Which Taylors have glued on headstock

[Von Beerhofen]

I've noticed some using a crown like joint (no idea what it's true name is). Are these year related models or did that happen to certain models? Are there any other types of joints used in the past?

Ludwig

[jalbert]

Taylor used a finger joint on NT-neck guitars from about '99 through 2005. Before that they used a one-piece neck, and since 2006 they've used a scarf joint. Baby/Big Baby guitars continue to use a finger joint. The acoustic bass series used a very interesting looking finger joint.

[not darth]

I've noticed some using a crown like joint (no idea what it's true name is). ...

Ludwig

The 'crown' joint you're talking about is, I think, the finger joint.
Some people don't like the looks, but man, it's a very strong way to join wood.



-K

[michaelw]

gold schallers & ebony buttons
i like the finish also (but you already knew that )
nice

[not darth]

gold schallers & ebony buttons
i like the finish also (but you already knew that )
nice

I've got a set of nickel (hmm, or are they chrome) Schaller's that I've considered trying, as overall I prefer white metals over gold-colored, but I haven't tried them yet.  I kept telling myself "next time I change strings", but then, I forget until I've restrung.
So, next time...   
And when I remember, I'll post up some pictures. 

Oh, and I'd swap the ebony buttons and take off the chrome (nickel?) ones. 
-K

[Tammany Tiger]

All Taylors have a glued headstock. The question is how the headstock joint is configured.

Taylor currently uses a glued scarf joint which joins the face and the back of the headstock at a long oblique angle. The finger joint you ask about was lower on the neck as shown in the picture on this thread.

Taylor used the finger joint for about two years between 2006 and 2008. People have strong feelings about whether the finger joint was introduced for strength or manufacturing economy and raising the question is a sure fire way to start an argument in this thread. Suffice to say that the finger joint was not always aesthetically pleasing particularly on maple necks. It could be hidden pretty well on painted or shaded necks, and frequently on mahogany necks the grain blended quite well. I had a BTO with a tropical mahogany neck on which the finger joint was almost invisible.

I think Taylor had a lot of customer push back on the finger joint and the company quietly discontinued it without any publicity. A Taylor dealer confirmed my suspicion that ending the finger joint experiment was in response to complaints about aesthetics.

So far as I know, there is no structural reason to avoid Taylors with the finger joint. As many folks remarked at the time, the joint is invisible to everyone except the player, and only then while picking up and putting down the guitar.   

[Von Beerhofen]

That blue lacquer is beautifull and yes that's the joint I was talking about.
The way it stands out with that blue finnish makes it look more like additional artwork. Not seen such contrast in other pictures, probably because the grain is turned into another direction.
As I wrote in my initial post I was actually looking for a guitar with a one piece neck and I was fooled by the scarf joint, even after I received the guitar I believed it was a routing effect I saw, the heel doesn't look much different. A friend of mine and me both examined the joint and we really believed the grain ran in exactly the same direction and even the minor flames were there too.
It doesn't matter much for the guitar I now have, I've made my pick and am sticking with it. Don't think I'll stay away from the finger joint either now I've seen how it looks on the above picture.
Sorry for being the ignoramous on the subject of guitar construction, I  never had much time to devellop an interest in how guitars were build, I just played them.
I used to refer to the bridge as 'that thingy on the end' and tuners were 'turny thingies',
Now I'm older I have more free time and I've just begun to visit some websites relating to the process and I find it very interesting. Still the weight is still on trying to play the guitar.
What does that blue guitar further look like?

Ludwig

[michaelw]

the preNT mahogany necks that i've seen ('77-later) have headstock wings -
technically a 3 piece neck with glued headstock, but the heel block, neck & middle
of the headstock (the wings are around 1/4" or so at the widest point are 1 piece

98 preNT mahogany neck headstock


there were some early R Taylor with a' true' one piece neck (i don't believe they had 'wings')
as  the headstock design was more narrow (resembles the Solid Body electric headstock somewhat) &
it's possible that the 74-76 model Taylors may have had a one piece neck (i haven't seen detailed pics)

starting in 96, the baby Taylor had a fingerjoint headstock -
it was a bit different than the full NT neck headstock, as it had 4 sets of 'teeth'
on the bass & treble side of the nut & the middle was 'toothless' (mini-scarfjoint)

the big baby, 100 & 200s went to a scarfjoint headstock in 09 &, the GS Mini has always had it (10-current) -
i haven't seen any recent Solid Body guitars lately, but the 10 T5-X that i saw  a few days ago had a
scarfjoint headstock, so from what i can figure, the baby may be the only model that still has the scarfjoint

[michaelw]

gold schallers & ebony buttons
i like the finish also (but you already knew that )
nice

I've got a set of nickel (hmm, or are they chrome) Schaller's that I've considered trying, as overall I prefer white metals over gold-colored, but I haven't tried them yet.  I kept telling myself "next time I change strings", but then, I forget until I've restrung.
So, next time...   
And when I remember, I'll post up some pictures. 

Oh, and I'd swap the ebony buttons and take off the chrome (nickel?) ones. 
-K

nickel tuners with ebony buttons looks pretty good too, imho

i replaced the chrome Taylors with nickel Grovers on the L2 -
the nickel has more of a 'sterling-silveresque' lustre, compared to the bright, mirror-finish chrome, but
for reason these tuners have picked up some tarnish, which i haven't seen on chrome yet (only gold)

[Von Beerhofen]

It looks nice when there's a high contrast in the reflection of the grain, I have those strips on my Ibanez too, doesn't look half as nice.
Only recently I learned about the loss in strength with one piece necks, but I had two break at exactly that spot which should have confirmed this weakness.
One of these had a reinforced heel there. Read somewhere how this was called but I allready forgot lol.
I also never liked the strengething by top and back laminates, but that was before I knew about it's purpose.
It's probably the fables from the past and my little understanding of construction which allways kept whispering that a true one piece neck produced a better sound. I've allways felt the same about one piece back and front, but these are very hard to find anyway.
I still don't really like 3 piece backs, nor am I very much charmed by laminated back and sides even though they are probably stronger with their traversing grains.
Still I've played my Ibanez with great enthousiasm and it served me well, just didn't have enough dosh to buy something better up till now. Complaints about such shortcomings won't really help you become a better guitarist anyway.
Looking at a black and white picture of my first 'electrified' guitar makes me laugh about it now, but when I had to play it it wasn't that funny, it was all I had though.
It didn't even use true tonewoods and sawing it in 1/2 to mount a pickup didn't help much either, rofl.
Nice tigerstripe in that last picture, seems to hide the joint pretty good. My gibson ES has got that in tobacco, the entire guitar is like that. The neck is threepiece in  length though, an undisturbed grain is just nicer too look at I think, but it won't deter me from buying something else if I like how it sounds and plays.

Ludwig

[michaelw]

i kinda like 3 piece backs


given a choice, though, i'd rather have a mahogany neck, than maple, on a maple guitar (these have 'hog necks)

it's all good

[Von Beerhofen]

i kinda like 3 piece backs
given a choice, though, i'd rather have a mahogany neck, than maple, on a maple guitar (these have 'hog necks)

it's all good

Those are definately very nice looking, but wouldn't you think it would look even nicer if those backs were 2 part bookmatched? Wouldn't there be a significant difference in the sound too?
Is the back bracing different on these, as the strips which bind the pieces are allready making the back stronger and less flexible?
As I wrote before, beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, as such it's not usefull to really debate the topic extensively. I'm pretty curious though what kind of an effect this has on the sound.
Mahogany necks to my knowledge tend to produce a slightly warmer tone then maple, it's why many people seem to prefer rosewood/maple or ebony/mahogany combinations for the neck. Ofcourse they won't sound the same but everyone has his or her own preference to a sound.
I just get what's available for a price I can afford and thusfar there haven't been much options.
I have waited 6 months to make my choice, it more or less has everything I've looked for. Even though I wanted a one piece neck I learned that it isn't, it's not a big deal for me. I made a mistake as I often do and I'll have to live with it.

Ludwig

[Steve]

In theory, any time you alter anything in the construction of a guitar, you're going to affect the sound of the guitar. That, however, doesn't mean you're going to actually hear a difference.

Any difference in sound, between a two piece back and a three piece back, would be absolutely indescernible...