Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisN
Left out, however, is another concern, one that I would have (and the OP may have) on a new guitar, and that is, how much useful life is left in the guitar without major surgery (including bridge height reduction)?
|
I had thought that I had adequately addressed that, but, obviously, not:
Quote:
|
Next, we want to have sufficient saddle height projecting from the bridge that, should it be required in the future, for a variety of possible reasons, there is enough there to accommodate that change in saddle height AND still have a sufficient break angle of the strings over the saddle. Many luthiers/manufacturers want to see a minimum of 1/8" to 3/16" at the bass E, a little less, perhaps, at the high E.
|
That assumes that the action is where the player wants it to be AND still has 1/8" to 3/16" of saddle height at the bass side.
The short answer is that it doesn't appear that the OP's guitar has that, or it is marginal. The shorter answer is that in all
probability, he'll need a neck reset, or bridge shave - if the bridge has sufficient thickness to allow it - sooner than later. It is difficult to predict which guitars will need a neck reset and when they will need it.
Quote:
|
The measurement goals you mention can all be achieved on a guitar that is well down the road to its first reset, which is fine if playability is the only goal.
|
Playability should never be the only goal. Longevity should be built into the instrument, including its neck angle. That is a very good argument for more modern neck joints that allow the neck angle to be reset fairly easily.
Quote:
|
I'd love to learn I'm concerned about nothing!
|
Longevity should be a concern of every maker/manufacturer and most players. It seems to be a relatively recent phenomena that many one or two year old guitars are in need of neck resets or that players/buyers need be concerned about it.