How typically long until a new guitar require a neck reset?

[LeDave]

How typically long until a new guitar require a neck reset?

[John Arnold]

25 to 30 years.

[tadol]

Well - it’s not typical that a guitar will need a neck reset, and the reasons for a guitar needing one are varied. I have some guitar that at 30+ years and counting show no signs of ever needing one. I’ve had a few that have needed them at between 5 and 20 years. I’ve heard some people who’ve had 2 neck resets within the first 5 years, but I have a hard time understanding how that happens.

I think if you keep a good eye on your action, and use strings that are no heavier than you need (or are recommended), store your guitar properly and play it often, you can reduce the possibility of it needing a reset by quite a bit -

[ChrisN]

Some Martin buyers find their guitars came with underset necks that require a reset almost out of the gate.

I have a Chinese Recording King that came with an overset neck, requiring a tall saddle, but everything lines up and it plays great with low action. It'll likely be many years before that one needs a reset, as it's also strongly braced (but doesn't sound that great due to the bracing, size, and poly coat).

The answer is, it just depends on the guitar, how it was built/braced, how the neck was initially angled, and the like. It's typically not the neck that moves - it's the rest of the guitar that's moving, and just the action on the neck that's impacted.

It's possible to have an underbraced guitar that starts to fold under string pressure, pushing the top down between the bridge and soundhole, and pulling the top up between the bridge and tail. That results in a neckward rotation of the bridge/saddle that will raise the string action. You can keep lowering the saddle for a while, but the "neck" eventually needs to be reset to get the action back down, and/or the bracing/rotation issue needs to be addressed.

I have a near 50-year old Japanese student guitar that sounds great in part because it's under-braced and had the bridge/saddle rotation. Very resonant guitar, for an all-laminate. Big dip in front of the soundhole, back was pulled up, action high with a sliver saddle. I reset the neck and corrected the bridge rotation. Now it sounds/plays perfectly and I'll likely always have it. Note: many with more wisdom will say not to worry about the rotation issue - it's natural and there's no need to correct it. You do you.

[egordon99]

I have guitars from 1956 through 2021 and none of them are in need of a neck reset yet.

[LeDave]

This is very good news for me. Thank you guys a bunch. I thought it was maybe a 3-7 year thing you have to do and spend 400-500 to get it fixed. Apparently 20-30 years is a blessing. Phew, thanks!

[Caddy]

I have a 1978 D-18 that is still just fine. No signs at all of even being close to needing one.

[cliff_the_stiff]

Originally Posted by LeDave

This is very good news for me. Thank you guys a bunch. I thought it was maybe a 3-7 year thing you have to do and spend 400-500 to get it fixed. Apparently 20-30 years is a blessing. Phew, thanks!

LeDave, looks like you have a Martin. That’s a Dovetail neck joint as you are probably aware. A reset like this requires a great deal more expertise to do well.
If you would like some great information on how to diagnose the need for a reset, check out the posts from Charles Tauber on the AFF. He is a wealth of knowledge on the subject.

In my experience with a dovetail reset, 400-500 bucks is the low end, and usually doesn’t include the cost of the possible fret repair or PLEK to follow.

Given that expense, and the higher propensity for needed resets comparatively, I believe that Martin guitars are not something that I will buy new ever again.
That said, I have 4 of them, and I have reset one, one shaved the bridge, one that needs a reset, and one that will need one probably 10-15 years from now.

The reset one plays magnificent now and it will likely never need another reset.
I haven’t gotten back my bridge shave guitar. So the jury is out on that one.
The one needing a reset is the conundrum- To invest in it and keep the guitar forever, or to sell it for a steel and cut my losses.

So- hopefully that helps.

Buying a used higher end Martin that needs a reset is not a deal breaker for me so long as the price is discounted accordingly. (about 1K in my neck of the woods for a reputable reset and PLEK)

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by cliff_the_stiff

He is a wealth of knowledge on the subject.

The guys here who are the experts on neck resets are John Arnold and Steve (mirwa).

[RalphH]

I have a sneaking suspicion that the radiused tops of Taylor and Gibson delay the need for a neck reset vs the flat tops of Martin. A 3D shape is just much stiffer. You can try this with a piece of paper; get a fat piece of paper and hold it at the end -- it'll flop; put a radius on it and you can hold it out straight out or up (try holding it so gravity is pulling the same way as the strings). That said it could be argued that string tension pulls any guitar to into an arch anyway, so who knows

[Victory Pete]

Originally Posted by RalphH

I have a sneaking suspicion that the radiused tops of Taylor and Gibson delay the need for a neck reset vs the flat tops of Martin. A 3D shape is just much stiffer. You can try this with a piece of paper; get a fat piece of paper and hold it at the end -- it'll flop; put a radius on it and you can hold it out straight out or up (try holding it so gravity is pulling the same way as the strings). That said it could be argued that string tension pulls any guitar to into an arch anyway, so who knows

Yes, I agree, a radius top is stiffer. Braces are typically glued with some built in tension. My braces are radiused but are glued down on a flat board. Some of the radius is reduced by the flat board. I have seen others use flat braces but glue down to a radiused dish, which achieves the same affect.

[tadol]

But an arched top is not specifically done to reduce the need for a neck reset - it’s mostly done to reduce the possibility of top splits due to changes in RH. The additional strength it might add is kinda secondary. The bracing of the top, especially between the neck block and sound hole, is pretty important. Thats why the removal of the “popsicle” brace, or shaving down any of the other braces, can lead to some serious geometry changes. There may be some short term sonic improvements, but long term, there could be some serious issues - the least of which could be the need for neck resets -

[John Arnold]

A popsicle brace does not add much stiffness to the top. Its main purpose is to reduce top cracks due to fingerboard shrinkage. If stiffening the upper bout is the goal, increase the dimensions of the upper transverse brace, particularly the height. You could also use a stiffer wood like black locust, since the weight of that brace should not be a major concern. Arching that area of the top also will stave off the distortion that precipitates the need for a reset down the road.

[Taylor Ham]

I'd also like to mention that the stiffness of the sides and back is important to maintaining correct playing geometry.

As a thought experiment, consider a set of sides machined from aluminum 1/4" thick. or a cast iron ovation bowl. That would definitely prevent the neck from rotating no matter how sunken the top is. The worst that could happen is if the sinking top takes the fingerboard extension with it. Some luthiers will do a back slip neck reset.

I think building with a very stiff set of sides would have a greater effect than reinforcing any area of the top, but it is not as practical.

[bigignatz]

I have a Bourgeois Signature DB slope D custom that needed one within 3 years. Probably a defective build, not that Bourgeois cares...as I'm not the original owner...