California reset to a thinline Ibanez AE405TV pondered

[Michael McBroom]

Folks,

About a year ago or so I posted a question about how to proceed with a neck reset with this guitar, an Ibanez AE405TV. Here's a link to that thread, which includes pics of the guitar:

http://www.mimf.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php ... 5tv#p13825

I have been putting it off by just using lighter gauge strings, but it just doesn't feel right. Even though the action is relatively low, my fingers can feel the angle and it makes for more difficult playing even though it wouldn't seem to at a casual glance.

Just today I came across a term I'd never heard of before: the California neck reset, or words to that effect. At first I suspected it to be a rather slipshod operation. But I've just finished reading a thread about it at the Martin repair forum and I've changed my mind. This appears to be probably the most effective way to perform a reset on a guitar with a Spanish heel for example, and given the mystery nature of my guitar's neck joint, it occurs to me that this might be the best method for this Ibanez as well.

I am not particularly concerned over the actual procedure of resetting the neck heel block. That seems straightforward enough, although I suspect I'll have to work some on the heel's sole and the edge of the back so everything lines up again. What has me concerned is the best way to proceed so I keep my damage to the cosmetics to a minimum. The guitar has, I assume, some sort of lacquer or nitrocellulose finish, which I would like to keep disturbances to a minimum, plus it has attractive triple binding that I'm assuming is some sort of plastic, which I would also like not to damage. The bottom of the heel is not flush with the back. It is about even with the top of the binding, plus it has a white cap, no doubt made from the same material as the binding.

So I'm wondering what would be the best way to proceed to loosen the glue along the perimeter of the back and the neck heel block as well.

I have a heating "blanket" -- actually it's a piece of neoprene looking stuff that has heating elements inside. It's quite thin and about 36" x 6". I use it for bending sides. It's hooked up to a temperature controller, so I have precise control of the temp. I'm thinking that I could lay this blanket across the area in concern and just let it sit there a while and heat it thoroughly. But I'm wondering if it will damage the finish or the binding. I've never used this heating blanket on finished woods or plastics, so this is unknown territory for me.

Which is why I've decided to put my case before the experience of MIMF. Collectively you folks know just about everything, it seems. So -- I would really like to know how you would proceed with opening up this area. I realize that being able to hold the guitar is a big help, but I hope I've made my descriptions as clear as possible. At any rate, the pics in the above link give you some idea of the binding -- although the back binding isn't quite as fancy as that top binding -- it doesn't have that center strip of inlay-looking stuff. But still, I don't want to ruin it.

Or, hey, if you've got a different approach altogether, I'm open to that, too. For example, I've also been thinking of using a thin "zero kerf" saw that I have and just sawing the neck off, and converting it to a bolt-on neck. This does have its advantages, I suspect. If I'm careful, I might not mess up any of the cosmetics at all. I'm thinking I should probably lay tape around the perimeter of the fingerboard so I don't mar the top when I loosen it.

So, what do you think?

[Chuck Tweedy]

What you described is commonly called "slipping the heel", and it will most likely ruin the finish on the back and is also likely to delaminate the binding/purfling on the back.
If the neck can be removed, then it would be preferable to remove the neck and do a proper reset. But really...
In your original thread, Michael Lewis gave the suggestion of wedging a rod between the tail block and the top of the heel block to expand the structure of the top.
The guitar is badly folding, and a neck reset will not stop that - that's why Michael suggested the rod. Even if you set the neck, the current deformation looks like it has compromised the structure of the instrument and it will pretty quickly fold more.

Part of the problem is likely due to the thin body of the guitar. The neck block is shorter, so there is more leverage crushing the top. Plus the extreme cutaway gives no support on that side of the top.

Spare the rod, spoil the guitar.

[Michael McBroom]

Thanks for your response, Chuck. Strange, I don't even recall reading Michael's post. My eyes must have jumped over it without even taking it in.

Yes, I guess I must reluctantly agree with yours and Michael's analyses. It's a shame -- this is actually a sweet sounding guitar. I absolutely refuse to turn it into a wall-hanging, as you suggested back in that earlier thread. So I guess if I want to get it back to normal playable conditions, and see that it stays in that state, I'll have to look at doing something a bit radical and outside the box.

Michael's proposal is an interesting one and rings a bell. I seem to recall seeing ads some years ago for a similar device as he's describing that can be installed in a guitar to prevent the fold-up. Hang on a sec . . . Okay, just did some googling. Gone a lot longer than a second, though. I don't seem to be having any luck finding listings for the device that I seem to recall. I've tried several different search strings, all to no avail.

I'm picturing in my head right now something that would work along the line of Michael's recommendation, and wouldn't show through the sound hole. It would involve a few pieces of allthread rod of various lengths, a metal hoop and a means of attaching the allthread rod to the hoop, plus a turnbuckle. The hoop would be of larger diameter than the soundhole and its sole purpose would be to prevent the allthread rod from showing through the soundhole. This guitar has an oval soundhole, though, which presents a problem. Metal oval hoops are probably not as easy to find as round metal hoops. Plus I would then have to figure out a way to attach the allthread rod to the hoop. I weld, so the simplest solution might be to tack on some threaded sleeves or something. Eck, getting complicated fast.

To heck with the allthread showing -- I can just camouflage it with paint. So if I did it this way, I'd just need a couple of pieces of allthread and a turnbuckle. Hrm . . . I haven't used turnbuckles all that much, but whenever I have, they've always been used to draw things together, not push them apart. I should take a look at their construction and see what I'd have to do to make a turnbuckle work for spreading things apart. Or -- hey, if they make turnbuckles for drawing things together, then it seems to me that there should be turnbuckles made for pushing things apart. I'll need to check into this.

Anyway, assuming I can find the turnbuckle I need, installation should be easy enough. And the contraption should stay in place because of the tension put on the system. Seems to me I would want to locate the allthreads as high as possible inside the guitar. This guitar's neck heel block has a really thick top section (almost an inch thick) located directly beneath the fingerboard that extends out almost to the soundhole. You can see it in the third pic of my earlier post. It makes the heel block sort of resemble an over-sized upside down Spanish heel. Strange. It just occurred to me that, since now I don't care about the allthread showing, I could butt it up against the heel block's fat top piece. Seems to me, the closer to the soundboard I can get with a rod like this, the more effective it will be in pushing the guitar's shape back to where it once was.

All this makes me wonder what impact, if any, this contraption might have on the guitar's sound. There would be a transfer of acoustic energy from the neck block to the tail block, and from the tail block to the guitar's sides. Hopefully it won't have a dissipative effect.

So, what do you think? That ought to work, shouldn't it? Assuming you're correct in your analysis that the guitar will not benefit from a neck reset and will quickly revert back to its present condition, I don't see that I have much of a choice besides this sort of approach. And, while it is rather radical, it doesn't seem that it will hurt the guitar. Providing that I don't try to adjust all the warpage out at once, I'm thinking. Perhaps extend the straightening out over several days. Maybe a half-turn on the turnbuckle a day or something like that.

[Bill Raymond]

A turnbuckle requires 2 threaded rods--one with normal, right-hand threads, the other with left-hand threads so that when you spin the turnbuckle the rods will either be pulled together or pushed apart. With 2 standard threaded rods, as you spin the turnbuckle it will simply screw the one rod out, the other in. You could accomplish much of the same using an all-thread and a long, coupler nut on one end.

[Michael Lewis]

The body is buckling at the sound hole. The top of the neck block needs to be pushed and the bottom to be pulled. This is a laminated guitar, an interesting puzzle to chew on, but not financially rewarding. It can be an educational experience if you care to go through the process, and cover up your tracks.

I don't see all-thread as an answer as it would be pretty heavy if you use a size large enough to be sufficiently stiff for the compression section. I think carbon fiber tubes would be better choice. Open the seam between the top and sides around the lower bout, flex the top enough to get at least the compression section in and wedge against the tail block. Is the tail block sufficiently anchored to take the stress? Maybe it would be better to go in through the back and leave the tail block attached to the top.

Who called it "California neck set"??? Probably someone NOT from here.

[Michael McBroom]

A turnbuckle requires 2 threaded rods--one with normal, right-hand threads, the other with left-hand threads so that when you spin the turnbuckle the rods will either be pulled together or pushed apart.

Yeah, this is what I was remembering -- it has to have one left-hand threaded rod to work. I was a bit unsure about the ends, though. Typically I see turnbuckles with looped ends. If I were to use a turnbuckle, ideally, I should replace both threaded pieces with strait sections.

The body is buckling at the sound hole. The top of the neck block needs to be pushed and the bottom to be pulled. This is a laminated guitar, an interesting puzzle to chew on, but not financially rewarding. It can be an educational experience if you care to go through the process, and cover up your tracks.

Sort of the way I was looking at it, too. You mention the bottom of the neck block needs to be pulled. That would be a neat trick -- maybe use a turnbuckle and some stranded steel cable looped through eye-hole screws that are screwed into the bottom of the inside heel and the tail block. Just a thought.

I don't see all-thread as an answer as it would be pretty heavy if you use a size large enough to be sufficiently stiff for the compression section. I think carbon fiber tubes would be better choice. Open the seam between the top and sides around the lower bout, flex the top enough to get at least the compression section in and wedge against the tail block. Is the tail block sufficiently anchored to take the stress? Maybe it would be better to go in through the back and leave the tail block attached to the top.

Does the weight of the allthread really matter? I figure 1/4" diameter would probably be sufficient -- shouldn't weigh all that much. Plus it's easy to find. Righ-hand thread, at any rate. I might have to search some to find left-hand thread allthread. I'd definitely have to search for carbon fiber tubes -- and some sort of caps for the tubes as well, maybe rubber so they'd grip.

If I were to give carbon fiber a try, I might not have to separate the top from the sides at the guitar's base. There's an end pin hole for one thing -- dunno if it goes all the way through, but I could certainly drill it out. And then there's the output jack hole. Seems to me I could feed a cf rod through either of these holes for this purpose. The end pin hole would probably be the best choice because of its location, but it will also restrict the diameter of the tubing. The output jack hole would probably fit 5/16", maybe even 3/8". The end pin hole, probably 1/4" or less.

Who called it "California neck set"??? Probably someone NOT from here.

Probably not. In the thread I found on the topic over at the Martin guitar forum, the origin of this term was also discussed. Frank Ford is a participant there and he chimed in as well, although I don't recall specifically what he had to say. It was suggested that the term may have been associated with CA because that's where it originated, but the comparisons to other California (fill in the blank) expressions were also made. Like a California stop, for example.

[Michael Lewis]

1/4" rod will not be sufficient for exerting compression between the neck and tail blocks, as it will flex too easily. I have used steel tube about 3/8" diameter, and carbon fiber tube a bit over 1/2" and 3/4" with success. It depends on the span and the load as to what you need to use. The compression tube/rod needs to be stiff enough to resist the string tension without buckling, the tension section can be a cable or another rod or tube but needs to be anchored well to support the tension. Don't put rubber between the tube and block as it will flex and cancel your structural repair.

You should think about all you will have to do to straighten out the guitar and I think eventually you will come to the conclusion that it might be an interesting project but not a very rewarding one. Now you should prove me wrong.