Neck Removal: "Ice Cream Cone" Heel

[Hot Vibrato]

Years ago, a repair customer gave me a late 1800's Martin 2 1/2-17 parlor guitar which is in need of some restoration. This guitar has the "ice cream cone" heel, so rather than having a flat heel cap, the end of the heel is small and rounded, so there is very little surface area to press against. Therefore, I'm not certain if I can press it out with my usual rig (I made a copy of Stew Mac's neck removal jig).

This guitar is fan braced, and the center brace runs right between the D and G bridge pins, but the portion of the brace between the pin holes is missing and has been replaced with a glob of epoxy (or something). So the back needs to come off in order to replace the brace. There's no back binding, which of course makes removing it much simpler, and this would also make "slipping the block" easier as well if one were inclined to do so.

I'm certain I could slip the block and make it look like it never happened, but I would prefer to remove the neck to correct the angle. Aside from the fact that slipping the block is generally frowned upon, there's a nasty crack in the spruce at the edge of the fingerboard which would be much easier to deal with with the fingerboard out of the way. Furthermore, it's just easier to work on a guitar without the neck attached. But how do I get it out? Is it possible to make a caul that can effectively bear aganst the heel in order to effectively facilitate removal?

If a customer had brought me this guitar in its current state, I would turn the repair down and recommend that they send it to someone like T.J. Thompson who specializes in Martin restorations. But I've got no money in at this point, and I've got well over twenty years of professional repair work under my belt, so I'm confident I'm capable of doing a clean job of it. I'm just stumped as to how to remove the neck, or whether I should even bother, and instead just work around it and slip the block. My gut tells me that the latter option is the lazy way out.

If I don't get some good advice, I'm likely to never do the job. So what would you guys do? Any pointers as to how to remove this style of neck?

[Frank Ford]

Back removal and neck block angle adjustment might be the best or least difficult path. Take a look at the neck joint and figure your options there:

[Howard Klepper]

Binding can be your friend when doing the head block job, since it hides any damage you do with your knife when separating the back from the sides--if the binding is plastic, which this would not have (maple, probably). And the sides will flare out a bit at the shoulders from the head block reset, and not align perfectly to the back there. Binding also helps you fudge that.

My opinion: You can get the brace repaired or replaced without taking the back off. For the neck angle issue, I think this is a good candidate for a wedged shim under the fretboard; no messing with the neck joint or the neck block. The black paint on the neck lets you make that shim invisible.

[mirwa]

Normally I would just do the brace through the sound hole.

But

If the neck is at the wrong angle, and its a solid fit, then yes pull the back, do the brace repair and then loosen the fretboard tongue and reset the neck using the back plate being re-positioned.

Steve

[Halcyon/Tinker]

This is not my field, but...

Do you need to loosen the tongue to slip the back/heel? Is that a necessary step? I'm trying to imagine the process but I don't see why the tongue would need loosening. Can't that relationship remain as is while the heel moves south on the back?

[mirwa]

No you do not need to slip the tongue, however it will put undue load on the top at the front.

When doing neck resets, I do not like pulling the fretboard extension back down and gluing it, it puts a hump IMO into the otherwise straight neck, so I always make a tapered shim and slide it between the fretboard and body, this way its all glued up, gives a dead straight fretboard and no extra tension onto the top.

Steve

[B. Howard]

Contact John Hall At Blues creek guitars. He just did a complete take apart restoration on a Martin with an ice cream cone heel. I saw pictures of the neck off the guitar and completely disassembled and I know a reset was part of the job.

[John Arnold]

I would be inclined to try a conventional reset. If the miter joint comes apart (as illustrated in Frank's photo), it's a simple matter to reglue it with HHG. The rest of the heel can be pressed out, and it will be easier to steam it loose once the joint is exposed.
Howard,
Most 1800's Martins have ivory binding. It's not that difficult to loosen, but it can be brittle. I do like to leave it undisturbed if at all possible.

[Frank Ford]

Given the description - "style 17," "no back binding," "messed up bridge plate," etc., I think I'd favor back removal for repair and neck angle adjustments along with the other repairs.

Fingerboards on these guitars are often precariously thin, and, in general a pain to work on, so shimming underneath is not an option I'd choose. The characteristic "hump" at the body is less an issue when the neck block is slipped than when the neck is removed.

Natcherly, I'd want to have it in hand, talk to the owner, etc., before actually making the judgment.

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by John Arnold

I would be inclined to try a conventional reset. If the miter joint comes apart (as illustrated in Frank's photo), it's a simple matter to reglue it with HHG. The rest of the heel can be pressed out, and it will be easier to steam it loose once the joint is exposed.
Howard,
Most 1800's Martins have ivory binding. It's not that difficult to loosen, but it can be brittle. I do like to leave it undisturbed if at all possible.

Sorry, double post

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by John Arnold

I would be inclined to try a conventional reset. If the miter joint comes apart (as illustrated in Frank's photo), it's a simple matter to reglue it with HHG. The rest of the heel can be pressed out, and it will be easier to steam it loose once the joint is exposed.
Howard,
Most 1800's Martins have ivory binding. It's not that difficult to loosen, but it can be brittle. I do like to leave it undisturbed if at all possible.

John, it is a Style 17. Unbound back, maple bound top.

[murrmac123]

I have no experience of repairing vintage Martins, but I do like to think I have enough practical woodworking experience plus what might be termed an "original" way of looking at things, to offer suggestions, and I keep seeing discussions about shimming the tongue after a reset compared to clamping it down to give (excess IMO) fallaway.

I visualize a radical alternative, which IMO would be particularly applicable to a vintage guitar, where originality is crucial.

If I had a vintage Martin which needed a neck reset, the last thing I would want would be a shim under the tongue, which would forever scream "neck reset ". Let's face it, nobody could shim a FB extension and fool George Gruhn into thinking it had never been done.

You could however fool George Gruhn by totally removing the UTB, and replacing it with one which had a slightly elevated arc which would ensure that the line of the top coincided perfectly with the underside of the fretboard, with just the right amount of fallaway to maximise playability.

I am guessing here, admittedly, but I would imagine that the soundboard would have no problem in flexing sufficiently to accommodate a new UTB without being subjected to traumatic stress which would lead to splits along the fretboard edges.

I stand prepared to be shot down, and would be interested to hear the reasons why what I suggest is not a valid option.

[redir]

IDK about vintage Martin's either and I would probably pass such a cool little guitar on to someone that does but having said that I think a shim is pretty normal at least for your every day neck reset that needs one. And you can hide them really well too. I would think removing an original brace would be far more ****ing to the value of the guitar then shimming the FB. I'm not even sure it would really work too, in theory if you arch the UTB then you would have to squish in the upper bout sides too.

[John Arnold]

IMHO, it is a valid option. But I would not think a replaced brace would go unnoticed by Gruhn........or more correctly, his staff. If detected, I think it would incur a bigger hit on value than a shim under the fingerboard tongue (which is completely reversible).
In addition, a well executed neck reset will tend to increase the value for most players. If that is true, then fooling anyone is not going to help sell the guitar.

[murrmac123]

Originally Posted by redir

in theory if you arch the UTB then you would have to squish in the upper bout sides too.

That may well be the case , although intuitively I doubt that it is significant ... I can't even begin to surmise what the numbers are.

When it comes to nuts, frets, and saddles I know exactly what the tolerances are , but I have no idea what the average gap between the end of the fretboard and the soundboard is when a neck reset is implemented.

I am sure that those with more experience will chip in.

I would just reiterate that IMO a shim under a FB extension on a vintage Martin is an abomination.

EDIT : crossposted with John above ...