Measure Your Girth Again

admin · Post by **admin** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:34 am

By special request, Jeff's data.

So here's the latest, now including: John Allgaier's 2004 4003; Kevin Teed's '72 4001 and '93 4001V63; as well as Pete Greenwood's '99 4001V63 and '90 4001CS. Thanks, Guys!

(All measurements are in cm)

Measuring all the way around from just in front of the first fret:

AY's 1964 4001S: 11.1
BA's 1972 4001: 11.1
KT's 1972 4001: 11.6
JT's 1973 4001: 11.45
JT's 1977 4001: 11.3
JT's 1987 4003S: 11.3
JT's 1988 4003: 11.2
TC's 1988 4001V63: 11.3
PG's 1990 4001CS: 11.3
JT's 1992 4003SFL: 11.3
KT's 1993 4001V63: 11.7
JT's 1994 4003S: 11.6
TC's 1995 4001CS: 11.5
JT's 1998 4001V63: 11.7
PG's 1999 4001V63: 11.9
JT's 2003 4001C64S: 11.7
JA's 2004 4003: 11.9
JT's 2006 4003: 11.8

Here's what we have so far at the third fret:

AY's 1964 4001S: 11.4
BA's 1972 4001: 11.5
KT's 1972 4001: 12.1
JT's 1973 4001: 11.7
JT's 1977 4001: 11.65
JT's 1987 4003S: 11.65
JT's 1988 4003: 11.6
TC's 1988 4001V63: 11.5
PG's 1990 4001CS: 11.8
JT's 1992 4003SFL: 11.7
KT's 1993 4001V63: 12.1
JT's 1994 4003S: 12.0
TC's 1995 4001CS: 12.0
JT's 1998 4001V63: 12.0
PG's 1999 4001V63: 11.9
JT's 2003 4001C64S: 12.1
JA's 2004 4003: 12.3
JT's 2006 4003: 12.2

And at the 12th fret:

AY's 1964 4001S: 12.8
BA's 1972 4001: 12.8
KT's 1972 4001: 13.5
JT's 1973 4001: 13.2
JT's 1977 4001: 13.0
JT's 1987 4003S: 13.25
JT's 1988 4003: 13.2
TC's 1988 4001V63: 12.7
PG's 1990 4001CS: 13.2
JT's 1992 4003SFL: 13.0
KT's 1993 4001V63: 13.7
JT's 1994 4003S: 13.4
TC's 1995 4001CS: 13.5
JT's 1998 4001V63: 13.5
PG's 1999 4001V63: 13.9
JT's 2003 4001C64S: 13.4
JA's 2004 4003: 13.9
JT's 2006 4003: 13.7

rickaddict · Post by **rickaddict** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:58 am

Thank you SOOOOOO much Peter!

johnallg · Post by **johnallg** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:21 pm

Looks like Pete and I win!? 'Cept mine's bigger at the third fret. And my first impression when I picked it up at the shop when buying was how comfortable the neck was! I wonder what I'd think of a neck like the '64 4001S or the '72 4001?! I do remember playing Jerry Juden's 4005 and thinking how thin and fragile the neck felt.

xsubs · Post by **xsubs** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:50 pm

Thanks for getting this back, Peter!

charlyg · Post by **charlyg** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:53 pm

John - My 2004 neck feels great. Of course, there IS an extra string now!

johnallg · Post by **johnallg** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:16 pm

I'm not worried about the size of the neck, but where and when to put my fingers!

This is starting to sound off-color......

charlyg · Post by **charlyg** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:20 pm

can't find the pluckin string?

johnallg · Post by **johnallg** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:47 pm

I have added the girth data on a second sheet in the neck database:

http://www.geocities.com/johnallg/temp/1978_AutumnGlo/Rick_400x_Neck_Measurements.xls

heinpete · Post by **heinpete** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:52 pm

I suggest everybody measure at their own bass and update the XLS table if there is a significant different measure and model or year!?

johnallg · Post by **johnallg** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:08 am

I would think any neck hand figured (before CNC) would vary. If the info is posted here I will add to the database.

heinpete · Post by **heinpete** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:53 pm

John, when was CNC started?

johnallg · Post by **johnallg** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:06 am

I don't know the answer to that one, Peter. Maybe JH will chime in, or maybe Ted or another forum member will know.

rickaddict · Post by **rickaddict** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:02 pm

Wasn't it in '73?

elysrand · Post by **elysrand** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:00 pm

I always heard (and only John Hall can say for sure) that many manufacturing processes were introduced in 1973 to convert from hand-cutting the wood by individuals to machine-cutting the wood using automated router devices. This is why the switch was made from full-width inlays to routed wholly-contained inlays into which one could pour pearlescent casting material directly, instead of the hand-forming needed to bank the sawcut until the older inlay materials hardened. The new equipment also made possible faster cutting and more accurate repeatability in the wood forming processes. Part of those machine processes were said to be CNC, although CNC was in its infancy at that point. The most cost-effective CNC in that general time frame in the industry was not really CNC the way you think of it today, but more a dumb serial-sequenced process controller driving a cutter head.

One must admit that compromises were made in the changeover, but from a business standpoint the repeatable tolerancing of the product vastly improved and the potential volume of production vastly increased with the advent of machine processing of what formerly had been 100% human luthier labor using jigs and templated setup stations in the wood shop. And, long-term costs of production decreased, despite the rather high initial capital acquisition costs of the equipment.

One problem with CNC is that the technology almost always improves faster than a factory can amortize away and write down the capital outlay for the equipment that it bought at any snapshot in time, so you are always caught in that bind of running the older stuff long enough to pay for it and then make a sizeable-enough ROI before retiring it in favor of the next pricey gizmo to eke out another 50% improvement in production savings per manufactured unit

What would be great is for Dale Fortune to give his recollections of the actual changes to the wood shop that he observed during his tenure at RIC, which included the introduction of the new manufacturing tooling and gear!! Now HE could tell you a story of two (if he was willing)

thx1955 · Post by **thx1955** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:14 pm

although CNC was in its infancy at that point (1973) .

Hate to differ but CNC, and NC has been around since the early 50's and has been a significant part of 2 and 3 axis shaping and cutting in many engineering shops since then.

Part of my early internship at IBM was working on Punch tape systems for CNC machines that in 1972 had been in production for over 10 years.