Neck through construction

[BayRocker]

A long piece of wood is not as strong as laminated pieces.

This is why you see laminated beams used in construction. They are both stronger, and more cost effective than a single large piece of wood.

[Chad]

A long piece of wood is not as strong as laminated pieces. With a Jackson neckthrough, the neck is made up of at least 3 pieces - the headstock (scarf jointed to reduce the risk of warpage/breakage) is glued to the main portion of the neck (fretboard/playing area, which is quartersawn since that's a stronger cut) and that is glued to the body tenon, which, as you can see in that Kelly pic, is flatsawn. This joint again increases stability just like at the headstock.
The top of the neck seen at the end of the body is normal. It's laminated onto the part of the tenon that the body wings are attached to.

If you look at Carvin's neckthrough part:
http://www.carvinguitars.com/catalog....php?model=nt6

You can see their method is different - the entire head, neck, and body area are all one piece.

And AFAIK Jackson doesn't rely strictly on glue. I've seen underneath a busted fretboard and there were small metal pins as well as glue holding it on.
Not sure if they use dowels/pins for the body/neck joints, but I'd imagine that's a stronger hold than simply using glue.

I have absolutely no problem with Jackson's "neck-through" construction from a durability standpoint, but rather from a definition/naming standpoint.

In my mind, a neck-through guitar's neck should be made of the same kind of wood regardless of whether or not it is made from more than one piece of said wood. As mentioned before, I think a more accurate name for what Jackson is doing would be "set-through".

[Chad]

If Jackson were to make a Kelly like depicted above by first joining the body entirely together including the bottom portion where the top of the "neck-through" would go...then after that dropping in the "neck-through" portion, would that still be neck-through construction? It would technically still be the exact same construction.....only difference being the timing of when certain pieces of the guitar were joined together.

[Newc]

Considering the body wings are separate pieces attached to the neck, it is neck-through.

Granted, the neck is made up of separate pieces, however, those pieces are joined together to form one unit before the body wings are applied. Essentially you end up with a 3-piece guitar - the neck, the top body wing, and the bottom body wing.

[Chad]

Considering the body wings are separate pieces attached to the neck, it is neck-through.

Granted, the neck is made up of separate pieces, however, those pieces are joined together to form one unit before the body wings are applied. Essentially you end up with a 3-piece guitar - the neck, the top body wing, and the bottom body wing.

Actually, I see it as 4 pieces. Two wings, the top portion of the neck, and the bottom portion of the neck.

[Sunbane]

If I may theorize over this type of neck-through construction, I would guess that it's done to increase the percentage of bodywood into the instrument (and thereby somewhat increasing its influence on the overall tone)? That's the only idea I can come up with at the moment at least.

[Newc]

Regardless, once you cut the hole for the trem, the neck effectively stops there.

Even so, whether it's Floyded or TOM'd, the strings are only concerned with the nut and saddles. Extra string behind the tunomatic means no more than extra string beyond the nut.

[Chad]

If I may theorize over this type of neck-through construction, I would guess that it's done to increase the percentage of bodywood into the instrument (and thereby somewhat increasing its influence on the overall tone)? That's the only idea I can come up with at the moment at least.

Yeah, that crossed my mind. It kinda gives the tone of bolt-on construction, but the advantages of neck-through construction.

[charvel750]

The definition of a neck through is any guitar where the same piece of wood extends from the tuning posts where the strings start down to the tremolo/bridge where they end. So one piece of wood is the "through" part. The strings start and end above the same piece of wood. Even if you route for pickups and tremolo, there is still that wood extending to the end. End of story.

[Chad]

The definition of a neck through is any guitar where the same piece of wood extends from the tuning posts where the strings start down to the tremolo/bridge where they end. So one piece of wood is the "through" part. The strings start and end above the same piece of wood. Even if you route for pickups and tremolo, there is still that wood extending to the end. End of story.

The key phrase being "same piece of wood". To me, Jackson's "neck-through" guitars could still be considered neck-through if the two types of wood were joined for the full length of the neck (like on a Gibson Firebird), but when the second type of wood is only on the body end that is an oddball way of doing things.

Anyway, I'm gonna continue to keep an eye out to find if anybody else does it the same way as Jackson and still calls it "neck-through". Les Paul didn't do it that way with his log guitar. As mentioned, Gibson Firebirds aren't that way. Neither are ESP or Carvin guitars.

With that said, thanks to the OP for bringing up this discussion. Moving forward, in my mind, looking at things in a strict sense, Jackson neck-through guitars will no longer be thought of as neck-through guitars, but rather neck-through/set-through hybrids. I still like them just the same.

[steve304]

950 pounds of tension? Where did you read that? I'd venture to guess that 950 pounds of tension would cause most all guitars to explode regardless of their construction style. As a reference, the combined tension of a set of 10-46 D'Addario EXLs is 103.6 pounds in standard tuning on a 25.5" scale guitar.

Bolt-on guitars are pulling themselves apart over time? How do you explain original Strats still functioning perfectly?

As far as strength, I'd say that both are strong enough as to not be a concern provided they aren't abused. A guitar is far more likely to break at the headstock....especially if tilt-back style.

I honestly don't remember where I read 950lb but a quick internet search returns answers from 130lb-400lb. So 950 is way off but I don't remember saying it was a fact, just what I seem to remember reading at some point. At any rate, If your neck did not have a steel truss it would snap in half from the pressure of steel strings tuned to concert pitch. Thats why steel strings were not used until development of the truss rod.

I thought I was clear that I am not an expert and this is just my experience with bolts but let me qualify this. I have never bought and expensive bolt guitar (because to me it just seems like a waste of money). Every cheap bolt I have ever owned, over time, began to show gaps at the neck joint. The tension of the strings begins to pitch the neck which raises the action and begins to distort the tone. Sure you can re-seat the neck, but In MY experience the more you re-seat the neck, the more often it needs to be done. Due to screw holes wearing out? Low quality wood? Screws bending? Guitar destroying gnomes that only come out at night? I haven't the slightest idea, but I know it has happened to every bolt I have owned for more than a year.

Maybe expensive strats are made better. I don't know because I never wanted one.

[Chad]

I honestly don't remember where I read 950lb but a quick internet search returns answers from 130lb-400lb. So 950 is way off but I don't remember saying it was a fact, just what I seem to remember reading at some point. At any rate, If your neck did not have a steel truss it would snap in half from the pressure of steel strings tuned to concert pitch. Thats why steel strings were not used until development of the truss rod.

I thought I was clear that I am not an expert and this is just my experience with bolts but let me qualify this. I have never bought and expensive bolt guitar (because to me it just seems like a waste of money). Every cheap bolt I have ever owned, over time, began to show gaps at the neck joint. The tension of the strings begins to pitch the neck which raises the action and begins to distort the tone. Sure you can re-seat the neck, but In MY experience the more you re-seat the neck, the more often it needs to be done. Due to screw holes wearing out? Low quality wood? Screws bending? Guitar destroying gnomes that only come out at night? I haven't the slightest idea, but I know it has happened to every bolt I have owned for more than a year.

Maybe expensive strats are made better. I don't know because I never wanted one.

As far as steel strings and truss rods and explosions.....bologna. I had a 1971 Martin D-18 that didn't have a truss rod and it was fine with heavy gauge strings. I can't remember the exact year, but Martin didn't put truss rods on their acoustics until a LONG time into production. A neck might warp due to the tension of strings, but explode? I doubt it unless a person was running massively heavy strings...like bailing wire.

I've owned probably 10 bolt-neck guitars...some cheap, some more expensive...and I've never had gaps form at the neck joint or had the tilt angle change. They pretty much stay the same as when bought. You must have bought some bolt-neck guitars made of balsa wood.

[potatohead]

Keep in mind, I am 90% sure Carvin only uses the full, one piece neck when they are maple, the mahagony ones are two seperate pieces. Not sure about walnut or koa. All can be upgraded to five piece, as well.

[Chad]

Keep in mind, I am 90% sure Carvin only uses the full, one piece neck when they are maple, the mahagony ones are two seperate pieces. Not sure about walnut or koa. All can be upgraded to five piece, as well.

Do you mean the mahogany neck is made of two pieces of mahogany? Or do you mean it is mahogany, but the portion of the neck that goes through the body is made of two different woods......mahogany on the upper portion and the same wood as the wings on the bottom of the neck.

The point I'm making here is that it is oddball that Jackson only uses the different wood on the body portion of the neck-through, but NOT on the rest of the neck.

[potatohead]

No, it's all mahogany, but it's two pieces glued right down the center (lengthwise) before the neck is CNC'd to shape. The neck still goes through the body completely with the side wings glued on.

I just think there are different ways to skin a cat, Jackson uses a scarf joint for example and Carvin does not... Just different ways of accomplishing the same thing, I don't think one is right or wrong.