Vintage Neck-thru's vs. Newer

[Tim Bishop]

How many out there would like to see the return of the Vintage Smith Neck-thru Necks (made between '87 and '97)) and why?

[Tim Bishop]

Ken, a couple of questions to get started:

1. I'm curious why you discontinued or changed the design from the older Neck-thrus? :confused:

2. Would you consider re-introducing the older Neck-thru type Necks? :)

3. Would you do a special order utilizing the older Neck-thru type Neck? :)

Thanks,

Tim B.

[Ken Smith]

Ken, a couple of questions to get started:

1. I'm curious why you discontinued or changed the design from the Pre '97 Neck-thrus? :confused:

2. Would you consider re-introducing the Pre '97 Neck-thru type Necks? :)

3. Would you do a special order utilizing the Pre '97 Neck-thru type Neck? :)

Thanks,

Tim B.

Are you referring to the laminated Heel Cap?

If so, all the earlier basses we made in the beginning HAD that double laminated Heel Cap in case you didn't know it.

It would take some explaining but the current method allows us to choose which side of the Neck Billet gets the Fingerboard. With the other method, we could not for several reasons. Once they were cut out from the laminated Block the Head angle and Heel were already chosen. Cutting all this from a larger block all in one may seem easier but is not in my opinion the best method. This is why you find some Basses of the average company with severe forward Bows and some with Back Bows. When you cut the wood out, it springs a bit and this cannot be correct so easily. In the new method which is the original method used by us, we can choose which side is best for the Fingerboard. Also, the Block glued up is smaller in 2 of the 3 dimensions making it less prone to spring movement when we cut out the twin Billets intended from the block.

That's the short version.

Answer: No, we will not make it the other way anymore. This is for the better, trust me!

[Tim Bishop]

Are you referring to the laminated Heel Cap?



Thanks Ken,

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear, however.....

I have attached a photo of one of my basses with the prior Neck-thru design that I am referring to. Does this help? While I'm not certain, I don't think this is what you are talking about in your response to me, is it? If not, could you apply my questions using the attached photo? Thanks in advance, I hope the attached photo helps.

I'm not sure when you began designing the Necks this way (like the attached photo), but the ones I attempted to refer to, I think, are from the early to mid 90's?

Also, please let me know how you would ID this type of Neck-thru (as shown in the attached photo) vs. the New and I will correct my Thread accordingly. Since I didn't explain it well, I'm sure usnig "heel-less" and "Pre '97" will be confusing.

[Ken Smith]

Thanks Ken,

I have attached a photo of one of my basses with the prior Neck-thru design that I am talking about. Does this help? While I'm not certain, I don't think this is what you are talking about in your response to me, is it? If not, could you apply my questions using the attached photo? Thanks in advance, I hope the attached photo helps.

Also, let me know how you would ID this type of Neck-thru (as shown in the attached photo) vs. the New and I will correct my Thread accordingly. Since I probably didn't explain it well, I have a feeling me saying "heel-less" will be confusing. I'm not sure when you began designing the Necks this way (like the attached photo), but the ones I attempted to refer to are from the early to mid 90's.

Yours is the '87-'97 NT design which I referred to as not the way we make them now as we did from '79-'85 and since '96/'97(mixed) and currently.

I understood you 100% what you were referring to so read again what I described. If you like, call me and i will explain it to you. Then YOU can attempt to write the 'book' on my explanation which I don't have the typing fingers (mental effort actually..lol) to attempt..:D

[Tim Bishop]

Yours is the '87-'97 NT design which I referred to as not the way we make them now as we did from '79-'85 and since '96/'97(mixed) and currently.

I understood you 100% what you were referring to so read again what I described. If you like, call me and i will explain it to you. Then YOU can attempt to write the 'book' on my explanation which I don't have the typing fingers (mental effort actually..lol) to attempt..:D

Thanks Ken, I wouldn't even think about trying to "write the book" on something as complex as this, however, I may give you a call and have you explain away.