Same as you. Only on archtop, never on flat top.
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://mowrystrings.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Headstock thickness taper http://mowrystrings.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=56246 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Darrel Friesen [ Sat Jan 27, 2024 6:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Headstock thickness taper |
Just wondering if anyone tapers the headstock thickness on their flat top guitars. I've always done it on archtops as per Benedetto's book. I've only done even thickness on flat tops. Is it just a tradition thing or is anyone doing it as per Bob who says it adds a professional touch? Not sure why there would be much difference between the two. I do like the slight taper for looks. It's quite subtle and doesn't affect any tuner installations I've done which are mainly Schallers. |
|
| Author: | Craig Wilson [ Sat Jan 27, 2024 6:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Headstock thickness taper |
Same as you. Only on archtop, never on flat top.
|
|
| Author: | BuffaloHunt [ Sat Jan 27, 2024 7:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Headstock thickness taper |
I taper on flattops. My first build as a J-45. Gibson did it, so I did. I liked the look of it, so I continue to do it. |
|
| Author: | SteveSmith [ Sat Jan 27, 2024 7:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Headstock thickness taper |
I've done it, I don't bother any more. I don't think the people who play my guitars notice it. |
|
| Author: | DennisK [ Sat Jan 27, 2024 7:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Headstock thickness taper |
I do think it looks nicer, and do it when using Pegheds or friction pegs. But regular steel string tuners that mount to the back of the headstock need their bushings to be parallel with the tuner post, and a constant thickness headstock is the easiest way to accomplish that. They may tolerate a bit of misalignment, but will most likely result in premature wear somewhere. You can mill shallow pockets in the headplate for the washers or press-fit bushings that are parallel to the back surface, but that's a lot of trouble for a subtle visual feature... |
|
| Author: | Chris Pile [ Sat Jan 27, 2024 9:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Headstock thickness taper |
I always thought it was weird. |
|
| Author: | Clay S. [ Sun Jan 28, 2024 1:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Headstock thickness taper |
Sometimes it can make sense. |
|
| Author: | John Arnold [ Sun Jan 28, 2024 4:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Headstock thickness taper |
Gibson did until the early-1950's. The problems are twofold. It can cause tuner binding if the shaft holes are not perpendicular to the back face of the headstock. Also, equal length tuner shafts can result in too much sticking out of the face on the topmost tuners, or not enough on the bottom tuners. Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk |
|
| Author: | Ken Nagy [ Sun Jan 28, 2024 7:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Headstock thickness taper |
John Arnold wrote: Gibson did until the early-1950's. The problems are twofold. It can cause tuner binding if the shaft holes are not perpendicular to the back face of the headstock. Also, equal length tuner shafts can result in too much sticking out of the face on the topmost tuners, or not enough on the bottom tuners. Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk I had that problem on the last one I did. Compounded because it was 6 inline. I just plain didn't think about it. For friction pegs it is fine, but how many use them? |
|
| Author: | Terence Kennedy [ Sun Jan 28, 2024 12:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Headstock thickness taper |
I don’t do it on flattops or archtops. Mainly for simplicity. |
|
| Author: | John Arnold [ Sun Jan 28, 2024 1:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Headstock thickness taper |
In addition to an exaggerated taper, many early Gibsons were curved concave on the back of the headstock. That can really goof up strip tuners. One L-00 I recently repaired required a shim under the tuner plate to keep the tuners from binding. Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk |
|
| Author: | Hesh [ Sun Jan 28, 2024 1:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Headstock thickness taper |
John Arnold wrote: Gibson did until the early-1950's. The problems are twofold. It can cause tuner binding if the shaft holes are not perpendicular to the back face of the headstock. Also, equal length tuner shafts can result in too much sticking out of the face on the topmost tuners, or not enough on the bottom tuners. Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk I wanted to post about being sure that there is enough tuner post proud of the headstock and see John beat me to it. This is a problem on some older Gibsons where there is not enough low E tuner post to even get two winds of a string around it. We also see this with small builder instruments where the head stocks are either too thick or too thin. Too thin and some tuner posts will have the flat part of the post exposed not just the tapered part exposed. This can cause string to wind on the flat but not be cinched up to the hole as intended. Tapered tuner posts are intended to cinch the string end and lock it in place. With this said builders would benefit from having a set of the proposed tuners handy to see what thickness gets them optimal tuner installations. Like Steve I tapered too, most of the prototypes I built (15) are tapered and some of my production models. No one ever noticed it on mine either. |
|
| Author: | ballbanjos [ Sun Jan 28, 2024 6:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Headstock thickness taper |
A lot of banjo headstocks in days of old were tapered. They definitely look great (especially with multiple laminates on the headstock and backstrap), and with the friction tuners that were on them originally, the taper didn't make much difference with the tuners. I built a lot of banjos (and a few guitars) with the taper and love the look. With machine heads, it's definitely more of a challenge. I tended to recess the geared banjo tuners on the backside rather than the top, but getting the two faces parallel was pretty important, and I'd rather have the recess on the back than on the top. And no, nobody else probably ever noticed but I like the aesthetic. Dave |
|
| Author: | Darrel Friesen [ Sun Jan 28, 2024 7:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Headstock thickness taper |
It could be the Schaller tuning machines that Benedetto recommends that are less prone to binding. I've used them on a dozen or so archtops and never had a problem. He doesn't use stepped holes either. Different tuners could be a different case. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|