Zero frets - why aren’t they more common?

JohnS37

Zero fret always seemed to me to be a good idea, and more likely to give the desirable combination of a low action and reliable intonation than just a nut on its own.  And yet they only seem to appear on cheaper guitars, and are frankly shunned.  I don’t really get it, can anyone explain this to me?

phil_b

one down side I have seen commented on is the zero fret can wear out quite quickly. I saw this in reference to reviews on the BMG guitars. Although swapping it for a stainless steel fret seems to solve that issue 

WezV

Yeah, they give a really good action at the nut with very little effort.  You can a more consistent tone between fretted and unfretted notes too

The downsides is wear.  Its under constant pressure and you are essentially filing through it when you tune up.   


One way to do it is with a fret with no teeth that can be easily slid out and replaced as  needed.   

you can use stainless but lose the tonal similarity between open and fretted notes.  Its fairly minor though.

You can also use a slightly higher fret to give longer life, but lose the benefit of a really low action.

JohnS37

Thanks Phil and Wez for your insightful comments.  However, I find it difficult to believe that tuning strings would cause more wear on a metal, particularly stainless, fret than it would on a nut, whatever the nut was made from.  Surely bone is not harder than stainless steel?

ICBM

JohnS37 said:

Thanks Phil and Wez for your insightful comments.  However, I find it difficult to believe that tuning strings would cause more wear on a metal, particularly stainless, fret than it would on a nut, whatever the nut was made from.  Surely bone is not harder than stainless steel?

The fret - even nickel silver - is harder than the nut, but the problem is that the contact is basically a point on the top of the fret, so the wear is faster.

As WezV said, stainless steel will fix the problem but also sound slightly different from the other frets, unless they also are - although, so does a nut.

Funkfingers

Taking the question to its illogical extreme, if the zero fret material is harder than the strings, it will wear through them.

ICBM

Funkfingers said:

Taking the question to its illogical extreme, if the zero fret material is harder than the strings, it will wear through them.

True, but no worse than normal fret wear on them, which for me is what kills strings anyway even with nickel-silver frets. I like the sound of played-in strings, but the wound strings eventually indent over the frets after a year or two. I've never owned a guitar with stainless frets so I can't say how much difference there would be over that sort of time scale.

Funkfingers

ICBM said:

the wound strings eventually indent over the frets after a year or two.

Spoken like a true bassist. Bridgehouse would be proud of you.  

Blueingreen

There will also be the common guitarist mindset that subjects all innovation to the following analysis:

- was it an innovation thought up for old Gibsons or by Leo, and did it have a positive, neutral or at least not too detrimental effect on things like playability, sound, intonation, convenience or structural stability?

If so, proves that these guys were genius innovators who got things right practically from the word go.

- was it an innovation or improvement invented after this period that improves things like playability, sound, intonation, convenience or structural stability?

Then it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist and no sensible player needs or wants it.

JohnS37

Blueingreen said:

Then it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist and no sensible player needs or wants it.

I like them personally, though from an aesthetic POV a simple nut looks better.  I reckon they are a solution to a problem both luthiers and factories have: cutting the nut slots to exactly the right depth.  As we all know, this is critical, and difficult to achieve.  I think it’s also why it’s usually cheap guitars that have them.  Using a zero fret takes this necessity for depth accuracy away completely.

Roland

I like them too. My first real guitar, a Hofner President, had a zero fret. It didn’t wear significantly in twenty-something years of playing.

ICBM said:

Funkfingers said:

Taking the question to its illogical extreme, if the zero fret material is harder than the strings, it will wear through them.

True, but no worse than normal fret wear on them, which for me is what kills strings anyway even with nickel-silver frets. I like the sound of played-in strings, but the wound strings eventually indent over the frets after a year or two. I've never owned a guitar with stainless frets so I can't say how much difference there would be over that sort of time scale.

As long as the fret wire is harder than the string then the string will take most of the wear. Also the string winding is much smaller diameter than the fret, and is bent over the fret wire, so string wear is much more noticeable than fret wear. Anyone who uses a wound G string will notice how quickly the winding wears and breaks.

For a few years I used stainless steel strings for a brighter sound, and didn’t notice any additional fret wear.

PudWud

JohnS37 said:

Blueingreen said:

Then it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist and no sensible player needs or wants it.

I like them personally, though from an aesthetic POV a simple nut looks better.  I reckon they are a solution to a problem both luthiers and factories have: cutting the nut slots to exactly the right depth.  As we all know, this is critical, and difficult to achieve.  I think it’s also why it’s usually cheap guitars that have them.  Using a zero fret takes this necessity for depth accuracy away completely.

The only guitars I can think of off the top of my head that regularly use them are Vigier and the Custom Shop USA made Gretsch guitars. Both pretty pricy. 

ICBM

Funkfingers said:

ICBM said:

the wound strings eventually indent over the frets after a year or two.

Spoken like a true bassist. Bridgehouse would be proud of you.  

Why would I change my bass strings that ridiculously often?

Handsome_Chris

I like 'em.  I've got three Vigiers and the way that they implement zero frets makes them easy to change.  I don't know why everyone doesn't do it, unless it's a cost or a "That's the way it's always been done around here" thing?

earwighoney

Blueingreen said:

There will also be the common guitarist mindset that subjects all innovation to the following analysis:

- was it an innovation thought up for old Gibsons or by Leo, and did it have a positive, neutral or at least not too detrimental effect on things like playability, sound, intonation, convenience or structural stability?

If so, proves that these guys were genius innovators who got things right practically from the word go.

- was it an innovation or improvement invented after this period that improves things like playability, sound, intonation, convenience or structural stability?

Then it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist and no sensible player needs or wants it.

I'm not sure I understand your post. Are you suggesting Zero Frets are a modern innovation?

Zero frets have been around for longer than Fender or Gibson were making electric guitars (or even were making guitars)

Eg a Howe Orme from the 19th Century

PudWud said:

The only guitars I can think of off the top of my head that regularly use them are Vigier and the Custom Shop USA made Gretsch guitars. Both pretty pricy. 

Quite a lot of Gypsy Jazz/Selmer guitars use them.

WezV

Yeah, very common on 50's & 60's European guitars

WezV

Its not a cost thing.   Its much less work to do a zero fret as nut slotting becomes a 2 second job 

ICBM

WezV said:

Its not a cost thing.   Its much less work to do a zero fret as nut slotting becomes a 2 second job 

And you can pre-slot the nut before it goes onto the guitar, without ever needing to do more work on it. I would expect that the factories that do it use a six-bladed circular saw - one labour operation - or just use a pre-moulded one.