# Is there truly a benefit to set or neck through versus bolt on necks?



## SonicBlur (Nov 1, 2014)

For the longest time I have thought that neck through or set neck designs were "better" or more durable. Is this the truth? Reason I ask is that there has been a vast influx of very high end custom guitars (re: Ran, Skervessen, Mayones, Daemoness, etc...) and so many of these are now bolt on necks. Now, I have many guitars, some of each variety and I'm going to be 100% honest I can't really tell a difference....I sound like garbage on all of them, LOL!

Before it was always the lower end models got the bolt on neck and the high end versions got the set/neck through.

Sorry of this has been asked before, I was just curious as I was browsing the various high-dollar guitars that I will never be able to afford, LMAO!


----------



## Zhysick (Nov 1, 2014)

I can understand why cheaper guitars are bolt on. For a bolt-on guitar you don't need "guitar long" pieces of wood for the neck so it is easier (and cheaper) to buy wood for bolt-on necks.

On the other hand... I prefer the sound of a bolt-on guitar. A bit snappier with a little bit more attack.

Depends a lot of the woods, pickups how you play, etc. but for me bolt-on guitars works better.

I don't think one is better than the other. A well done bolt-on neck joint is as good as a well done set neck and, if you break the neck, it is easier (and cheaper) to replace a bolt-on so...


----------



## Prophetable (Nov 1, 2014)

As I've heard it, guitar companies started to make set necks because it was less expensive to glue the neck into place than it was to buy the hardware to bolt it on.

Having now built a through neck, it was a bit more effort than I'd think making a bolt on would be, and the cost of wood was higher.

So, from the production standpoint, those are the issues that come to mind.


----------



## jwade (Nov 1, 2014)

SonicBlur said:


> For the longest time I have thought that neck through or set neck designs were "better" or more durable. Is this the truth? Reason I ask is that there has been a vast influx of very high end custom guitars (re: Ran, Skervessen, Mayones, Daemoness, etc...) and so many of these are now bolt on necks. Now, I have many guitars, some of each variety and I'm going to be 100% honest I can't really tell a difference....I sound like garbage on all of them, LOL!
> 
> Before it was always the lower end models got the bolt on neck and the high end versions got the set/neck through.
> 
> Sorry of this has been asked before, I was just curious as I was browsing the various high-dollar guitars that I will never be able to afford, LMAO!



Something to consider here is that with these 'high-end' guitars you've mentioned, it's fairly common to see them using rare/pricey woods. A lot of the fancier woods being used are quite expensive to begin with, so getting pieces big enough for a neck-through can be fairly difficult/impossible and very expensive.


----------



## neun Arme (Nov 1, 2014)

The main benefit, in my opinion, is that you can carve a nice smooth comfortable neck joint with a set neck or neck through providing better access to the upper frets than with a bolt-on neck.


----------



## Promit (Nov 1, 2014)

neun Arme said:


> The main benefit, in my opinion, is that you can carve a nice smooth comfortable neck joint with a set neck or neck through providing better access to the upper frets than with a bolt-on neck.


This is the only concrete advantage I've ever seen. Modern set neck constructions, or neck thrus, can essentially dispense with the neck heel and it's pretty comfy to play.

All the other stuff people say about tone and sustain seems completely lacking in actual evidence.


----------



## ElysianGuitars (Nov 1, 2014)

I personally feel a bolt on with proper bolts instead of wood screws is all anyone really needs. A properly designed bolt on can eliminate or minimize the heel, and you get the benefit of immense clamping pressure without the dampening effects (however minimal) of glue.


----------



## yingmin (Nov 1, 2014)

Prophetable said:


> As I've heard it, guitar companies started to make set necks because it was less expensive to glue the neck into place than it was to buy the hardware to bolt it on.


I'm pretty sure the opposite is true: companies like Fender started making bolt-on guitars instead of set necks because they were both cheaper to produce and easier to repair. If you look at the history of guitar construction, pretty much all guitars were set necks (Rickenbackers being the only early example of neck-through guitars that spring to mind) until the 60s or so. Even the cheapest, shoddiest guitars I've seen from the 50s have set necks. Consider the evolution of the electric guitar: they started as archtop acoustics (glued-in neck) with an added pickup.

Also, consider that however the price of glue might compare to the price of mounting hardware for bolt-on necks, gluing a neck in, or building a neck-through, requires both more labor and more time, both of which argue against gluing a neck in being a cost-saving measure.


----------



## Prophetable (Nov 1, 2014)

yingmin said:


> I'm pretty sure the opposite is true: companies like Fender started making bolt-on guitars instead of set necks because they were both cheaper to produce and easier to repair. If you look at the history of guitar construction, pretty much all guitars were set necks (Rickenbackers being the only early example of neck-through guitars that spring to mind) until the 60s or so. Even the cheapest, shoddiest guitars I've seen from the 50s have set necks. Consider the evolution of the electric guitar: they started as archtop acoustics (glued-in neck) with an added pickup.
> 
> Also, consider that however the price of glue might compare to the price of mounting hardware for bolt-on necks, gluing a neck in, or building a neck-through, requires both more labor and more time, both of which argue against gluing a neck in being a cost-saving measure.



Eh, it's just something I read somewhere along the line. It's been too long to have a source to provide and isn't worth it for me to try to back up. Haha.


----------



## Scordare (Nov 1, 2014)

I grew up on a Fender Contemporary Strat with the micro-tilt adjustment, and always enjoyed being able to tweak the neck angle adjustment...something you can only do on a bolt-on. But I also just thought if the neck ever broke, or if I wanted a different body, its easy to replace. 

Sonically...I never really noticed too much of a difference on guitars, but after owning a few basses with these different styles of construction, I would say that bolt on and set necks definitely have a snappier/faster attack...which I prefer. I have NEVER noticed the claim of longer sustain with neck-thru instruments. 

I think that bolt on construction...like zero frets..which started off as a cheaper and faster construction method..actually is a better way of doing it.


----------



## jwade (Nov 1, 2014)

In terms of electrics, Leo Fender's design was bolt on specifically for the purpose of being able to easily remove the neck to repair/replace it.


----------



## Eliguy666 (Nov 2, 2014)

There are three reasons to use a neck-through design in a guitar:
1. If the tone of the neck wood is preferred to that of the body wood, and the neck wood does not make a suitable body wood, for reasons of price, aesthetic, weight, workability, or lumber availability.
2. If frets 17 or higher are used frequently enough to make the heel of a bolt-on guitar uncomfortable.
3. If you like the appearance of a neck-through's heel or wood contrast.

For the first two reasons, I personally prefer neck-through guitars (ebonies are my favorite guitar woods, for appearance or tone, but do not make bodies easily).

The vast majority of people, however, do not need or even benefit from a neck-through guitar design.


----------



## patsanger (Nov 2, 2014)

jwade nailed it abotu Fender - he wanted it to be swappable and easily replaceable. Since there are still many of the originals still playing, I'd say they were pretty solid.

As for the set neck - you have to remember that Gibson (I'm picking on them as they were the next biggest producer at the time) built acoustics (of all kinds) and as a result their production line, when they started to move to solid body electrics they wanted to use their existing production lines and the carved tops etc that they were known for. So, in reality it was done because making massive changes would A) change from their style and B) it would cost money to change over their production lines from glue to bolt on...

At the time they weren't doing studies over which was best, more of what would enable them to get guitars out the door.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Nov 2, 2014)

I'd say with most players it's either one or the other in the same way we seem to choose a particular bridge type and stick with it for most/all our guitars, just the feel we're most acclimated with.


----------



## narad (Nov 2, 2014)

Not "better" or more durable, but how can you argue with this?


----------



## ElysianGuitars (Nov 2, 2014)

narad said:


> Not "better" or more durable, but how can you argue with this?



If every neck through was like that I'd definitely never argue  Love Parkers.


----------



## canuck brian (Nov 2, 2014)

I only went with set neck construction because i didn't want to buy the hardware for bolt on guitars and i like being able to work on the neck before actually setting it into the guitar.

All 3 designs have their own advantages and disadvantages.


----------



## yingmin (Nov 2, 2014)

ElysianGuitars said:


> If every neck through was like that I'd definitely never argue  Love Parkers.



Parker's aren't actually neck-through. Instead of traditional set-neck designs, they use a finger joint, so there's no heel. And to Narad, Fly necks are unbelievably durable, because there's a composite baked on the the entire guitar.


----------



## Wolfhorsky (Nov 2, 2014)

I've got 3 bold-ons and 1 set-through (or neck-through - i dunno). From my experience bold-ons have more snappier attack and prescence - more acoustic piezo kind of high end. My Soloist has got a bit less harshness, and more upper mids/lower trebble. I can only describe it like that. The lack of the mentioned attack i had to compensate (successfully) with pick-sensitive SD Full Shreds.
Heels on my Ibanez guitars are super comfy AANJs, but Jackson is more comfortable, hands down. By far the most effortless playing the highest bends and other bad notes ;-). My next axe will be probably neck-through only for that ergonomics.


----------



## Zhysick (Nov 2, 2014)

Aha.. yeah... I understand... bolt-on guitars have worse higher frets access... yeah...






Nothing more to declare my highness.

/END OF "argument of better access"


----------



## Edika (Nov 2, 2014)

I have 4 bolt-ons at the moment of various qualities and a high end neck through. The neck through is easier to reach the higher frets but the high end bolt on with the sculpted heel is rally close. The other three bolt-ons have a various degrees of heel thickness that make them harder to reach the higher frets but not by that much.


----------



## patsanger (Nov 2, 2014)

If we want to complain about using the higher frets on traditional bolt ons... there's a lot of player who have never let it stop them... Yngwie, Adrian Smith, Dave Murray... lots more... 

A lot of the 80s and 90s shredders...


----------



## Lorcan Ward (Nov 2, 2014)

With correct posture and technique you can play any neck joint with minimal access problems.


----------



## Le Jeff (Nov 2, 2014)

Pepsi, Coke, or RC Cola? All give you diabeetus, one simply does it for less.


----------



## BornToLooze (Nov 2, 2014)

neun Arme said:


> The main benefit, in my opinion, is that you can carve a nice smooth comfortable neck joint with a set neck or neck through providing better access to the upper frets than with a bolt-on neck.


----------



## MOAR MEAD (Nov 2, 2014)

All the pictures of awesome bolt on neck joints not withstanding, a bolt on usually means less comfortable access. I would also like to point out that it usually means a heavier guitar too.


----------



## Prophetable (Nov 2, 2014)

MOAR MEAD said:


> I would also like to point out that it usually means a heavier guitar too.



I'm going to have to disagree.


----------



## MOAR MEAD (Nov 2, 2014)

Those are 2 very different guitars. Let's compare a SGR to a hellraiser. Huge difference.


----------



## Prophetable (Nov 2, 2014)

But they are probably the most common set neck and bolt on neck guitars in existence.


----------



## MOAR MEAD (Nov 2, 2014)

So you're going to disagree with bolt on necks adding weight because Gibson are heavier than fenders?


----------



## Prophetable (Nov 2, 2014)

I'm going to disagree with the idea that the standard set neck guitar is lighter than the standard bolt on neck guitar.


----------



## MOAR MEAD (Nov 2, 2014)

...k. So, all other variables being the same, one of the benefits of a set or neck through guitar is lighter weight...


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 2, 2014)

MOAR MEAD said:


> ...k. So, all other variables being the same, one of the benefits of a set or neck through guitar is lighter weight...



All other variables being the same would mean the only difference in weight would be the difference between glue and four bolts. That's... hardly a back-breaker, unless you're using bolts made of Niblonian droppings.


----------



## 7JxN7 (Nov 3, 2014)

From what I also understand about the Leo Fender part of the bolt on story (correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm going off info I read well over 10 years ago), Other contributing factors to him building guitars the way he did was due to the very small space and limited machinery he started off with. He first started building guitars in a very small garage with a very basic workshop set up. It was easier and quicker for him to mass produce necks and bodies separately, than as one solid unit. Also the bolt on design meant he didn't have to wait for any glue to set before finishing/assembly. I think there are a few videos or at least pics around of the original Fender workshop.

I don't have any playability issue with either neck thru or bolt on, set necks are the only design I have ever had fret access problems with and even then very minimal. Body design usually gets in the way before a neck joint does for me. Like with a lot of other features on guitars, its more about the design and craftsmanship than the actual style of construction in my experience.


----------



## narad (Nov 3, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> All other variables being the same would mean the only difference in weight would be the difference between glue and four bolts. That's... hardly a back-breaker, unless you're using bolts made of Niblonian droppings.


----------



## CaptainD00M (Nov 3, 2014)

Eliguy666 said:


> 2. If frets 17 or higher are used frequently enough to make the heel of a bolt-on guitar uncomfortable.
> 
> The vast majority of people, however, do not need or even benefit from a neck-through guitar design.



I'm just being nit picky here, but there is a litany of names I and anyone on this board could throw at you of people who play a LOT past the 17th fret on Bolt on necks and don't find them uncomfortable.

Just saying.


----------



## jarnozz (Nov 3, 2014)

A lot of the high end builders use actual bolts with threaded inserts instead of a screw. I use 5mm stainless steel bolts which can handle well over 50 kg per bolt the threaded insert is neat since you can take of the neck as many times as you want. Without weakening the threads, which does happen to a regular bolt on. That combined with a tight fit and it will be as stong as any other neck thru or set neck


----------



## RV350ALSCYTHE (Nov 3, 2014)

neun Arme said:


> The main benefit, in my opinion, is that you can carve a nice smooth comfortable neck joint with a set neck or neck through providing better access to the upper frets than with a bolt-on neck.



Used to be the case, not true anymore.






I find no benefit either way. I subjectively enjoy neckthrough more, but not because it improves or eases my playing.
It just looks cleaner.


----------



## DistinguishedPapyrus (Nov 3, 2014)

narad said:


> Not "better" or more durable, but how can you argue with this?



Beautiful to look at, but too glossy on the neck. Gotta be a satin / tru oil neck finish for me!!!


----------



## will_shred (Nov 3, 2014)

I'm pretty much a bolt on guy all the way. Bolt on necks are just as good as any other neck set. Just play any vintage fender. Plus, bolt on's are easier to travel with. I broke down my RG 1421F and took it in my backpack to Florida because I didn't want to risk checking it, than put it back together when I got there. You'd never know from playing it that the neck has been removed multiple times on that guitar. I've never had any problems with fret access, maybe a little bit on my Doomcaster with a traditional strat bolt-on style, but nothing that I can't adjust to.


----------



## will_shred (Nov 3, 2014)

7JxN7 said:


> From what I also understand about the Leo Fender part of the bolt on story (correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm going off info I read well over 10 years ago), Other contributing factors to him building guitars the way he did was due to the very small space and limited machinery he started off with. He first started building guitars in a very small garage with a very basic workshop set up. It was easier and quicker for him to mass produce necks and bodies separately, than as one solid unit. Also the bolt on design meant he didn't have to wait for any glue to set before finishing/assembly. I think there are a few videos or at least pics around of the original Fender workshop.
> 
> I don't have any playability issue with either neck thru or bolt on, set necks are the only design I have ever had fret access problems with and even then very minimal. Body design usually gets in the way before a neck joint does for me. Like with a lot of other features on guitars, its more about the design and craftsmanship than the actual style of construction in my experience.



Leo Fender didn't start building guitars though, he built amplifiers first.


----------



## stevexc (Nov 3, 2014)

I prefer the feel of a set-neck/neck-through/set-thru/etc. joint over a bolt-on neck for most higher octave playing, but I've played very few bolt-ons that actually impeded my playing (this being the biggest offender).

Given the choice, I'll pick a set-thru/set-neck/neck-through. But I won't turn down a bolt-on just because it's a bolt-on.

Tonally, I haven't noticed any difference that wasn't more easily explained by almost every aspect of the guitars in question.


----------



## DistinguishedPapyrus (Nov 3, 2014)

jarnozz said:


> A lot of the high end builders use actual bolts with threaded inserts instead of a screw. I use 5mm stainless steel bolts which can handle well over 50 kg per bolt the threaded insert is neat since you can take of the neck as many times as you want. Without weakening the threads, which does happen to a regular bolt on. That combined with a tight fit and it will be as stong as any other neck thru or set neck



I completely agree with this. I'm currently building a bolt on with 4 SS bolts and SS Tee nuts inserted into the neck heel under the fretboard. I haven't finished this guitar yet but I highly suspect the neck joint will be rock solid. I don't like the traditional and very common "bolt-on" necks that actually use wood screws instead of bolts. They are only their strongest the first time the screws go into the wood, but the threads weaken each time you take the screws out and re-insert them and eventually you have to glue in tooth picks and crap like that...

And since this is a hand made guitar out of my own garage, bolt on is the way to go cause if something catastrophic happens to either the neck or body, its easy to whip up another one to replace it instead of scraping the whole instrument because of extremely difficult to separate glue joints. 

As far as access goes, for me personally I can reach every fret on my 2008 RG7321, which is bolt on, but in general set/neck through takes the win for sculpting ability. It just makes sense, they dont have to include enough meat to house several bolts...

Never seen a bolt on do this: 







Not saying its impossible, or that it hasn't already been done and I've just never seen it, and I'm not saying that bolt-ons are flat out garbage cause of the heel, but still... set necks just have more heel sculpting possibilities.


But one more thing I gotta add that does kinda bug me about most bolt-ons, I don't like that if you push sideways on the neck enough, you can get it to shift and often make popping and cracking sounds between the neck joint. (granted I have never tried on high end instruments, all my guitars are kinda mid range) You dont have that problem with set necks. If done right, the neck basically becomes one with the body, with absolutely no movement at the joint...


----------



## rockskate4x (Nov 3, 2014)

I think the "if done right" qualifier would apply across the board to all neck joint designs


----------



## DistinguishedPapyrus (Nov 3, 2014)

^^^ yep


----------



## notasian (Nov 3, 2014)

im not buying any of that "bolt ons are more snappy and middy and this and that" sounds like mumbo jumbo to me, and why is everyone concerned about breaking a neck?!?! what the f are you doing with your guitars?!?! i mean at least you could do would be to rout out a neck pocket and have another neck made for it. but i think you guys have forgotten how strong wood is. lol enough with my rant, i love my neck-through pendulum i cant imagine playing anything else


----------



## DistinguishedPapyrus (Nov 3, 2014)

notasian said:


> im not buying any of that "bolt ons are more snappy and middy and this and that" sounds like mumbo jumbo to me, and why is everyone concerned about breaking a neck?!?! what the f are you doing with your guitars?!?! i mean at least you could do would be to rout out a neck pocket and have another neck made for it. but i think you guys have forgotten how strong wood is. lol enough with my rant, i love my neck-through pendulum i cant imagine playing anything else




Yeah you got a point there... I've been playing roughly for a decade and the only time I've ever seen a neck break or truly need to be replaced was when:

1) my 4 year old nephew decided to play tramopline on my dads old acoustic yamaha (snapped the headstock off)

2) I broke a neck that I was building, and actually on purpose... I didn't like the way it was coming out so I used it as a guinea pig in a stress test to judge the quality of my work (BTW yes wood is very strong based off the results I got)

3) An old knock off Chinese made 12 string les paul copy... Complete piece of junk... Due to the tension of 12 strings and the flat sawn one piece maple construction it had a terrible up bow that needed to be replaced.

Besides those 3 examples, all my guitars either stay in cases or on wall hangers and should never really need neck replacements.


----------



## VBCheeseGrater (Nov 3, 2014)

I can go either way. I've never been bothered by either set up, only specific instances of each. The only time a bolt on bugs me is if the "good" version of the guitar is a set neck or neck through, but i'm holding a low-end version with a bolt on, and even then it's more a prestige matter than functional.

My two favorite guitars are my RG921 and my IC400 - one is a bolt on and one is set neck. I'm more concerned about the bridge, frets, and body style.


----------



## sehnomatic (Nov 3, 2014)

notasian said:


> im not buying any of that "bolt ons are more snappy and middy and this and that" sounds like mumbo jumbo to me, and why is everyone concerned about breaking a neck?!?! what the f are you doing with your guitars?!?! i mean at least you could do would be to rout out a neck pocket and have another neck made for it. but i think you guys have forgotten how strong wood is. lol enough with my rant, i love my neck-through pendulum i cant imagine playing anything else



Warping, twisting and truss rod complications are what ruin a neck, not the complete severing of it.

At a point, replacing that neck is far easier, and cheaper to do than attempting to repair it.

Water, or rather the escape of it is more detrimental to wood than a blow from a sledgehammer.


----------



## Prophetable (Nov 3, 2014)

Also, I've seen a few guitars with broken headstocks at the nut. I've never done it but I can see the appeal of replacing the neck for that purpose.


----------



## DistinguishedPapyrus (Nov 3, 2014)

One good thing I gotta say about bolt-ons, ultimate versatility... you can take off the original and build a new neck for longer/shorter scale length, repairs, different wood options, balance issues, purely for aesthetic reasons or whatever.


----------



## Zhysick (Nov 3, 2014)

DistinguishedPapyrus said:


> I completely agree with this. I'm currently building a bolt on with 4 SS bolts and SS Tee nuts inserted into the neck heel under the fretboard. I haven't finished this guitar yet but I highly suspect the neck joint will be rock solid. I don't like the traditional and very common "bolt-on" necks that actually use wood screws instead of bolts. They are only their strongest the first time the screws go into the wood, but the threads weaken each time you take the screws out and re-insert them and eventually you have to glue in tooth picks and crap like that...
> 
> And since this is a hand made guitar out of my own garage, bolt on is the way to go cause if something catastrophic happens to either the neck or body, its easy to whip up another one to replace it instead of scraping the whole instrument because of extremely difficult to separate glue joints.
> 
> ...



Look post #25

Stephen's Extended Cutaway.

Neck access is not a reason.

Also you have this "Claas guitars" design:


----------



## DistinguishedPapyrus (Nov 3, 2014)

Zhysick said:


> Look post #25
> 
> Stephen's Extended Cutaway.
> 
> ...



Post # 25 - I've seen that bolt on joint before

Claas guitar pic above - Pretty cool looking set up, I've never seen those and I gotta admit it is a nice design. Reminds me of some stuff I saw on Toones website a while back, this new all aluminum neck he was messing with that had these "tabs" on the sides that stuck out past the edge of the fretboard for bolt attachment. 

If my post came off as a rant toward bolt-on, I'm not knocking bolt-on by any means, half my own guitars are bolt on. 

Ultimately I dont think bolt-on vs. set vs. neck through makes that big a difference, theres bigger issues that make a guitar worth while, such as body shape, balance, frets... etc.


Just for the fun of it, a hole different topic that we could bring up here is straight headstock vs angled headstock. I swear by angled headstocks, straight headstocks just freak my face out.

I only own one guitar that has a straight headstock that I literally just got 2 days ago. It was given to me, and I already plan on making a new neck for it with an angled headstock. (that and the neck has seen better days so it needs refurbishing anyway)


----------



## 7JxN7 (Nov 4, 2014)

will_shred said:


> Leo Fender didn't start building guitars though, he built amplifiers first.



Im not sure what you are trying to say with this comment man........ I thought we were talking about guitar building, not the other products built by the same manufacturers....


----------



## tedtan (Nov 4, 2014)

^

Leo Fender didn't play or build guitars, he was an electronics guy with a radio repair shop. Early electric guitar players came into the shop looking for amps, pickups to add to their acoustic guitars, etc. And when Leo noticed these players needing an electric guitar that wouldn't feedback at dance-hall volume levels, he set about developing a guitar to do that. Since he wasn't a traditional luthier, he approached things differently and the guitar he was working on became the Broadcaster (later, with two pickups, renamed Telecaster). Then came the Strat, the P bass, the J bass, etc.

Bu the point is that he wasn't a luthier, so he didn't think like a luthier. He brought a fresh perspective and approach to making guitars that we still use today. He was an innovator within the electric guitar making world.


----------



## Defi (Nov 4, 2014)

Well there you have it: soldered neck joint is the way of the future


----------



## 7JxN7 (Nov 5, 2014)

tedtan said:


> ^
> 
> Leo Fender didn't play or build guitars, he was an electronics guy with a radio repair shop. Early electric guitar players came into the shop looking for amps, pickups to add to their acoustic guitars, etc. And when Leo noticed these players needing an electric guitar that wouldn't feedback at dance-hall volume levels, he set about developing a guitar to do that. Since he wasn't a traditional luthier, he approached things differently and the guitar he was working on became the Broadcaster (later, with two pickups, renamed Telecaster). Then came the Strat, the P bass, the J bass, etc.
> 
> Bu the point is that he wasn't a luthier, so he didn't think like a luthier. He brought a fresh perspective and approach to making guitars that we still use today. He was an innovator within the electric guitar making world.



I have a pretty good idea on the background of fender, an old next-door neighbour of mine was a huge fender fan years ago and gave me a whole bunch of books and stuff on the history to read back when I was in early high school. That was the information I was drawing from in my comment. I wasn't trying to give a full history lesson on the Fender company hahaha, just chime in with what I had read about the beginnings of his guitar building and concepts behind his bolt on necks, which in turn actually relates back to the OP. I didn't think his radio repair shop or combo amp building experience was terribly relevant to this thread.


----------



## geoffshreds (Nov 5, 2014)

Comfort aside, because that is subjective&#8230;and this could be a guess, but wouldn't one just decide which type to get based on whether they want more tone from the wood of the neck (set-neck guitars) or tone from the wood of the body (bolt-on guitars)?


----------

