Neck Reset - 66 12-string

[sys700]

I'm noticing a small shift in the neck where it meets the body and a hairline crack has developed which leads me to believe I need to get a neck reset done on my '66 Ric 12-string. Any recommendations on luthiers who have done this before without removing the back? I took it to a local luthier who has worked at Gibson since the 60's, but I'm concerned he doesn't know Rics that well. Any recommendations?

[jingle_jangle]

I'm noticing a small shift in the neck where it meets the body and a hairline crack has developed which leads me to believe I need to get a neck reset done on my '66 Ric 12-string. Any recommendations on luthiers who have done this before without removing the back? I took it to a local luthier who has worked at Gibson since the 60's, but I'm concerned he doesn't know Rics that well. Any recommendations?

A small crack as you describe (no pictures?) is a common thing on set-neck Ricks, even some only a year or two old, and does not necessarily indicate the need for a reset of the neck. The only real was to ascertain this is to lay the guitar on its back on a perfectly flat surface, and measure the vertical distance from the surface to the edge of the fretboard where it joins the body, and again at the nut. If the nut distance is greater than the heel distance by more than about 1/8" (3mm), then you've got a potential candidate for a reset.

A reset is major surgery for a Rick; the back must come off and then after the work, the back needs to be rebound and the varnish touched up at the very least. Many customers opt for this as part of a total restoration. I have three mid-'60s 360-12s in right now for exactly this work--resto + reset.

I've heard it claimed that the neck can be removed without removing the back on these. I have never been able to successfully achieve this, though I've tried. There's a lot of glued area and it's very difficult to get a steam needle into the joint. If your Gibson luthier can do it this way, I strongly encourage you to give it to him to work on. In the reset, the top surface of the frets should be parallel to the body face. I.e., no pitch to the neck on this guitar.

[sys700]

I've read elsewhere on this forum that it is possible to remove the neck without removing the back. John Hall also mentioned that the backs are put on first, then the necks inserted, and that many luthiers at Ric have reset necks without removing the backs. I realize it would be difficult to do though, so I'm curious who has done it.

The reason I know it needs a neck reset:

1) The action has worsened over the past couple of months.
2) The neck is no longer parallel to the body, but has a noticeable angle. Also, where the neck meets the body, near the heel, the heel has shifted back into the body about 1mm. You can see that the crack is not completely vertical, but has moved back horizontally on the higher string side, resulting in poor action.
3) The guitar won't stay in tune anymore, but it used to. I'll tune it up, and on the high strings they'll go sharp after playing a bit. I'll re-tune them, and then they'll go flat.

My guitar is a 330/12 and it sounds amazing. I'm of a mind to get it double-bound if it means the back has to come off the guitar. Would the guitar need to be completely refinished if I had binding added?

[jingle_jangle]

This should probably be moved over to Vibrola or Reflections, since it's becoming tech in nature.

The procedure for removing a neck without removing the back, involves pulling the guards and neck pickup, drilling several 1/16" holes in the glue line between neck and body (partially visible in the pickup opening) and injecting steam into the glue joint. The heat and moisture theoretically will loosen the glue.

I'm not sure if hide glue or yellow AR glue was used back then--dried, both look the same after long aging. It does not behave like hide glue, though, so I suspect the latter.

My issue has always been that there is lots of glue and lots of gluing area around three sides of the neck (about 3 1/3" X 1 1/4" on each side plus about 2 X 3 1/2" on the bottom). This is a big area to keep hot and soft, and I've failed each time I've tried. If JH says it's possible, I do not doubt his word.

OTOH, the top-to-neck gluing area is minimal, though, which leads to glue creep under string tension.

It sounds to me like the glue has already broken loose for the most part, if the tuning's wandering. This might be a good possibility for another stab at this method. I can try if you like; contact me off-list for details.

[grazioso]

i am for back off too - especially if it is two piece body! injecting the steam will open another can of worms in the body-joint area and could also delaminate the neck lip (and the end of the fingerboard)...the back off on 330 is pretty simple procedure and no money will be saved by steaming the neck out. by taking the back off it can be also checked for brace integrity etc...it is worth it and when it will be done properly it will give the guitar another 50 years of service...

[sys700]

PM sent Paul. Thanks!

[jingle_jangle]

Rod's sending it off to me. I'm going to evaluate it and together we'll devise a battle plan. More later.

[libratune]

Rod,

Is this the '66 12-string with the neck issue?

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=394366&p=612671#p612671

Sorry to hear about that. I'm sure Paul will come up with a plan to get it "straightened out."

[Chrome Aardvark]

Rod, Let us know how it turned out. I'm about to ship my '66 365 to Paul for a neck reset and refret.

[sys700]

Yes, that's the guitar. I'm having Paul turn it into a 360/12OS with triangle inlays. Looking forward to getting it back!

[kennyhowes]

So were you able to get the neck off without removing the back?

[doctorwho]

I just PM'd od to see if he can give us an update.

[jingle_jangle]

This was formerly Bruce Mattey's (New Colony Six) guitar. I felt a special connection with this instrument, as the NCS were sort of the mascot band from my high school, St. Patrick HS in Chicago, which I attended from '62-'64.

At Rod's request, this instrument was stripped, neck reset, and re-bound and trimmed out as a 360/12 OS Harrison model.

Here's how it turned out:







Rod was very particular about the Fireglo pattern and color, and was very pleased with the result.

Wish it was mine! And, yes, I did have to remove the back to reset the neck.

[sys700]

Someone messaged me that this thread was being resurrected and asked me to comment on how things went with this restoration (good/bad). I think it's important to be very clear when you own a guitar of this vintage that you consider if you absolutely need to refinish it or not. Knowing what I know now, it may have been possible to use a needle to inject glue along the neck joint and set the guitar neck back in place. I've repaired several of my friends guitars with neck issues over the past year using the needle injection method and I would have attempted this on my Rickenbacker before getting it refinished. If that failed, I would have had it done again.

Before reading my comments below, please understand that I'm incredibly particular, not just a little particular, more than most people I know. People who have seen this guitar have remarked that it is incredibly beautiful and stunning and their mouths literally hang open when they see it. I love the guitar, and think it's a work of art, and I'm very happy with it. I'm extremely particular about every detail of these guitars, down the point that I notice things that are 1/2 mm off, so I'm being brutally honest in my evaluation of the work done.

So here are my thoughts after having the guitar for some time now. I'll start with the PROS first:

PROS:

1) The guitar was unplayable when I sent it to Paul. A crack had formed where the neck meets the body, resulting in high, unplayable action. The guitar now has perfect action up and down the fretboard, better than any Rick 12-string I've ever owned or played. I own another Rick 330/12 from 1966 but this guitar still beats it for low action up and down the neck. The playability is incredible, and it sounds amazing!
2) I've always wanted a mid-60's double-bound 12-string, and this was one way to get it without shelling out $10k+.
3) Paul's work was top-notch, and he put a lot of care into the restoration.
4) Paul did his best to meet my requirements for the fireglo finish based on photos I sent him. I can't recall all the photos and things I shared with him, but he did his best to meet my expectations and kept me informed along the way with photos of the guitar in process.

CONS:

1) In all honesty I preferred the original finish on the guitar. The new finish is just a tad too yellowish for my tastes. I would not have had any ambering applied if I had it refinished and would have gone for the case queen look. In Paul's defense, he offered to take it back and refinish it at no cost, but I decided to keep it as it still looks very stunning. I think Paul tends to like the more vintage finishes from the late 50's that have more of a warm hue to them as opposed to the reddish/pinkish hues of the mid-60's. Then again, I've not seen a restored Rickenbacker by any luthier that nails the look of a mid-60's Rick. Perhaps the finish used back then is simply not possible to recreate these days. I believe Paul used 3 separate colors when he sprayed the finish. In hindsight, what this does is make for a more subtle gradation between the middle of the guitar and the edges. I hate clownglo, but the transition between wood and finish on this guitar is a bit too smooth for my tastes. Somewhere in between is the correct spray pattern for a Rick of this vintage. Particularly on the horn, the finish should hug the edge of the guitar as it works its way around the horn and not cover the horn completely. Paul's spray pattern is close, but doesn't match most Rick's of this vintage. Likely this is due to using multiple sprays of different hues. If you look at Harrison's Rick, the upper horn actually has a sharp spray line in the upper and lower horns. Also, the spray (on my guitar) doesn't cover as much area behind the R tailpiece, giving the guitar a slightly different look (IMO) by shifting the wood highlight in the middle towards the back of the guitar more (behind the bridge). The bridge pickup should be the location where the center of the highlight resides, not behind the bridge as on my guitar. Not sure if I can explain this adequately.

Moderator edit: Photo removed. Please ask RIC for permission to use copy-written photos prior to posting. RIC will most likely allow the use of photos with the proper copyright notice.

2) Refinishing the guitar probably reduced it's value from an historical perspective, while increasing the value from a playability standpoint
3) The guitar was not set up properly before shipping it out to me. The neck was bowed up pretty drastically and it took me some time to eventually get it adjusted. The truss rods were not adjusted properly. The intonation was not set up properly. Take this into consideration if you are getting your guitar refinished.
4) The guitar arrived with a non-stock 80's or 90's era bridge plate. My 60's bridge was sitting on top of the plate with two screws in two holes, and the other two cocked up and riding on the plate because the plate didn't have the correct hole locations. Apparently Paul lost my bridge plate and thought I wouldn't notice. I had another plate I installed of the correct vintage, but the hole locations were off compared to my original bridgeplate resulting in poor alignment of the bridge and strings. The strings would now pop off the frets, particularly on the bass side of the guitar. Paul sent me a couple others to try, but they never worked. Paul searched his workshop and eventually (about a year later?) found my bridge plate on a shelf and mailed it to me. Now it's back to normal.
5) I would not have had the neck bound because it reduces the playable area of the neck width-wise. This was a 330/12, so the frets went right to the edge of the fretboard. When you add binding, it takes away a bit of the fretboard space, leaving less room on the edge of the neck for frets. I believe a 60's Rick (at least my 70's Rick bass) has frets that go into the binding and the binding is actually carved away to continue acting like a fret. The fret stops at the edge of the binding. Whereas Paul's frets go over the binding about halfway, so it doesn't look the same. I asked Paul to reuse the stock nut, so as a result, some of the strings are very close to the edge of the fret, and due to the rounded edge of the fret they can sometimes slip down the side of the fret if you aren't careful. This was not the case with the guitar originally, which is why I don't recommend getting a 330 neck bound.
6) The nut is not exactly centered/glued in the exact location it should be. It's off by about a half millimeter towards the high strings. Sounds crazy, I know, but if it were shifted towards the bass side of the guitar 1/2 mm, it would be perfect.
7) I'm not too happy with how the crushed pearl inlays turned out. They weren't cut properly to increase in size incrementally as they work their way up the neck of the guitar. The short side of the inlay should remain the same size, while the other side increases in size. Paul's cuts in the fretboard were not measured carefully enough. There is also a defect in most of the inlays where it looks like the fill interacted with something and caused a cloudiness/milkiness along the edges. There's not enough crushed pearl in them to match the look of a vintage Rick. In hindsight, I would not have gotten crushed pearl inlays.
8 ) The binding itself is not exactly per vintage spec. It appears to be a bit narrower than a vintage Rick would have, especially when looking at it from the side.

Ok, there it is in a nutshell. Am I happy with the guitar? Absolutely! I'll never sell it! I love the look, the playability, and the sound of this guitar. I think Paul did an excellent job on it, and aside from the few issues above (I mean come on, who in their right mind complains about 1/2 mm???), I'm very pleased with the work he did. I wouldn't hesitate to send him another guitar to refinish, but I'd be more anal about my requirements next time based on my comments above.

[jingle_jangle]

MORE anal next time?

Seriously, though, thanks for the honest review, Rod!

I recall that you were very hesitant initially about my ability to recreate the exact burst you wanted, and working from verbals and photos is not the ideal situation. Perhaps having Harrison's guitar sitting in my booth when I sprayed yours, would have resulted in a dead-nuts match, because I'm a stickler on color matching.

Regarding the bridge plate, yes, it was a sore spot with me. I'm very glad that your original turned up and I found it when I was doing my annual shop clean-out. As I recall, it was lying flat on a shelf above eye level; somehow it had fallen out of its "file box" of small parts.