitar rather than investing a whole lot of $$ in such a complcated job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markini Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 LOl, I am figuring out how to go from a 25.5' neck to a 24.75". I have big hands, but much prefer a 24.75 or 25 scale. Only like the 25.5' scale on Strats and Tellys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Em7, One thing that strikes me as that you will be taking two guitars, at least one of which sounds like it may be original and intact, and creating one guitar that won't be either. That seems a bit self-defeating in that it makes for a fairly expensive operation that will have an unknown outcome. It might be better and cheaper in the long run to find one guitar with the combination of characteristics you are looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 pfox14 - I understand your skepticism – my thoughts have been wandering back and forth. But this guitar does something special for me and the narrow width is a stone in pair if favorite boots. The job might be complicated, but as said the luthier is up to the challenge and has givin' me a good offer. Besides the old neck is original and can be sold. So in my perspective it's a matter of the guitars soul. Will it disappear in thin air with a whole new major component introduced (a piece of hog-wood that never 'swung' before). The operation will create a scar – I can deal with that, , , the C&W will be a rocker (though its sound is so velvet also). Easiest solution would be to find a 24,75 neck, but these are rare, , , and if you are lucky to find one, - f.x. with double parallelograms - it's expensive. Surely the top was replaced in the early 80's. It's seen on the rosette. A 1960's Country and Western will have 2 rings – this has 3. A change introduced in Kalamazoo during the 70's. Ouh yes, I'm exited – it can go wrong and then I'll have a new pretty expensive beach-guitar. But if the mission succeed, one absolutely terrific 6-string will have seen the face of the planet. In the bigger picture The Acoustic Monk has no choice. . . Nick – I got the neck in loose weight. You have to realize this 1966 guitar was modified in the first-80's. As told, this stunt introduced a new scalloped top and gave the western its unique sound. Though fixed on the G-plant with G-materials, it is in no way original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EuroAussie Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Interesting ... and I thought I did a Frankenstein job to my old CW when I turned her into a Bird, very interested to see/ hear the result. I dud something similar to my Furch OM. It came with a 1 11/16 rosewood neck, however I didnt like the narrowness of the neck as i plan to use this guitar for fingerstyle where i like the wide 1 /3/4 width. So I sent her back to factory to have the neck replaced with a 1 3/4 width and in ebony. Furch offers this option. Came back, no difference in tone but much greater playability. So, if you feel its warranted, give it a go ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluesKing777 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 My first move away from Martin and Dobro was with an Epiphone EL-00. It has a really skinny neck which was ok for a while because the guitar sounded pretty good, but after I got the Gibson (well, quite a few Gibsons), the EL-00 was a bit homeless so I put this nut extender on it and started learning lap slide guitar. The extender makes the nut really high, but also the normal width spacing. http://www.stewmac.com/shop/Nuts,_saddles/Resonator_nuts,_saddles/Slide_Guitar_Extension_Nut.html BluesKing777. (Lap slide playing is really fun, but sounds dreadful in the beginning. Schreechin' cats. Eeeelectrify it and take it and an amp outside to please the neighbours. All kinds of fun can be had.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Nick – I got the neck in loose weight. You have to realize this 1966 guitar was modified in the first-80's. As told, this stunt introduced a new scalloped top and gave the western its unique sound. Though fixed on the G-plant with G-materials, it is in no way original. [/size][/font] That does change things somewhat. Forgot that it was a loose neck. Still, I don't know....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 I did something similar to my Furch OM. It came with a 1 11/16 rosewood neck, however I didnt like the narrowness of the neck as i plan to use this guitar for fingerstyle where i like the wide 1 /3/4 width. So I sent her back to factory to have the neck replaced - - - Came back, no difference in tone Sounds optimistic. I have great affection for this C&W body and just hope the collective vibe of the different components doesn't suffer. . . . Opposed to your Furch, this is a gathering vintage woods, which is very much heard. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Sounds like a big risk to me. The sound IS going to change, no doubt. If anything, the change of scale will assure that. I agree with the narrow not being a sore spot. But how bad is it if you max out the string spacing? Tone is subjective. Guitars that I think are exceptional are more the exception (duh), but I mean, ones I find great sounding are more rare than not, and don't really follow a set recipee. What that means, is that if it sounds great (to me) chances of it sounding worse after a major change seem more likely than sounding better. The other argument against, is while necks are rare to find, they DO come up. If this ain't the perfect neck, there is no harm waiting for it. In fact, if a neck isn't perfect, why do it at all? You already have imperfect. Not to mention, I suspect most necks you might find would likely be the 'correct' scale length, and the way THIS guitar seems to be going, it might change again. So finding a more common scale neck might be better for the overall health of the guitar as it goes through life. But of corse you will have to shop for a body for the neck while you shop for another neck for the other guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-minor7 Posted February 1, 2012 Author Share Posted February 1, 2012 Sounds like a big risk to me. The sound IS going to change, no doubt. If anything, the change of scale will assure that. I agree with the narrow not being a sore spot. But how bad is it if you max out the string spacing? Tone is subjective. Guitars that I think are exceptional are more the exception (duh), but I mean, ones I find great sounding are more rare than not, and don't really follow a set recipee. What that means, is that if it sounds great (to me) chances of it sounding worse after a major change seem more likely than sounding better. The other argument against, is while necks are rare to find, they DO come up. If this ain't the perfect neck, there is no harm waiting for it. In fact, if a neck isn't perfect, why do it at all? You already have imperfect. Not to mention, I suspect most necks you might find would likely be the 'correct' scale length, and the way THIS guitar seems to be going, it might change again. So finding a more common scale neck might be better for the overall health of the guitar as it goes through life. But of corse you will have to shop for a body for the neck while you shop for another neck for the other guitar. I agree the basic sound will change due to the longer length alone. Expect more bass, bit more of everything in fact. Yea, the balance could tilt, but I still think the basic nature of the box will survive – even improve. The spacing will be no problem. We will find the absolute right measures – btw, I have 3 loose Gibson bridges here. Must find and look into those. If things get difficult a new one will be carved. As said the bridge plate seems to be broad enough. This experiment must take place, I can sense it. Besides the chance of providing me with a top-guitar, it'll be a great lesson both for me and the luthier. Guess that's why he gave me the good offer - it's the challenge. There's a roof on the costs, , , if something wild happens, I believe it'll be time to sell the Epiphone IB Texan. I never play that poor bastard anyway - Yea, it would be safer to wait for a 24,75, but I did that too long already - a year. Even missed 2 fishing on the Bay X-mas eve while the family was grooving down-stairs - such a mess. I'm out of patience – this is it, , , over the hills. I'm not young anymore - (though the theme makes me feel that way) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sboiir Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I think your idea sounds Great ! That is if you are willing to accept the loose if things go bad. But to be optimistic, if your luthier feels he can handle the job, you may wind up with totally new sound. Hopefully one your looking for. I'm all for experimenting especially since it's already Not original stuff. Good luck. Like to hear the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.