Another Day - Another Something Else Learned

[ChrisN]

Today's Lesson(s) - All fret bevels are not created equal, and fret bevel makes a difference.

I have Gibson-style 12" 1 11/16 bound boards, and I have Fender-style 9.5" 1 11/16 unbound boards. The Gibson boards feel wider than the Fender boards, likely due to the binding, which sits over the fret ends. I never paid attention to a fret's bevel before now.

I have a G&L (USA) that comes with their Modern C neck, advertised as having a 1 11/16 nut "with 1 5/8 string spacing that helps keep the strings from sliding off."

That string spacing was an irritant whenever I played the G&L, mostly because I noticed it, but also because it was a little more cramped near the nut, resulting in missteps. I thought, "why not just put a "normal" nut in there that has normal 1 11/16 string spacing?"

I took it to my luthier who happens to be a G&L dealer, and he seemed confused by my request and the references to 1 5/8 string spacing, but in the end agreed to make me a nut as if I'd walked in with a Gibson 1 11/16 neck to be fitted with typical string spacing.

He did the job, I went to pick it up and the new nut looked great. He expressed reservations about the result, noting the E and e string were now quite close the edge, and in danger of slipping off without much provocation. I asked him how Gibson managed to keep their strings on the same size board without going to the edge and he then showed me something that I'd like to have been shown on the first visit . . . .

. . . . "you see the tops of the frets here are angled inward, closer "the strings are close to catching the edge of the slope." I asked why G&L cut their frets in that way and he didn't know. I do know the sides of the neck are very smooth and the beveled fret tops must be in part responsible for that smoothness, but I'd rather have the real estate, and more normal fret ends.

Anyway, I learned different makers handle their fret beveling differently, though I don't know why that is - if you know, I'd love to learn more. Also, fret bevel matters because it can reduce available string spacing area.

This is another reason I would not order a made-to-order anything - I just haven't learned enough to address all of the variables. Live and learn.

I replaced the original saddle into the G&L and note the strings still seem too close to the edges, more noticeable on the e string. Not a deal breaker, just noticin'.

[Jaden]

Interesting info, thanks for sharing.

I know it’s a tradition with Gibson to have the neck binding often covering over fret ends but it looks and can feel awkward.

I’m finding out slowly some higher priced models include some undesirable anachronisms so to speak.

With regard to nut and string spacing I notice on my 2018 000-15m there is a noticeably wider gap between low E and A. The specs on this guitar indicate 1 11/16 but it feels more comfortable than that. I’m very impressed.

Glad I don’t have to deal with any severe fret bevel, doesn’t sound too desirable.

Thanks again

[ChrisN]

Originally Posted by Jaden

Interesting info, thanks for sharing.

I know it’s a tradition with Gibson to have the neck binding often covering over fret ends but it looks and can feel awkward.

I’m finding out slowly some higher priced models include some undesirable anachronisms so to speak.

With regard to nut and string spacing I notice on my 2018 000-15m there is a noticeably wider gap between low E and A. The specs on this guitar indicate 1 11/16 but it feels more comfortable than that. I’m very impressed.

Glad I don’t have to deal with any severe fret bevel, doesn’t sound too desirable.

Thanks again

But wait, there's more than fret beveling at issue here. Except for the actual nut and at the first fret, the G&L's neck is skinnier throughout its entire length, compared to my boutique strat copy's (RIP Mike Lipe ) 1 11/16 neck.

At the very real risk of inviting "play more, measure less," I measured the nuts on both:
G&L - 1.68"
Lipe - 1.66" (G&L has the wider nut)

First Fret:
G&L - 1.71
Lipe - 1.70 (G&L wider here)

5th Fret:
G&L - 1.86
Lipe - 1.89 (Lipe pulls into the lead with some width on the G&L)

12th Fret:
G&L - 2.05
Lipe - 2.09 (Lipe, by a nose)

These amounts seem too small to be noticed, and indeed, many will post to say so, but look at the pics to see how the beveled ends don't appear to make as much difference as the difference in board widths. Maple headstock is G&L (#2) and Tobacco headstock is Lipe (#1). Blue body is G&L (#3), No Visible Body (#4) is Lipe. Note the distances from the E-e strings to the fret ends (pics aren't angled all that well). While the G&L's frets have a larger bevel that edges closer to the string, the real difference appears due to the Lipe's wider board, except with respect to the first fret, where the string fall-off potential appears less evident. I should add that both guitars have a 9.5" radius. I should also add that the G&L nut shown is the original one, with the "1 5/8" string spacing.

Any input beyond "measure less, play more" appreciated. I just like thinking about this stuff - it helps me keep the herd healthy by winnowing out weaker members.

Bottom line seems to be that the G&L's issue for me is that it has a skinnier neck, despite that it's billed as a 1 11/16" nut. That issue is adversely impacted for me by the greater degree of fret beveling. That said, I still like playing the G&L - I just have to adjust a bit, but at least I now know why that's needed.

[ChrisN]

So, the other thing I learned today is that all 1 11/16 necks don't necessarily have the same width as they head toward the bridge. I kind of assumed they would be, given they're starting from the same nut width and ending at the same bridge string spacing. But, apparently, not the case.

Today's lessons confirm for me that it's best to play a guitar before purchasing, if you can.

[Jaden]

I think you’re on the right track noticing and posting about this. I know we’re all talking about guitars and equipment but the ability to explain something clearly is a important skill as you well know and is well worth practicing.

You already went through the effort of having the G&L nut widened so it’s an important consideration for you.

It was said about Renaissance painters that a monumental breakthrough was achieved when the human hand was convincingly drawn.

Now imagine all of us playing guitar then imagine the instrument becomes invisible. All you can see at work is the hands, and due to the stunning sophistication of this part of the body, no wonder guitarists can be notoriously picky about touch and feel of the instrument.

[ChrisN]

Originally Posted by Jaden

I’m finding out slowly some higher priced models include some undesirable anachronisms so to speak.

That's another thing I learned from my new (to me) Lipe. The model is his Classic Virtuoso, which is a '57 strat copy. It's heavy, like the original, but I don't care. Neck is not vintage, as it's 9.25, not 7.25 (I assume the '57 strat's neck had a 7.25 radius, but I could be wrong), and 1 11/16 nut, whereas I assume the original had a 1 5/8, so that's nice. Lipe also put a little more angle on the headstock in order to eliminate the need for the string tree, a nice modern touch. He also added metal fittings into the neck for the bolts to go into, for durability.

What wasn't nice? Seems strats have never had the bridge pickup wired to a tone control, which I didn't understand. My Lipe came "vintage" with no tone control on the bridge p/u, so I wired a jumper that allowed the neck and bridge p/u to share the neck's tone control. That worked great, but it violates Vintage.

The other anachronism I didn't care for, however, is the pickups' "vintage" pole piece/magnet stagger, a holdover from the days of 7.25 radius and wound G strings. The pickup set is a spendy one by Amaltifano that sounds fantastic and I won't change them, but the D and G poles are too high, while the b and e poles are flat (no protrusion) at the p/u surface, which means I have to tilt the pickup to get the the E-to-e close to even sounding, and even then I have to choose between quieter b and e, or louder E. Again, not a big deal, but if you're going with a modern radius and unwound G string, skip the now irrelevant "vintage" pole piece/magnet stagger. I should note in Lipe's defense that my guitar was spec'd/commissioned by another, and he may have wanted all of these things about which I moan. Lipe may well have held his nose and done the job.

I asked Amaltifano about moving the magnets and he said they were glued in, so a 50/50 chance of trashing the pickup, so I'm leaving it alone. They do sound great, so I'm not complaining about the end result. I may be a nitpicker, after all.

[ChrisN]

Originally Posted by Jaden

I think you’re on the right track noticing and posting about this. I know we’re all talking about guitars and equipment but the ability to explain something clearly is a important skill as you well know and is well worth practicing.

You already went through the effort of having the G&L nut widened so it’s an important consideration for you.

It was said about Renaissance painters that a monumental breakthrough was achieved when the human hand was convincingly drawn.

Now imagine all of us playing guitar then imagine the instrument becomes invisible. All you can see at work is the hands, and due to the stunning sophistication of this part of the body, no wonder guitarists can be notoriously picky about touch and feel of the instrument.

You know that I can't disagree with any of those observations! Thanks for the kind words. I do love this stuff.