# Scarf Joint VS Straight/F-Style Headstocks



## dmlinger (Jul 2, 2019)

Been following all of the builds on here and noticed not many, if any, people use the straight/Fender-style headstock. 

Most builders agree the break angle and pressure at the nut is greater on scarf joints. I've never had issue with nut pressure or strings popping out of the slots with my Fender-style builds. Staggered tuner posts like the Sperzel Trem-Lok do a good job of negating this issue. 

I prefer the Fender-style because I love Telecasters. It is a simpler build process with less room for error or mistakes. It's also considered a stronger construction method 

What joint do you use and why? 

Picture for reference. Scarf joint is on top if anyone sees this thread and is unfamiliar with build techniques.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jul 2, 2019)

Heh, this just came up in the big Ibanez thread.

It really depends on the build. Certain construction, material, and hardware choices can enhance or negate the benefits of each design.

Execution matters as well.

I've worked on and played oodles of guitars, and I can't say the angle, or lack thereof, of the headstock has been a make or break issue. There are plenty of guitars that use both designs that function flawlessly.

Also, not to nitpick, but your "Figure 2" doesn't actually show a scarf joint.

Here:





Ignore the text. That's a different discussion for a different day.


----------



## dmlinger (Jul 2, 2019)

Nice catch! Didn't even notice. Googled that shit and grabbed the first picture that looked close enough! The real intention of this thread should actually be "angled" vs Fender-style. I spend 95% of my time on this forum in this Luthier section, so I missed the Ibanez discussion! 

Most builders that build "metal" guitars all seem to favor the angled variety of headstock. I've been noodling around with designing a "pointy" headstock that is F-style. That design would go on a Soloist/Super Strat design that I'm debating. Because metal.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jul 2, 2019)

dmlinger said:


> Nice catch! Didn't even notice. Googled that shit and grabbed the first picture that looked close enough! The real intention of this thread should actually be "angled" vs Fender-style. I spend 95% of my time on this forum in this Luthier section, so I missed the Ibanez discussion!
> 
> Most builders that build "metal" guitars all seem to favor the angled variety of headstock. I've been noodling around with designing a "pointy" headstock that is F-style. That design would go on a Soloist/Super Strat design that I'm debating. Because metal.



Everyone seems to overbuild their necks these days. With 5+ laminates that are quartersawn, graphite and steel rods, beefy truss rods, scarf joints with volutes, etc. I have guitars with one piece flatsawn necks that are 30+ years old. If you use quality materials and build it proper it'll be fine.


----------



## LiveOVErdrive (Jul 2, 2019)

Angled headstocks often look cooler. 

I prefer flat because I can set my guitar on a flat surface without resting it on the tip of the headstock.


----------



## spudmunkey (Jul 2, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Everyone seems to overbuild their necks these days. With 5+ laminates that are quartersawn, graphite and steel rods, beefy truss rods, scarf joints with volutes, etc. I have guitars with one piece flatsawn necks that are 30+ years old. If you use quality materials and build it proper it'll be fine.



Things to get a little dicey when cutting a truss rod hole, carving down for a lock nut, and then the screws for the lock nut. While I don't disagree that some maybe overcompensate, graphite/steel/carbon fiber don't do anything for this neck area, nor do truss rods. I get your point about those being for necks in general, though. And wood is still wood, so it's *going* to still move. But as far as that part of the neck/headstock, I'm in either the scarf joint camp, or the volute camp. The only guitar I've had with any issues at the headstock was a Gibson Les Paul...the only one with that sort of neck. Been gun shy ever since.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jul 2, 2019)

spudmunkey said:


> Things to get a little dicey when cutting a truss rod hole, carving down for a lock nut, and then the screws for the lock nut. While I don't disagree that some maybe overcompensate, graphite/steel/carbon fiber don't do anything for this neck area, nor do truss rods. I get your point about those being for necks in general, though. And wood is still wood, so it's *going* to still move. But as far as that part of the neck/headstock, I'm in either the scarf joint camp, or the volute camp. The only guitar I've had with any issues at the headstock was a Gibson Les Paul...the only one with that sort of neck. Been gun shy ever since.



Oh for sure, it's just having both, and especially if the volute is the size of a baseball is overkill. Though, that goes hand in hand with design. You don't have to put truss rod access at the headstock. One of the principal advantages to the spoke wheel rods that are in vogue is they leave more material at that junction between neck and headstock.


----------



## KR250 (Jul 2, 2019)

I always had thought that the scarf joint was the stronger build method, so have done all mine that way (same as second pic from MaxOfMetal). I do think that truss rod placement has a bigger role in the strength of the neck around the nut area though. I moved to a spoke wheel design for that reason.


----------



## dmlinger (Jul 2, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Everyone seems to overbuild their necks these days. With 5+ laminates that are quartersawn, graphite and steel rods, beefy truss rods, scarf joints with volutes, etc. I have guitars with one piece flatsawn necks that are 30+ years old. If you use quality materials and build it proper it'll be fine.



Agreed! There is a great lumber shop in Dallas that is visitor-friendly. Makes finding quality 4/4 rock maple boards easy. They don't hawk you like most lumber yards will. 

I throw in a nice Bitterroot trussrod and haven't had issues at all. Just monitor the neck after each cut as the internal tension is relieved. Simple process that is time tested.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jul 2, 2019)

KR250 said:


> I always had thought that the scarf joint was the stronger build method, so have done all mine that way (same as second pic from MaxOfMetal). I do think that truss rod placement has a bigger role in the strength of the neck around the nut area though. I moved to a spoke wheel design for that reason.



A lot of the reasons certain designs have caught on is due to how they work in large scale production. 

It's easier to glue together the boards, cut, and then shape the volute than making the second cut, flipping, and then gluing a scarf joint. Which is why, once CNC and more advanced automation became more prevalent, a lot of mass produced guitars went from scarf joints to volutes. It's more efficient for production.


----------



## Adieu (Jul 2, 2019)

Cheaper stuff goes scarf, more expensive stuff goes straight thru usually

For example, I got a 90's ESP Eclipse, it's one piece... 90's LTD Eclipse, it's scarfed

Btw, both your illustrations miss the mark, scarfs usually sit lower than the headstock... start between nut and 1st fret, end between 2nd and 3rd


----------



## spudmunkey (Jul 2, 2019)

Scarf joint also allows you to use thinner wood. You need to start with a thicker billet if you're carving a neck with a tilted-back headstock. More wood = higher materials cost.


----------



## dmlinger (Jul 2, 2019)

Adieu said:


> Cheaper stuff goes scarf, more expensive stuff goes straight thru usually
> 
> For example, I got a 90's ESP Eclipse, it's one piece... 90's LTD Eclipse, it's scarfed
> 
> Btw, both your illustrations miss the mark, scarfs usually sit lower than the headstock... start between nut and 1st fret, end between 2nd and 3rd



I believe it is unfair to correlate the construction quality, or cheapness, with the neck construction method. High end companies and builders use both. 

There are 2 ways to do a scarf. Image below. I assume you are referring to Method 2. 

Interested in hearing from other guys who are building to see why they prefer using any of the methods mentioned.


----------



## KR250 (Jul 2, 2019)

Interesting conversation for sure. Definitely agree with scarf making most sense with thinner woods, and it is not always easy (in fact quite hard) finding certain woods (pun, lol) both long enough, and thick enough for a full neck through carve.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jul 2, 2019)

dmlinger said:


> I believe it is unfair to correlate the construction quality, or cheapness, with the neck construction method. High end companies and builders use both.
> 
> There are 2 ways to do a scarf. Image below. I assume you are referring to Method 2.
> 
> Interested in hearing from other guys who are building to see why they prefer using any of the methods mentioned.



Method 1:





Method 2:





You usually see the first method much more.


----------



## Deegatron (Jul 3, 2019)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Execution matters as well.



this is painfully understated.
in my experience, execution is 90% of the puzzle and the rest of the details make up the remaining 10%.


----------



## AwakenNoMore (Jul 3, 2019)

Scarf angled headstocks for me 9 out of 10 times. I do have one "super strat"-esque guitar with a reverse straight F-style headstock that I do love though.


----------



## Albake21 (Jul 3, 2019)

I've never seen a difference in actual playability, tuning, or any of the sort. Personally I just don't like the look of a straight headstock. The angle just looks better to me. It's just what I'm used to, to the point that playing a straight headstock seems odd to me. Realistically it just comes down to preference.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jul 3, 2019)

Albake21 said:


> I've never seen a difference in actual playability, tuning, or any of the sort.





In 2019, that's not really a thing. 

Guitars have gotten so much better, both in quality and design that there's really nothing to worry about with headstock design.


----------



## Pikka Bird (Jul 9, 2019)

Albake21 said:


> The angle just looks better to me. It's just what I'm used to, to the point that playing a straight headstock seems odd to me. Realistically it just comes down to preference.


Oh absolutely. I played a Framus 12-string acoustic with a straight headstock (and the million trillion lams they used way back) and although I was constantly aware that it was just my mind playing tricks on me I couldn't stop thinking that it looked like the stock was being pulled forward.



MaxOfMetal said:


> Execution matters as well.


Super agreed. The Taylor you posted a little later makes the "lower" scarf look great because it's planned out like that. When the glue line is on the flat of the headstock it's gonna look cheap, like it's an afterthought. The one upside to that way is that you can make one of these veneer-clad volutes (which I just like the feel and look of) and not have the lamimations visible at the tip of the headstock.


----------



## Lemonbaby (Jul 9, 2019)

I use angled headstocks on all builds, but no scarf joints. Don't like the looks...


----------



## Kashmir (Jul 10, 2019)

Both constructions are valid and don't make a significant difference. I prefer scarf joints because they eliminate the need for some sort of string retainer which I think interrupts the design. If I were making a guitar based on a well established design like a telecaster I'd probably use the construction true to the original... unless I was purposely changing everything.

As far as strength goes, I don't like tilt-back one piece necks. They're not much weaker but I want to eliminate as many variables as I can. I also think three-on-a-side straight headstocks look funny so I won't use them. Either way, with quality construction you can't go wrong.

Here's a Fender ad from the 70s taking aim at Gibson:


----------



## oneblackened (Jul 10, 2019)

With the one piece carved necks there are other things to take into account as well. The wood used, the angle of the headstock tilt, the type of truss rod used all matter for headstock strength. The reason Gibson has the rep of breaking is because, well... they got_ all of them_ wrong. They use a very steep break angle (17 degrees) on a relatively fragile wood (single piece mahogany necks aren't known for their strength, not really), and they rout much of the wood out of the most fragile area with their choice of a big acorn style truss rod nut. So it's exceptionally fragile at the nut and slightly above.
The problems with that design could be rectified in a number of different ways.
1, probably the easiest: add a volute. Gibson has done this in the past and hasn't pissed customers off. 2, inlay some stripes of stronger/more rigid wood (or cf/graphite/titanium) under the headstock veneer and fretboard. Completely invisible, and would drastically improve strength. 3, reduce the break angle. Leads to longer grain length and more rigidity, and really wouldn't affect the tone much at all (the difference between a 10 degree break and a 17 degree break is like 2 pounds pressure at the nut, pretty minimal). Would severely piss off a conservative user base. 4, smaller truss rod nut channel with a hex socket nut instead of an acorn style nut. Same problem as 3.

Straight headstocks have their own problems, namely that as time goes on they actually do get pulled forward by string tension. If you look at an old Fender, the necks have actually been forced concave by string tension. The other issue, of course, is that the string break angle and therefore nut pressure varies with the distance from the headstock, but that's easily rectified with staggered tuners or string trees. 

Realistically, the best design for good nut down-pressure and durability is a relatively shallow headstock break angle with a volute, or scarf jointed (if not both), made of a stiff wood (I like wenge sonically and visually, but not everyone would).


----------

