'Vintage correct' or not

John_A

What was the neck pocket depth?  Could it have been the necks you used.  It should be 16mm, and luckily mine is 

sweepy

I’d actually prefer a deeper neck pocket but then I’d rather have more backwards angle on my Strat necks

poopot

DrBob said:

I'm not sure if I've weighed in on this matter before if we're talking about who I think we're talking about I've had Two La Cab bodies and now a Strat body from them all of which needed the neck pocket deepening to bring the neck down to a level where it would work without having the bridge set so high that the adjustment screws are maxed out 

It is who you’re thinking about  

John_A said:

What was the neck pocket depth?  Could it have been the necks you used.  It should be 16mm, and luckily mine is 

Neck pocket on that one in the pic was just a hair over 18mm... deffo not the neck, it’s a USA standard... I had to replace the body on my strat after fitting a Floyd in the 90’s!... 

Also had two tele bodies that needed work on the neck pocket from them!...

ICBM

John_A said:

I can't quite believe I didn't spot this before (the shadow hides it slightly), but if you look at this pic, not only is the hole in the front of the body too far to the treble side relative to the screws by about 1/8", the trem rout is even more misaligned relative to the front hole, also towards the treble side - there's about a 1/4" 'shelf' at the arm end and none at the other.

Even if the trem rout was meant to be wider than the top hole (it isn't, from the Fender drawing - and there is no reason for it to be) then the 'shelves' at each end should be equal sizes - so the cavity is another 1/8" too far to the treble side compared to the hole. So the trem cavity is at least 1/4" out of position relative to the front of the body.

Having just read about the neck pocket issues, it's clear that this maker just has extremely poor accuracy throughout.

poopot

ICBM said:

Having just read about the neck pocket issues, it's clear that this maker just has extremely poor accuracy throughout.

Just wait till a “vintage correct” scratchplate goes on!!!! That’s when you find out the pup routes are slightly out as well!!!!

John_A

The annoying thing is the manufacturers attitude that it's 'vintage correct' and'exactly the same as their 1962 body' and 'that's how people want them'  My point that they should have taken their '62 body and modified the CNC program to account for manufacturing tolerances is met with a repeat of the statements above.  I know I'd rather it was right

GSPBASSES

I don't want to get involved in the rights and wrongs of another manufacturer, however I would like to clarify the trem block routing. If you look at the blueprint carefully it does show the hole were the trem goes through the body from the top is somewhat smaller than the hole from the back. It's just that the hole from back on the blueprint is only shown as a dotted line. There is meant to be a shelf at the back of the trem rout, this shelf is to cover up the larger hole that routed from the back. If it wasn't there on some trem’s you would the larger rout under the base plate. 

As far as the neck pocket is concerned, it should be 16mm. The depth of the neck at the end of the heel should be 25.5mm minimum and up to 26.5mm maximum. Although most necks are roundabout 25.75mm, which should work with a 16mm deep neck pocket. 

I think one should remember, wood guitar bodies are not precision instruments, although we should expect certain parts of the body to be fairly accurate, like the depth and width of the neck pocket. The tremolo routs certainly can go a bit bigger than the blueprint suggests, but not smaller. 

This is what my tremolo rout looks like from the back.

This is what the neck should look like with a 16mm depth neck pocket and a 25.75mm thickness of neck.

You can see from this photo with the pick guard in place, there is a small amount of maple visible between the pick guard and the rosewood it's not quite 1mm. If the neck had 22 frets then the fret board overhang would not touch the pick guard, even allowing for the thickness of the finish. One other thing to consider, it can be better to have the neck slightly higher than lower. This will then allow you to have the saddles raised up slightly so the grub screws almost disappear into the saddles,  then you won't scratch a hands on.

ICBM

Yes, there’s meant to be a shelf at the *back* of the trem cavity - but not at the sides.

NeilMcG

poopot said:

DrBob said:

I'm not sure if I've weighed in on this matter before if we're talking about who I think we're talking about I've had Two La Cab bodies and now a Strat body from them all of which needed the neck pocket deepening to bring the neck down to a level where it would work without having the bridge set so high that the adjustment screws are maxed out 

It is who you’re thinking about  

John_A said:

What was the neck pocket depth?  Could it have been the necks you used.  It should be 16mm, and luckily mine is 

Neck pocket on that one in the pic was just a hair over 18mm... deffo not the neck, it’s a USA standard... I had to replace the body on my strat after fitting a Floyd in the 90’s!... 

Also had two tele bodies that needed work on the neck pocket from them!...

Who are we talking about?

thermionic

I was a little surprised: http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/125168/nbd-new-body-day#latest

NeilMcG

GSPBASSES said:

I don't want to get involved in the rights and wrongs of another manufacturer, however I would like to clarify the trem block routing. If you look at the blueprint carefully it does show the hole were the trem goes through the body from the top is somewhat smaller than the hole from the back. It's just that the hole from back on the blueprint is only shown as a dotted line. There is meant to be a shelf at the back of the trem rout, this shelf is to cover up the larger hole that routed from the back. If it wasn't there on some trem’s you would the larger rout under the base plate. 

As far as the neck pocket is concerned, it should be 16mm. The depth of the neck at the end of the heel should be 25.5mm minimum and up to 26.5mm maximum. Although most necks are roundabout 25.75mm, which should work with a 16mm deep neck pocket. 

I think one should remember, wood guitar bodies are not precision instruments, although we should expect certain parts of the body to be fairly accurate, like the depth and width of the neck pocket. The tremolo routs certainly can go a bit bigger than the blueprint suggests, but not smaller.

...pic

This is what my tremolo rout looks like from the back.

....pic

This is what the neck should look like with a 16mm depth neck pocket and a 25.75mm thickness of neck.

...pic

You can see from this photo with the pick guard in place, there is a small amount of maple visible between the pick guard and the rosewood it's not quite 1mm. If the neck had 22 frets then the fret board overhang would not touch the pick guard, even allowing for the thickness of the finish. One other thing to consider, it can be better to have the neck slightly higher than lower. This will then allow you to have the saddles raised up slightly so the grub screws almost disappear into the saddles,  then you won't scratch a hands on.

That is excellent geometry info @GSPBASSES.

I have been messing about with a cheap chinese strat neck (22 fret) that I plan to refret and stick on a decent body (may get one made If I can't snag something off ebay) as an experiment, but the neck has a 27.7mm total heel depth, so a couple of mm out of standard spec.

The internet wisdom is to rout the neck pocket deeper, but actually that is the last thing I want to do as the neck may end up as scrap anyway and any body I get needs to remain standard so it can take better necks. Current plan is to borrow a router from work and shave 2mm off the heel after inventing some kind of jig to keep the heel and router track parallel.

I'm sure lots of things can go wrong with my idea, but does it sound plausible? (I will practice on some scrap wood first of course!)

GSPBASSES

NeilMcG said:

GSPBASSES said:

I don't want to get involved in the rights and wrongs of another manufacturer, however I would like to clarify the trem block routing. If you look at the blueprint carefully it does show the hole were the trem goes through the body from the top is somewhat smaller than the hole from the back. It's just that the hole from back on the blueprint is only shown as a dotted line. There is meant to be a shelf at the back of the trem rout, this shelf is to cover up the larger hole that routed from the back. If it wasn't there on some trem’s you would the larger rout under the base plate. 

As far as the neck pocket is concerned, it should be 16mm. The depth of the neck at the end of the heel should be 25.5mm minimum and up to 26.5mm maximum. Although most necks are roundabout 25.75mm, which should work with a 16mm deep neck pocket. 

I think one should remember, wood guitar bodies are not precision instruments, although we should expect certain parts of the body to be fairly accurate, like the depth and width of the neck pocket. The tremolo routs certainly can go a bit bigger than the blueprint suggests, but not smaller.

...pic

This is what my tremolo rout looks like from the back.

....pic

This is what the neck should look like with a 16mm depth neck pocket and a 25.75mm thickness of neck.

...pic

You can see from this photo with the pick guard in place, there is a small amount of maple visible between the pick guard and the rosewood it's not quite 1mm. If the neck had 22 frets then the fret board overhang would not touch the pick guard, even allowing for the thickness of the finish. One other thing to consider, it can be better to have the neck slightly higher than lower. This will then allow you to have the saddles raised up slightly so the grub screws almost disappear into the saddles,  then you won't scratch a hands on.

That is excellent geometry info @GSPBASSES.

I have been messing about with a cheap chinese strat neck (22 fret) that I plan to refret and stick on a decent body (may get one made If I can't snag something off ebay) as an experiment, but the neck has a 27.7mm total heel depth, so a couple of mm out of standard spec.

The internet wisdom is to rout the neck pocket deeper, but actually that is the last thing I want to do as the neck may end up as scrap anyway and any body I get needs to remain standard so it can take better necks. Current plan is to borrow a router from work and shave 2mm off the heel after inventing some kind of jig to keep the heel and router track parallel.

I'm sure lots of things can go wrong with my idea, but does it sound plausible? (I will practice on some scrap wood first of course!)

I'm not sure if that is the best idea, if you make the neck pocket deeper that means you cannot use any other neck on that body. It is far better to reduce the thickness of the heel on the neck.

NeilMcG

GSPBASSES said:

NeilMcG said:

GSPBASSES said:

I don't want to get involved in the rights and wrongs of another manufacturer, however I would like to clarify the trem block routing. If you look at the blueprint carefully it does show the hole were the trem goes through the body from the top is somewhat smaller than the hole from the back. It's just that the hole from back on the blueprint is only shown as a dotted line. There is meant to be a shelf at the back of the trem rout, this shelf is to cover up the larger hole that routed from the back. If it wasn't there on some trem’s you would the larger rout under the base plate. 

As far as the neck pocket is concerned, it should be 16mm. The depth of the neck at the end of the heel should be 25.5mm minimum and up to 26.5mm maximum. Although most necks are roundabout 25.75mm, which should work with a 16mm deep neck pocket. 

I think one should remember, wood guitar bodies are not precision instruments, although we should expect certain parts of the body to be fairly accurate, like the depth and width of the neck pocket. The tremolo routs certainly can go a bit bigger than the blueprint suggests, but not smaller.

...pic

This is what my tremolo rout looks like from the back.

....pic

This is what the neck should look like with a 16mm depth neck pocket and a 25.75mm thickness of neck.

...pic

You can see from this photo with the pick guard in place, there is a small amount of maple visible between the pick guard and the rosewood it's not quite 1mm. If the neck had 22 frets then the fret board overhang would not touch the pick guard, even allowing for the thickness of the finish. One other thing to consider, it can be better to have the neck slightly higher than lower. This will then allow you to have the saddles raised up slightly so the grub screws almost disappear into the saddles,  then you won't scratch a hands on.

That is excellent geometry info @GSPBASSES.

I have been messing about with a cheap chinese strat neck (22 fret) that I plan to refret and stick on a decent body (may get one made If I can't snag something off ebay) as an experiment, but the neck has a 27.7mm total heel depth, so a couple of mm out of standard spec.

The internet wisdom is to rout the neck pocket deeper, but actually that is the last thing I want to do as the neck may end up as scrap anyway and any body I get needs to remain standard so it can take better necks. Current plan is to borrow a router from work and shave 2mm off the heel after inventing some kind of jig to keep the heel and router track parallel.

I'm sure lots of things can go wrong with my idea, but does it sound plausible? (I will practice on some scrap wood first of course!)

I'm not sure if that is the best idea, if you make the neck pocket deeper that means you cannot use any other neck on that body. It is far better to reduce the thickness of the heel on the neck.

That's exactly what I said - I plan to attack the neck heel with a router! I won't touch the body.

I'm a newb with a router though, hence my concern.

GSPBASSES

Sorry miss read what you wrote, I really must get some new glass.

rexter

Been reading this thread with interest since I realised it's the gorgeous CAR strat from your other thread. Something that just leapt out at me is that your body looks like one of the ones that's based on a modern reissue not vintage spec. The so-called "vintage correct" 50s and 60s style ones from 'this supplier' (lol!) have the wormhole rout in the bridge pickup cavity at the soft angle like ones from back in the day - the modern reissue ones have a 90 degree channel which yours looks to be. I really don't know if this has any implications for the tremolo bridge issues you're having, just saw the pics and thought i'd point it out, not making excuses for the specs being off. 

Here's what the "vintage-correct" ones look like from the front:



and some pics of the trem shelf

John_A

Cheers @rexter just noticed the worm route is different on mine, just ordered an in stock body didn't pat much attention to what it was, but looking at the site I see you're right.  Would have thought the bridge routes were all the same but maybe not

Funkfingers

In the interests of fairness to "this supplier", here is a walnut body from the same source.

https://i.imgur.com/RAVNrQb.jpg?1

The vibrato cavity looks correct to me.

John_A

Funkfingers said:

In the interests of fairness to "this supplier", here is a walnut body from the same source.

https://i.imgur.com/RAVNrQb.jpg?1

The vibrato cavity looks correct to me.

Can you measure the route for me?  Yes that does look OK, but my point was mine wasn't and I was told that it was vintage correct and charged for modifying to non-standard dimensions.  After modification it measures exactly as-per Fender blueprint.

now in fairness to the supplier they should all be the same 

Funkfingers

John_A said:
Can you measure the rout for me? 

Which dimension(s) do you require?

John_A said:

in fairness to the supplier they should all be the same 

Agreed ... up to a point.

Ultimately, guitar bodies like these are shaped by a series of pin router actions, guided by templates. The potential exists for inaccurate positioning of the template(s). It is the job of Quality Assurance to spot and eliminate duds before they are shipped. Somebody at *this supplier* failed to do his or her job. 

In short, *this supplier* cocked up. They should have taken the hit for wasted time and wood and provided a replacement that is to specification.

John_A

They should have put it right without charging me to do so, they are insistent that it's exactly as a 62 body they have, therefore it's right, totally uninterested in measurements, actually responded with 'don't have time to check'