woodsong58 Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Hello all. I would really appreciate thoughts and opinions to help me decide. I have a J-50 from 1950 that is all original except for the tuner buttons. I would say that it is in above average cosmetic condition and needs no other repairs. However, string height on the low E string at the 12th fret is about 4mm or just under 3/8". The high E is a little over 3mm. While she is playable as is, a neck reset would make it a lot more comfortable to play. The cost of having it done is not the issue. I'm concerned that it would adversely affect future resale value. I have no intention of selling (except maybe for some unforeseen hardship) and will probably pass it along to my daughter. So, what would you guys and gals do in the same situation? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedzep Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 You've pretty much answered your own question. If the vintage resale value is diminished it will be more than offset by the new found joy of playing it and by not hearing your daughter say OWW when her index fingertip gets its first pre-callous bruise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 As long as the neck set is properly/proffessionly done, I do not see any harm in the resale value. Playing at an optimum might even be a win/win situation dollar-wise. I recently read a story where a neck re-set adversely effected the tone of an old Martin. The saddle height was extremely low before the neck set. The re-set was done at an angle that required a MUCH taller bridge, resulting in a different pull on the top and drastically changing the tone. The owner was so upset, that he required it to be done over.....I think he was a 'Bluegrasser' Be carefull of that scenario too....!! Good Luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfox14 Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Are you sure that the saddle can't be lowered to get the action desired? A neck reset is the last option if you can't adjust the action any other way. If it is the case, then I agree it should not hurt the value of the guitar as long as it's done properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsong58 Posted March 14, 2012 Author Share Posted March 14, 2012 Hey, thanks for the replies so far. I'm fairly certain that a reset is needed to fix the problem. I am leaning strongly toward having it done, but thought it would be a good idea to get some opinions from others so I might not have regrets later should I need to sell it for some reason. The guy I will get to do it is a very well respected guitar builder and repair person here in East TN. He knows his stuff and would do it properly if he determines that is what needs to be done. If anyone else would like to offer advice, I would be glad to consider it. Thanks again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 A large percentage of vintage Martins have had neck re-sets done. As everytone has said, if properly done, a neck re-set has no negative impact on value. I'm a bit confused about the string height clearances you give. A low E clearance of "just under 3/8" would be about 9mm, not 4mm. The Gibson standard string height references are: low E: 6/64, which is just under 2.5mm high E: 4/64, which is just over 1.5mm In my experience, these string heights are a bit low, depending on your playing style. As Paul Fox asks, is there any room left to lower the saddle? Whatever you do, do not shave the bridge itself. I've had two Gibson neck re-sets done in the last year. Done by a good luthier, there is absolutely no evidence it has been done. A guitar that is difficult to play has less value than one that plays well in any case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsong58 Posted March 15, 2012 Author Share Posted March 15, 2012 OOPS! So sorry for the confusion j45nick. I should have said just under 3/16". I re-measured and to be a little more precise, the low E is about 5/32". If it's OK, I think I'll just use metric measurements (easier for me ). I only have 3.8mm worth of saddle to work with and then it will be flush with the top of the bridge. As I said previously, the guitar is playable as is but would of course be easier with lower action. I don't do a lot of hard strumming. I mostly finger-pick with bare fingers and do some lead with chord strums using a medium pick. At any rate, if I decide to have the action adjusted, the fellow I want to use is trustworthy and capable of doing it right. I sure do appreciate you guys letting me know what you think about it. Once I decide what to do, it will help me be more confident that I did the right thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 OOPS! So sorry for the confusion j45nick. I should have said just under 3/16". I re-measured and to be a little more precise, the low E is about 5/32". If it's OK, I think I'll just use metric measurements (easier for me ). I only have 3.8mm worth of saddle to work with and then it will be flush with the top of the bridge. As I said previously, the guitar is playable as is but would of course be easier with lower action. I don't do a lot of hard strumming. I mostly finger-pick with bare fingers and do some lead with chord strums using a medium pick. At any rate, if I decide to have the action adjusted, the fellow I want to use is trustworthy and capable of doing it right. I sure do appreciate you guys letting me know what you think about it. Once I decide what to do, it will help me be more confident that I did the right thing. Essentially, whatever you shave off the underside of the saddle translates into a reduction in string clearance of half that amount at the 12th fret, as the string height at the nut remains unchanged. In other words, to get a reduction in clearance of 1mm at the 12th, you have to shave (sand) 2mm off the underside of the saddle. It sounds like your guitar would benefit from a neck re-set. It also sounds like you could reduce the action height by about 1mm, and still have a "functioning" saddle. Taking off 2mm from the underside of the saddle would still leave you about 2mm of saddle height at the bridge, which is probably just adequate to maintain a decent string break angle at the saddle. If you are used to playing the guitar the way it is, you may find this to be enough of an improvement to forego the neck re-set for now. Nothing is really lost by shaving the saddle, as you will almost certainly need a new, taller saddle after a neck re-set. Saddles are expendable items, like strings and bridge pins, so there is nothing sacred about retaining your original saddle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsong58 Posted March 16, 2012 Author Share Posted March 16, 2012 Thanks for all the input everyone. I've seen and heard about some pretty stupid things done to quality guitars that substantially reduced their potential resale value. After hearing what all of you have said, I don't think this repair falls into that category. And as I said before, I have no intention of selling unless financial hardship forces me to. I am just trying to be careful and consider that possibility. I'll probably be taking it sometime soon for my guy to look at and will let him take care of it however he thinks is best. If anyone is interested, I'll come back later and let you know how it all turns out. Once again, thank very much for your input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Thanks for all the input everyone. I've seen and heard about some pretty stupid things done to quality guitars that substantially reduced their potential resale value. After hearing what all of you have said, I don't think this repair falls into that category. And as I said before, I have no intention of selling unless financial hardship forces me to. I am just trying to be careful and consider that possibility. I'll probably be taking it sometime soon for my guy to look at and will let him take care of it however he thinks is best. If anyone is interested, I'll come back later and let you know how it all turns out. Once again, thank very much for your input. Please keep us in the loop. When I had two Gibson necks done last year (my '48 J-45, and my '68 ES 335-12), I was sort of making small talk with the luthier. I said something to the effect that neck re-sets looked pretty challenging. His response was that the first few were a bit challenging, but the next 200 had generally been pretty easy. In the case of neck re-sets, practice makes perfect. You don't want to be the first one the guy has done. Good luck, Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfox14 Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 I totally agree with everything Nick said. I would start by shaving the saddle 2mm and see how you like the action at that height before going ahead with the neck reset. The action might still be a tad high, but playable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsong58 Posted March 17, 2012 Author Share Posted March 17, 2012 "I would start by shaving the saddle 2mm and see how you like the action at that height before going ahead with the neck reset." pfox14 That would probably be worth a try except that I got the 3.8mm measurement at the highest part in the middle of the saddle. It is only 2mm give or take a hair on either end. EDIT: So sorry, but I just measured the saddle again and the actual measurements should be 2.8mm in the middle and 2mm on each end. I don't know if I should blame the mistake on these old eyes or this old brain. Maybe both. "In the case of neck re-sets, practice makes perfect. You don't want to be the first one the guy has done." j45nick Like I said earlier, he is a highly regarded guitar builder and repair person. I haven't met him yet but he has an excellent reputation in these parts for not only his skill, but also for his character. I'm not sure if I'll be able to do it tomorrow or not, but I'm hoping to let him look it over soon. I believe that if a reset is in order he will do a good job of it. I also think that if there is a less complicated way to fix it, he will do it that way instead. I also agree that shaving the bridge is not the right thing to do. When I spoke with him on the phone though, he said he can't do a neck reset properly without also doing a fret job. In your experience, is this considered standard procedure? After I meet him, he examines the guitar, and we talk it over, if I still feel comfortable about it, we'll proceed with the work. Of course the insight you guys have given me will also be a major factor in my decision. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fp Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Run a strasight edge down the fret board. If it sits more that 1/16 inch above the bridge it's time for a reset. Make sure to find someone who has done plenty of necksets ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Run a strasight edge down the fret board. If it sits more that 1/16 inch above the bridge it's time for a reset. Make sure to find someone who has done plenty of necksets ! Mmm, I think you mean "less than" 1/16", for the more typical problem, which is no way to lower the saddle further without shaving the bridge. (I have seen both sitations, by the way, but the underset neck is far more common) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsong58 Posted March 21, 2012 Author Share Posted March 21, 2012 OK. Please bear with me on this one. I'll be as brief as I can. I was able to take my guitar to be checked out Saturday morning. After visiting with him for about 4 hours, we decided on a totally unexpected course of action. Right or wrong, this is what we decided to do. He didn't think the real problem was with the neck but with the bellying of the top. Anyone else who has ever said anything about the belly seemed to indicate that it was not an isssue with a guitar as old as mine. But he felt that to fix the problem and not the symptom the top should be re-braced to pull it back down to where it used to be. He went into detail about both procedures and said the cost would be about the same for either, then he left the decision up to me. I am having the top re-braced. I know this is pretty extreme, but after seeing examples of his work I feel very confident he will be able to do the job. And as far as originality related to resale value is concerned, this will probably have a much more drastic effect than a reset, but it just felt like the right way to go. You guys can chime in here if you'd like and I'll certainly let you know what the results are in a few weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedzep Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Good thing, a fresh pair of eyes to look at the problem. It'll turn out great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 OK. Please bear with me on this one. I'll be as brief as I can. I was able to take my guitar to be checked out Saturday morning. After visiting with him for about 4 hours, we decided on a totally unexpected course of action. Right or wrong, this is what we decided to do. He didn't think the real problem was with the neck but with the bellying of the top. Anyone else who has ever said anything about the belly seemed to indicate that it was not an isssue with a guitar as old as mine. But he felt that to fix the problem and not the symptom the top should be re-braced to pull it back down to where it used to be. He went into detail about both procedures and said the cost would be about the same for either, then he left the decision up to me. I am having the top re-braced. I know this is pretty extreme, but after seeing examples of his work I feel very confident he will be able to do the job. And as far as originality related to resale value is concerned, this will probably have a much more drastic effect than a reset, but it just felt like the right way to go. You guys can chime in here if you'd like and I'll certainly let you know what the results are in a few weeks. That's a much more extreme solution than a neck re-set. Culd you by any chance post pictures so we can better understand the problem? I have to admit it surprises me both as a problem and as a solution. But I don't want to second-guess--just to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fp Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Is the top belly concave or convex ? I would be real surprised if it needs to be re-braced. Does he mean to re-glue the braces or replace them ? Man I'd get a second opinion for sure before handing it over to him, just to make sure. It's your guitar to do with as you wish but man something just doesn't sound right. I've not seen many old Gibson that didn't have a belly ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrorod Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Mmm, I think you mean "less than" 1/16", for the more typical problem, which is no way to lower the saddle further without shaving the bridge. (I have seen both sitations, by the way, but the underset neck is far more common) I hate the thought of shaving a bridge. It is a last-ditch effort that is irreversible when done. Well, I guess it could be laminated back to full thickness, if it adversely effected the tone. Any thoughts on tonal changes from a shaved-down bridge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I hate the thought of shaving a bridge. It is a last-ditch effort that is irreversible when done. Well, I guess it could be laminated back to full thickness, if it adversely effected the tone. Any thoughts on tonal changes from a shaved-down bridge? I think it's really the structural issues I would worry about. I would never shave a bridge. Like you say, that's a one-way street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsong58 Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 Sorry I can't do pictures because I don't have the guitar, but I'll try to explain it a little better. First, a straight edge is laid across the top of the guitar behind and parallel to the bridge. Then, the straight edge is lowered on one end to touch the edge of the top. Now the gap between the straight edge and the other edge of the guitar is at least 1" or more. Hopefully this gives a little better idea of the amount belly in the top. As I said earlier, anyone else who has commented about it seemed to indicate that was not an issue on a guitar as old as mine. My guy though, feels that gap should only be about 1/8". At least that is the standard he uses for the guitars he builds. He thinks he can pull the top down by replacing the braces. (Yeah, I realize this compromizes the originality of the guitar a lot more than a neck reset.) Also as I said earlier, He explianed both procedures but left the final decision up to me. I hope you all don't think I'm crazy for deciding to do it this way, especially since my initial concern was related to originality vs. potential resale value. But I saw examples and documentation of many facets of his work, both guitars he had built and ones he had repaired. I was very favorably impressed. Hopefully, when he gets the job done the guitar will be the best it can be. On the other hand, this could turn out to be a total disaster. Then I'll be the guy refered to as an example of what not to do. Either way, I'll letyou know how it turns out. Any other comments or questions are welcome. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 Sorry I can't do pictures because I don't have the guitar, but I'll try to explain it a little better. First, a straight edge is laid across the top of the guitar behind and parallel to the bridge. Then, the straight edge is lowered on one end to touch the edge of the top. Now the gap between the straight edge and the other edge of the guitar is at least 1" or more. Hopefully this gives a little better idea of the amount belly in the top. With all due respect, your guy doesn't necessarily know what he is talking about when it comes to J-45/J-50's. Gibson tops are pre-stressed, and have substantially more "belly" than what he is describing as ideal, although significantly less than what you seem to have. Does he have the plans for the J-45, which are readily available full-size from Stewmac and others? The method he is using to define "belly" can be a bit misleading and inaccurate. What you really want to know is the amount of transverse camber (arch) in the top just behind the bridge. The best way to check that is to lay a straightedge completely across the top just behind the bridge. That straightedge needs to be at least 16" long. A 24" spirit level is fine for that. Set it up so that the clearance to the top at the binding at each side of the body at that point is the same. Add those two numbers together, and divide by two. On the J-45, the ideal clearance at each end is just about 1/4", so the top is arched approximately 1/4". It is easy to brace a spirit level in place by putting thin wedges under it, of the type used to wedge windows during installation. These are available at any Home Depot. Measure the clearance accurately with a small steel ruler if you want to be precise. It is not a fair curve of a constant radius, by the way. There is also longitudinal arch built into the top, but that's another issue that may only confuse things here. A Gibson "Flat-Top" is hardly a flat-topped guitar. I have a near-pristine 1948 J-45, and it conforms very closely to those numbers. Replacement of top bracing that is not damaged is an unusual step, and one that is not ordinarily recommended, for any number of reasons. I would really want to see a thorough evaluation of the guitar by a Gibson restoration/repair specialist before taking this approach on a vintage instrument like yours. Re-bracing the top without removing it is major surgery that very few can do properly. Removing the top requires removing the neck (really just the fretboard, but it's usually easier and less damaging cosmetically to remove the neck, at which point you might as well do a re-set). I wish you luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodsong58 Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 I really appreciate your interest j45nick and I also understand your concern about what is being done. You appear to have a grasp of Gibson construction that most do not. While I don't have the ability to clearly explain my thinking, I beleive what you are saying and what my guy told me are very similar. He also pointed out that guitar tops do have a small amount of arch in them and are not perfectly flat. One of his first comments when he saw my guitar was "This guitar has really been exposed to some heat." refering to the amount of bulge in the top. Then after spending a substantial amount of time examining the guitar, he explained to me the effects of both a neck reset and the rebracing of the top to repair the excess bulge. He said the straightness of and the angle of the neck appeared to be good and that if he could lower the belly the string height should be back in good shape too. He also said that the easier repair for him would be a neck reset since he had done that many times. So the decision to be made was either to set the neck to match the top or bring the top in line with the neck. I understood that the rebrace was much more invasive and would have a more dramatic effect on the originality of the guitar, but after seeing documentation of his work and knowing his reputation as a builder and repairman, I felt he was capable of doing it successfully. He didn't try to sway me in either direction but let me make the final decision as to the course of action. So, right or wrong, here we go. I'll either be very pleased with the results or I'll become a poster child for bad decision making. Thanks for the concern and the well wishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfox14 Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I would have to assume the belly on the top is pretty extreme if re-bracig the top is the answer. Older guitars usually have thinner tops and the belly is a pretty normal thing to see, so I would consider other options before I decided to have someone re-brace the top. That is unless there are loose or broken braces, then they should obviously be repaired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I would have to assume the belly on the top is pretty extreme if re-bracig the top is the answer. Older guitars usually have thinner tops and the belly is a pretty normal thing to see, so I would consider other options before I decided to have someone re-brace the top. That is unless there are loose or broken braces, then they should obviously be repaired. Damaged braces could clearly change the equation, but usually to the point of repair, rather than replacement. I also wonder if the guitar hasn't had excessively heavy strings on it for years, contributing to the problem. Back in the 1960's, we always used at least medium-gauge strings on both Martin Dreds and J-45's, just for the additional volume. In hindsight, we probably weren't doing our guitars any good. As Paul Fox (pfox) says--and remember Woodsong, Pfox is actually a luthier--top re-bracing is major surgery with the top on. I don't even see how you can get the pieces of the X-brace through the soundhole, and you certainly can't fit them behind the kerfing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.