Possible issues with Warmoth neck..

[arealken]

I just boguht a used Warmoth Koa neck. Possible the most beuatiful neck I've ever had.
A couple things do concern me about it, and I'd like your opinion.

Besides the fact that its the slimmest Wizard profile I have ever played, and quite frankly I hate it, but will play it, the primary issue is weight. This thing seems like a toy. Absolute lightest neck I have ever had. Without tuners, the neck is a paltry 1 pound 0.2 Ounces! Can a neck this light be any good??
Factor into it that Koa is a moderately heavy wood.

Second issu4e is the break angle from the nut one the low strings. There is almost none, and this with good Grover tuners. IF I keep the neck, I would need height adjustable tuners and hope they do the trick.
Why would Warmoth do such a shallow break angle? I have actually seen it before, but this irks me.

What do you guys think? I appreciate any views on this matter, as I might just ditch the neck. BTW, the Koa body I got with it is perfect in every respect, well, except the very thick Poly finish, although at least it protects the stunningly beautiful body.

If I get the energy, I'll post a couple pics later today.

 

[TBurst Std]

Well 1st, what type of neck is it?  A tilt back or straight?

Regarding "Second issu4e is the break angle from the nut one the low strings"
which string has the low break angle? EADGBe?

 

[Logrinn]

I can't imagine Warmoth's necks would differ from Fender's in this matter. The break angle have always been pretty shallow, hence the string trees. This is also the reason why many here choose tuners that are staggered (and locking).
This is what my Warmoth Mustang neck looks like:

Does your neck look anything like this?

 

[Cagey]

1 pound is fairly typical for a guitar neck. I get a lotta necks through here and I always weigh them, me being curious and having an accurate scale handy. The heaviest have been the Ebony, Bloodwood, and Pau Ferro parts. They hover around two pounds. Oddly enough, the Maple parts are usually the lightest. Koa can be relatively heavy, but usually only compared to soft woods. It averages 38 pounds per cubic foot, but Mahogany can range from 31 to 53, and Maple from 39 to 47, so again, fairly typical for necks.

As for break angle, almost any angle is sufficient on an electric. Fender-style (straight) headstocks have no angle at all, other than the drop from the nut to the tuner. If you look around, you'll notice that's far and away the most common headstock construction. Tilt-back headstocks are more for aesthetics on an electric, and likely only exist as carryover from acoustic designs from 100 years ago when they used catgut strings under fairly low tension.

 

[rapfohl09]

Just throwing this into the ring, I love beautiful Koa and thin wizard profiles, so if you are gonna get rid of it please keep me in mind.

 

[arealken]

Well 1st, what type of neck is it?  A tilt back or straight?

Regarding "Second issu4e is the break angle from the nut one the low strings"
which string has the low break angle? EADGBe?

Thanks. It's a normal Strat neck.

The Low E and A have virtually zero break angle. IMO , even the low strings need some break angle- my style is noodling , and I do a lot of work on the low strings, so its imperative I get some break angle to control 'thud'.  The pictures presented here on a different reply show a reasonable amount of  break angle for the low strings...mine , again, has about none. You cannot have strings going straight to the tuners even IF they are low strings. Plus you're staggered tuners will do nothing to alleviate this.

You need height adjustable. I know Gotoh Japan  has such "height adjustable", and to be honest, I am not sure how well they work, in their (very) expensive new 'Magum Locking' 18:1 height adjustable line. Not easy to find- some cats from Japan selling them on teh Bay.

Probably others make height adjustable, will need to look into it.

BTW, the low strings DG/BE can be fixed with string trees.

EDIT- COULD WELL BE A POORLY CUT NUT AS SUGGESTED. LOOKS LIKE  A CHEAP PLASTIC -EVEN GENERIC FACTORY SLOTTED -NUT- SHAME ON A HIGH END GUITAR LIKE THIS!

 

[musicispeace]

I had some string issues on one guitar until someone who was more qualified than the person who first put that guitar together (someone local in my area who I no longer go to now that I have a couple of better skilled options) looked at the nut and filed in the slots better. None of my starts need string trees. I also have not needed staggered tuners.

 

[Cagey]

I never install string trees unless somebody pays me to do it, and even then I try talking them out of it. The only guitar of my own with them is one I put a used neck on that already had them installed. Had to fill the holes with something, and a couple errant purposeless screws looked tacky. If I ever refinish it, the holes for them will get filled and finished over.

The only thing string trees are good for is compensating for a poorly cut nut, and I don't have any of those.

 

[zebra]

...a couple errant purposeless screws look[ed] tacky...

I agree with you on everything but that, Cagey.  I don't find them tacky.  Purposeless screws are like Roy Orbison's sunglasses:  They are mysteriously fascinating!  :glasses9:

 

[Cagey]

Hehe! Ok, if you say so. But, the subject of Roy Orbison's sunglasses has always made me wonder if he was blind or something, so I finally looked it up. The explanation I found was:

Two misconceptions about Orbison's appearance continue to surface: that he was an albino, and that he wore his trademark dark glasses because he was blind or nearly so. Neither is correct, though his poor vision required him to wear thick corrective lenses. From childhood he suffered from a combination of hyperopia, severe astigmatism, anisometropia, and strabismus.Orbison's trademark sunglasses were a fashion statement arising from an incident early in his career. Orbison had left his regular glasses in an airplane. Due to go onstage in a few minutes and unable to see without corrective lenses, his only other pair of glasses were dark prescription sunglasses. "I had to see to get onstage", so he wore the glasses throughout his tour of England with the Beatles in 1963, and he continued the practice for the remainder of his professional career. "I'll just do this and look cool." However, Orbison once said in an interview that he wore his glasses on a plane because the sun was bright and forgot he was wearing them, especially while on stage. Shortly after he finished performing, he looked in the mirror and noticed he had not taken his glasses off, so he laughed about it and continued to wear them for the rest of his career.

No more mystery!  :icon_biggrin:

 

[Re-Pete]

Hehe! Ok, if you say so. But, the subject of Roy Orbison's sunglasses has always made me wonder if he was blind or something, so I finally looked it up. The explanation I found was:

Two misconceptions about Orbison's appearance continue to surface: that he was an albino, and that he wore his trademark dark glasses because he was blind or nearly so. Neither is correct, though his poor vision required him to wear thick corrective lenses. From childhood he suffered from a combination of hyperopia, severe astigmatism, anisometropia, and strabismus.Orbison's trademark sunglasses were a fashion statement arising from an incident early in his career. Orbison had left his regular glasses in an airplane. Due to go onstage in a few minutes and unable to see without corrective lenses, his only other pair of glasses were dark prescription sunglasses. "I had to see to get onstage", so he wore the glasses throughout his tour of England with the Beatles in 1963, and he continued the practice for the remainder of his professional career. "I'll just do this and look cool." However, Orbison once said in an interview that he wore his glasses on a plane because the sun was bright and forgot he was wearing them, especially while on stage. Shortly after he finished performing, he looked in the mirror and noticed he had not taken his glasses off, so he laughed about it and continued to wear them for the rest of his career.

No more mystery!  :icon_biggrin:

I think that Orbison story was also confirmed by at least one of The Beatles. They saw him perform without sunglasses then with them & I think they encouraged him to keep wearing them (looked cooler). The rare photo of him without sunglasses makes him look weird! Could have been worse: he could have asked Lennon to borrow his unused glasses and fallen off stage with too much near vision, lol.