Taylor Neck Joint Bolt?

[Ellington]

I've mentioned on the Martin board that I'm considering trading my Martin for a 614CE, and it's like a darned intervention!

In any case, one person had the below quoted comment regarding the "bolt" (I assume on the neck joint), and I was wondering if anyone here could shed light on what he's saying. I'm not sure which "bolt" he's talking about, and whether it truly is an issue on older Taylors. I'd be looking at a used one, w/o warranty.

"Both of those will be more affordable and have better electronics and a dovetail neck joint. I'd be weary of getting an older Taylor without a warranty. That bolt on is going to move around a bit and need adjustments so if you're planning to keep it several years you might consider the costs of keeping it at the correct low action etc."

[jjrpilot-admin]

With all due respect to that person...that's nuts. The bolt on are secure and aren't going to be loose and just flopping around. Any adjustments can be made via a dealer taking off the bolt on neck and adding or taking away small shims if I'm correct. I actually CHOSE Taylor bc it was a bolt on neck. Dovetails require massive surgery should they ever need a neck reset. Not the case with bolt ons. 

[Edward]

The bolt ...hey that's nuts ...that's funny, get it?  Bolt, nuts?  LOL!  ...go easy on me, it's been a tough morning at work

With due respect to the guy who originally said it, the sentiment is completely unfounded.
Pre-NT Taylors have necks bolted on just as NT necks are, with the difference being the fingerboard extension being glued to the top.  Zero liability with a pre-NT vs a regular dovetail-jointed guitar; by contrast the former is still infinitely better in terms of being able to adjust/compensate for the guitar's age and ensuing geometry changes that affect playability.

As for no warranty, sheesh, where does one begin with such an inane statement?
1.  Taylor, more than any guitar manufacturer that I've witnessed, stands behind their product and will address any issues that arise.  Sometimes will address issue on their own dime; even when they charge dough they always deliver a guitar that satisfies its owner.  A search of actual owners' experiences will bear this out in spades.
2. Taylor's build methods (especailly WRT the NT) almost by definition assures that any guitars that will require attention will be able to be fixed both to its original excellent state, and in an economical fashion (again, because of their build methods, which BTW other fine makers have likewise adopted).  Perfect example is the economic difference between addressing a neck reset on a Taylor (even pre-NT guitars) and any traditional glued set neck.
3. In its company history, which is shorter than Martin by a large margin but demonstrably strong as evidenced by their remarkable growth and continued popularity, Taylor has proven their product in the marketplace.  That's no subjective obeservation of a "fanboi" but a factual point that cannot be denied: they are not doing "something right" but clearly "many things" very right.  Which says to me that, at the very least, it is a company that is worthy of consideration.

Just sayin...

Edward

[Herb Hunter]

"Both of those will be more affordable and have better electronics and a dovetail neck joint. I'd be weary of getting an older Taylor without a warranty. That bolt on is going to move around a bit and need adjustments so if you're planning to keep it several years you might consider the costs of keeping it at the correct low action etc."

Why would a company that offers a lifetime warranty on their guitars design a neck whose bolt "is going to move around a bit and need adjustments"? That would represent an enormous cost in warranty work.


First, their isn't one bolt, there are three; two bolts that go through the neck block and one that goes into the fretboard extension.


Second, Taylor's NT neck is easily adjustable for neck angle whereas Martin's necks are not. Since all guitars will eventually need a neck angle adjustment as the guitar's geometry changes over time, the cost of a neck angle adjustment is substantially lower for a Taylor than a Martin.


Third, forums are not a reliable source of authoritative information. Therefore, you should verify the information offered in forum posts by consulting with the manufacturer.


Taylor guitars made before the advent of the NT neck in 1999, (the NT neck was phased in over time so not all guitars made after 1999 have the NT neck) still had more than one bolt and though they didn't have the easy neck adjustability of the NT design, were still less costly to reset than the traditional Martin design.

[Ellington]

Thanks, guys. I assumed it was malarky, but I'm not a luthier so I wanted to check with folks here to see if there was an "issue" with Taylor neck-joints, experienced by Taylor users.

[Herb Hunter]

Thanks, guys. I assumed it was malarky, but I'm not a luthier so I wanted to check with folks here to see if there was an "issue" with Taylor neck-joints, experienced by Taylor users.

I have a 1996 Taylor 814 with a straight, solidly anchored neck that has never needed any service. I also have Taylors from 1997, 1998 and 2003, all of which have trouble free necks.

[briguysm]

When I bought my used 1997 814c a couple of years ago, I took it to a Taylor certified tech and he looked over every inch of the whole guitar to see if it needed any work. His response to me was, "If you ever want to sell it, I'll buy it from you. It needs nothing but to be played."

I won't go bashing other guitar brands, but anyone who questions the quality of a proper Taylor guitar either has an agenda, is bias, or is completely uneducated on Taylor guitars.

/discussion

[lmacmil]

One could also advise caution buying an old Martin.  The cost of a neck reset on a dovetail joint guitar will be 2 or 3 times the cost to adjust a Taylor NT neck.  I read the UMGF thread and it's clear you'll not get any unbiased advice from that crowd.  Of course, there would probably be howls of protest here if you were going in the other direction with your trade.    I say go with the guitar YOU want, not what others think you should want.

[Ellington]

Thanks for the feedback. Of course I take all of the bias there with a grain of salt, but the thing with the neck joint I'd never heard, and am not familiar with guitar anatomy, so I wanted to come here and make sure.

[Edward]

And glad you are here, Ellington!
That's why we're all here: to ask, share, learn, and otherwise hang out with fellow guitarists. 
Oh, and while we're at it, I am very biased, and about many things ...no doubt there

Edward

[Ellington]

and otherwise hang out with fellow guitarists. 

Don't tell anyone, but I'm—first and foremost—a pianist. (Although, my friends and family might tell you—first and foremost—I'm a clown!)

[ctkarslake]

I say go for the trade Ellington.  What works for you is what works for you, regardless of what the Martin choir says.

[Terry]

The bolt on neck hasn't held back either Collings or Bourgeois from making "better Martins" for the price than Martin makes. 
Terry

[michaelw]

here's a comparison of the processes used to join a neck & body

dovetail
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaLOsq1G_Bk#t=860s

bolt on
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFVLRu9Np3w#t=802s

in terms of consistency, repeatability, adjustability & stability over the lifetime
of an instrument, i like the bolt on method, although i won't pass on a guitar
that i like the tone & playability of, just because it doesn't have a bolt on neck