What is the purpose of a scarf joint?

[Broyale]

Reading what Jim Soloway's post concerning Peerless, it got me wondering about the scarf joint. What is it's purpose? Why not just build the neck without it like most US manufacturers do?

[Archie]

I thought it was to cut down on costs and manufacturing time.

The headstock being one piece, without wings attached to the sides and the neck, 1 piece is then attached.

I don't see how an 'angle' makes sense, so if you could elaborate Dan, that would be great.

[SamBooka]

I thought it was to cut down on costs and manufacturing time.

The headstock being one piece, without wings attached to the sides and the neck, 1 piece is then attached.

I don't see how an 'angle' makes sense, so if you could elaborate Dan, that would be great.

Means you can use much thinner pieces of wood for the neck since it doesnt have to be as thick.

[Archie]

Means you can use much thinner pieces of wood for the neck since it doesnt have to be as thick.

Well that would make sense, since all scarf jointed necks I've played have been very thin. Especially my Af-120

Thanks :-)

[ah.clem]

Well, Jim was in the business, so he probably has a good idea what issues the scarf presents, but I have owned both types of necks during my lifetime and I haven't noticed any practical difference between the two. Perhaps neck stability is better with a multi-piece neck as opposed to a single scarfed board?

As far as saving time goes, I'm not certain, as from the lutherie books I've read and videos I've watched, you have to cut the neck stock on the correct angle, reverse the cut stock and glue it back together. I know that in wooden model building this produces a stronger joint, but I have no experience building necks yet. Perhaps the time savings is in using a single piece of material rather than building up a profile neck?

Most of the scarfed necks I have read about or seen being built in videos are also made from a single piece of material, not a built-up laminate of 3 or 5 pieces of wood to the correct neck thickness plus overage (which I would imagine is a more stable design as you can run the grains against each other to help avoid twisting (I believe, based on what I have read about the process).

Scarfed or built up from profiles, I still see the "wing" pieces being glued to the headstock. I don't think it would be cost-effective (in material and/or labor) to build up a multi-piece neck the width of the headstock and then reduce the excess material not needed. Again, this is all just speculation based on reading and observing with a thought towards actually building one day. I have no actual experience yet.

[Gilpy]

1. It can be cheaper to build a neck since you don't have to use as thick a piece of wood.

2. The scarf joint allows the grain of the headstock and the area where the head meets the neck to be oriented parallel with the headstock face. Some maintain that this makes the neck stronger in this area, some disagree.

3.I have guitars with both types and they're both fine. The single piece of wood does look nicer, to me.

[Jim Soloway]

The difference is not really one of function but rather, much like other budget or luxury features, one of a more symbolic statement. A scarf joint (along with a glue on heal) dramatically reduces the cost the materials in the neck. I've had several necks made that way and they all functioned just fine but unless they are done in a very elaborate manner, they say to the customer that efforts were made to contain cost. It's not unlike other features like multi-ply binding and purfling, intricate inlays, and heavily figured wood. None of those have a functional value, but they are all part of the luxury package that most people associate with a high end guitar.

[ah.clem]

@Jim - OK, thanks for the reply. I personally like a simple, unbound instrument, no inlays, nothing fancy, so I guess I've never thought about it from that respect. Interesting.

[Broyale]

I dunno, it just seems like an unnecessary step to chop up two pieces of wood just to glue them back together for a neck. Wouldn't it be simpler/cheaper to just carve a neck out of one piece and be done with it?

[Jim Soloway]

I dunno, it just seems like an unnecessary step to chop up two pieces of wood just to glue them back together for a neck. Wouldn't it be simpler/cheaper to just carve a neck out of one piece and be done with it?

Simpler? Perhaps. Cheaper? That depends on what cost more: materials or labor. Neck blanks are expensive.

[Jehu]

I haven't and never will have anywhere near the experience that Jim has, but in principle, a scarf joint is stronger than a one-piece neck for the reason mentioned by Gilpy. The headstock changes the angle of the piece while the grain orientation stays the same. The scarf joint solves this problem. Like so:



This short-grain issue, coupled with a deep groove for the truss-rod nut, is the reason behind the classic Gibson headstock break:


Having their headstock held on by glue tends to make people nervous, but most modern wood glues (and some not-so-modern ones) are much more stable than the wood itself.

As far as simpler/cheaper goes, it is pretty easy to make a saw cut and brush on some glue. I would rather do that than scrap half of my available neck wood.

[Archie]

I haven't and never will have anywhere near the experience that Jim has, but in principle, a scarf joint is stronger than a one-piece neck for the reason mentioned by Gilpy. The headstock changes the angle of the piece while the grain orientation stays the same. The scarf joint solves this problem. Like so:



This short-grain issue, coupled with a deep groove for the truss-rod nut, is the reason behind the classic Gibson headstock break:


Having their headstock held on by glue tends to make people nervous, but most modern wood glues (and some not-so-modern ones) are much more stable than the wood itself.

As far as simpler/cheaper goes, it is pretty easy to make a saw cut and brush on some glue. I would rather do that than scrap half of my available neck wood.

Well thats because some fool decide a single piece of mahogany was a good idea, with a pitched headstock :-)))

[vinlander]

Like anything meaning a cost saving for the manufacturer, it is a matter of weighting the pros versus the cons in the end.
In my book, a thinner stronger and less prone to warp neck is a positive thing and should not mean necessarily a bad thing.
It makes these instrument less desirable, but without opening a can of worms that remain again a very subjective topic...

[peskypesky]

So, correct me if I'm wrong:
It seems like the advantage of the scarf joint is that it's cheaper and stronger.
While the advantage of the one-piece is that it's more expensive and weaker?

If so, give me scarf!

[fritz jones]

lots of very expensive classical guitar necks are made with a scarf joint and stacked heel.

a neck blank for a one piece-neck could yield 2 or 3 necks with scarf joints.

[peskypesky]

lots of very expensive classical guitar necks are made with a scarf joint and stacked heel.

Speaking of stacked heels:

[John A.]

There are scarf joints used to join the headstock to the rest of the neck, like those in the illustration upthread, which do make for a stronger head/neck. There are quite a few non-bargain guitars (mainly classical, but also, e.g., some Taylors) that have this. But there's also the style found on many cheaper guitars, especially Korean ones (proud Samick owner here), where the joint is at around the third fret. This is strictly a cost-saving feature enabling the maker to take two short pieces and join them into a neck/heastock. It works fine, but the joint is obvious with lighter finishes and not terribly attractive IMO. My Samick is more than 20 years old, and shows no signs of falling apart.

John

[kmaaj]

lots of very expensive classical guitar necks are made with a scarf joint and stacked heel.

a neck blank for a one piece-neck could yield 2 or 3 necks with scarf joints.

With some careful measuring, cutting, and joinery, it is possible to construct an entire neck, complete with headstock and stacked heel, from a single 3/4" blank.

[va3ux]

I too have a 20 yr old Samick with scarf joint neck. It's as straight as an arrow. In fact most of my guitars have scarf joint necks and they are all fine. Many of the sought-after and collectible Ibanez copys from the 70's and early 80's had scarf joint necks and those guitars are considered to be decent quality guitars. Scarf joint necks aren't new; they've been around for a long time and it's a proven construction method.

If you accept that a scarf joint neck is mechanically sound and possibly better than a one piece neck in terms of stability and robustness (all other things being equal), the only remaining negative aspect is the perception : scarf joint means cost saving technique which means cost saving techniques may have (probably have) been applied to the remainder of the guitar construction which implies it's an inferior guitar. It may not be inferior at all, but the perception can be there because of it.

No question that with a one piece neck, you've paid for a pile of wood that you never got; it all ended up in the scrap bin.

[vinlander]

I can see why they are not popular...
Certainly not the most desirable thing on an aging natural guitar esthetically wise...
Here is a shot of my 2003 Peerless Regent : with the flash of the camera it is even worst : no doubt about its presence !


However, that neck is the best I have ever played; dead straight and I could achieve such a low action with the 15-56 it plays like a charm.
The laminated neck on my Joe Pass while also being very comfortable, doesn't feel as great as the one on the Regent.

[Jim Soloway]

The whole discussion leads to something I've long considered an interesting question: does perceived value in guitars have more to do with fashion rather than function? I certainly think so but it's a tough trend to buck. I remember in university economics studying a phenomenon known as the water vs diamonds paradox and I think that applies very well here

[peskypesky]

The whole discussion leads to something I've long considered an interting question: does perceived value in guitars have more to do with fashion rather than function? I certainly think so but it's a tough trend to buck. I remember in university economics studying a phenomenon known as the water vs diamonds paradox and I think that applies very well here

It makes me wonder if there are any people other than guitarists who insist on paying more for lesser quality.

[ah.clem]

It makes me wonder if there are any people other than guitarists who insist on paying more for lesser quality.

Well, your comment seems a bit off-handed and fecetious, but let's assume you are serious. The first thing to come to mind for me is new home construction. Have you any idea what you could build 20 years ago for 300k compared to today? Lumber, rough or "dried and seasoned"; have you ever looked for straight 2X4s? Cabinetmaking material? Automobiles; luxury or otherwise. They may run better now than before, but a 1970 Corvette with a 454 ran around 6.5k; a 2015 will run around 70K; is it 60K better? I think from past posts that you are a fan of Squire guitars (you have 6 or 7?); if FMIC doubled the price tomorrow, would you never buy another Squire?

Pretty much everything goes up in price, not always with an increase in quality (and at times quality diminishes even as price continues to rise). I believe you were considering purchasing a Peerless not long ago and perhaps this corporate decision caught you out but I don't see this as paying more for lesser quality any more than I do when custom builders raise their prices for the same builds. Buy or don't buy, I don't think the way things work are going to change just because folks like you and I don't like it. We're not even a drop in the ocean. We're just consumers with a choice. Just my opinion.

[ah.clem]

However, that neck is the best I have ever played; dead straight and I could achieve such a low action with the 15-56 it plays like a charm.

And that's really the point of the instrument, in my opinion. When it's all said and done, it comes down to how it plays and sounds, not how it looks. Very few of us can outperform our instruments, or ever will be able to, for that matter. I'm pretty sure none of us are playing Walmart specials, we all pretty much have decently set up instuments. While these conversations are interesting distractions, the reality is the instrument is just a tool for the player and what's really important is playability. Just my opinion.

[Jim Soloway]

It makes me wonder if there are any people other than guitarists who insist on paying more for lesser quality.

It happens all the time. Go to google and do a search on the paradox of value.

EDIT: I'll save you the trouble. from Adam Smith's Wealth Of Nations:

"In a passage of Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, he discusses the concepts of value in use and value in exchange, and notices how they tend to differ:What are the rules which men naturally observe in exchanging them [goods] for money or for one another, I shall now proceed to examine. These rules determine what may be called the relative or exchangeable value of goods. The word VALUE, it is to be observed, has two different meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called "value in use;" the other, "value in exchange." The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value in exchange; on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use. Nothing is more useful than water: but it will purchase scarcely anything; scarcely anything can be had in exchange for it. A diamond, on the contrary, has scarcely any use-value; but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it.^[3]Furthermore, he explained the value in exchange as being determined by labor:
The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it.^[4]Hence, Smith denied a necessary relationship between price and utility. Price on this view was related to a factor of production (namely, labor) and not to the point of view of the consumer.^[5] The best practical example of this is saffron - the most expensive spice - here much of its value derives from both the low yield from growing it and the disproportionate amount of labor required to extract it. Proponents of the labor theory of value saw that as the resolution of the paradox.
The labor theory of value has lost popularity in mainstream economics and has been replaced by the theory of marginal utility.