Is It Possible To Widen An Existing Fretboard / Replace Fretboard With A Wider One?

[Saxophone Tall]

Hi ...

Is it possible to widen an existing freboard to yield 63-68 mm RH string spacing? I know there would be "overhang..."

This is to accommodate my really large hands / really long fingers.

I have an Eastman Jazz Elite 7 string being converted to a 6 string arriving soon. It will yield perhaps 61 or 62 mm RH string spacing. It has a 2.04" nut, which should be fine. If the RH is still too small, it's fretboard would have to be modified / replaced to fit, although I'm cautiously optimistic that it will be enough as is.

I also have a Seagull acoustic with a 1.8" nut and only 51 mm RH string spacing. That one will definitely need a new or modified fretboard (or I will return it).

Thoughts?

Thanks...

[AllanAllen]

Just how big are your hands?

[Sam Sherry]

It can be done. The existing fingerboard can be removed and replaced with a wider one, tapered in to meet the neck (which will be 5mm short on each side).

It will be expensive and permanent.
The result will be odd-looking and probably won't feel right due to the tapered overhang.
The guitar will be very difficult to resell and your expected sale-price would be below an unmodified example (not just because the instrument has been molested but due to low demand, i.e. the potential purchaser-pool for an instrument modded like that is small).

My advice, for what it's worth, is that a more satisfying result would be had by re-necking the instrument.
Even then look for reduction of resale value.

I also can't help but note that we make a giant deal out of pretty small distinctions. It might be that you can adjust to the existing setup if you set your mind to it.



Or not. I'm just some figment on the interweb.

[Saxophone Tall]

Just how big are your hands?

[Saxophone Tall]

It can be done. The existing fingerboard can be removed and replaced with a wider one, tapered in to meet the neck (which will be 5mm short on each side).

It will be expensive and permanent.
The result will be odd-looking and probably won't feel right due to the tapered overhang.
The guitar will be very difficult to resell and your expected sale-price would be below an unmodified example (not just because the instrument has been molested but due to low demand, i.e. the potential purchaser-pool for an instrument modded like that is small).

My advice, for what it's worth, is that a more satisfying result would be had by re-necking the instrument.
Even then look for reduction of resale value.

I also can't help but note that we make a giant deal out of pretty small distinctions. It might be that you can adjust to the existing setup if you set your mind to it.



Or not. I'm just some figment on the interweb.

I'm not concerned with resale value. I know these are "one offs." I also don't care what it looks like. Neither do pro golfers who use duct tape on expensive golf clubs.

Why would it "not feel right" and so what? I have cork risers all over my saxophones (to make them fit bigger), and cork does not feel like brass or mother of pearl, so what?

I can play but not as comfortably as I want nor with the ease of facility that I have. I can play piccolo, too, but that's insane! Similar concept.

The piano in the photos of my hands is new. I chose it, the Kawai ES90 (for double the price and an extra 10 pounds) over the Kawai ES120, because the key length / pivot on the former is better and full size. I owned the ES110 and my hands get cramped after about 45 minutes of playing - harder to play at the back of the keys and with big hands, that's where the finger often go.

My hands get cramped on the Seagull after a while. I have an 8 string converted to 6 string Stat clone with 54 mm nut, 72 mm string spacing @ RH and no cramps; easy to play. So I want as close to that as I can get in Jazz archtop and acoustic, no easy feat!

What I don't know is who in the heck makes a wide fretboard to my specifications?

[jazzereh]

While I don't know where you are, have a look locally for any luthiers. Contact them to see if they would do the job.

[Saxophone Tall]

While I don't know where you are, have a look locally for any luthiers. Contact them to see if they would do the job.

I'm currently in Los Angeles. I have yet to find one that is able to do it. I think mostly "guitar techs" here rather than actual Luthiers, but I don't know yet.

[jazzereh]

I would think there are lots of excellent luthiers in that area. While the link below is for acoustic guitars, a luthier is a luthier is a luthier [I think] so you might post your question in this 'Custom Shop' forum. There are many excellent luthiers here/there...

Custom Shop - The Acoustic Guitar Forum

[RJVB]

You know what they said about Paganini?

Have a look at Justin Johnson's videos; I think he too has (very) large hands or long fingers. Yet he plays just about anything you can throw at him.

[Cunamara]

Hmm. If Frank Ford is still available, in Palo Alto, I'd consult him:

The Workshop – Gryphon Strings

[Saxophone Tall]

You know what they said about Paganini?

Have a look at Justin Johnson's videos; I think he too has (very) large hands or long fingers. Yet he plays just about anything you can throw at him.

I will check him out, thanks, never heard of him or know what the dimensions of his axe are. Justin, that is. I say Paganini was one weird dude who was a great showman and milked the "devil" thing to perfection. His stuff is insanely difficult to play!

I "can" play flute, but it's insanely uncomfortable. It's just too damn small! At one point, I made all sorts of modifications to my flute to make it "fit" better, and it did ... sort of. Ditto clarinet. I'm 6'6"... I wear size 16 shoes. I wear a 44 extra extra long suit. My sleeve length is 38". I wouldn't feel comfortable in size 13 shoes, a 42 XL suit, 44" sleeves. Musical instruments are no different, in fact, they can be harmful due to the repetitive playing, especially if they don't fit the player correctly. So, why play a 42 mm nut guitar when a 51 mm one can be had?

For flute, alto flute. For clarinet, bass clarinet. These instruments are .. bigger. And they sound cool (or weird), depending on your taste. To me, NOTHING says "weird" (in a good way) better than bass clarinet!

There are zero reasons that a guitar can't be made to / modified to fit me properly. There ARE acoustical reasons why a piccolo cannot.

So the point here is not "make any old guitar" ... "fit." I'm well past that with my primary instrument, tenor saxophone: It has corks for key risers. It actually took me many years to abandon Phil Woods' right hand position on sax. I'm just not built that way. Ditto my alto and soprano: key riser corks (on the octave keys and rests for these, also). But not my baritone sax. THAT fits perfectly "as is"!

[Jimmy Smith]

Holy smokes man. Reachin a 12th!

[Saxophone Tall]

Holy smokes man. Reachin a 12th!

Yeah, piano fits perfectly me because my fingers are not fat and they fit easily between the black keys, p;us the long reach. Makes playing 10ths a breeze. I use those a lot. Hammond Organ was my first instrument, 4 years before saxophone (1969, 1973).

[Jimmy blue note]

I'm currently in Los Angeles. I have yet to find one that is able to do it. I think mostly "guitar techs" here rather than actual Luthiers, but I don't know yet.

Have one built for you from China. Builders there can give you what you specify with body design, fit and even a classical width (or wider) neck if you wanted.
A re-neck is also a good option, as pointed out. I'd re-neck over a fingerboard replacement. There will be times, times you may not realize now, when your thumb, or hand will have to be positioned along the point of the neck where a neck contour retrofit will just feel wrong. For all the trouble a new fingerboard will entail, a new neck or new guitar is worth considering.
Just my two cents...

[Saxophone Tall]

Have one built for you from China. Builders there can give you what you specify with body design, fit and even a classical width (or wider) neck if you wanted.
A re-neck is also a good option, as pointed out. I'd re-neck over a fingerboard replacement. There will be times, times you may not realize now, when your thumb, or hand will have to be positioned along the point of the neck where a neck contour retrofit will just feel wrong. For all the trouble a new fingerboard will entail, a new neck or new guitar is worth considering.
Just my two cents...

Hi ... My pianist in Detroit goes by "Jimmy Blues..."

This IS a new guitar (I"ll return it if I can't have it modified).

I know of Wu / Lora in China. I'm currently not doing that. Maybe that's the next route, but Wu / Lora specialize in Jazz archtops. I don't see any acoustic guitars on their site. Do you know of other China custom builders?

I don't see why a new fingerboard is a problem. Certainly compromises will be made.

I previously found precisely ONE Luthier who would build an entirely new neck. He would only work on a guitar without a cutout and it sounded like it was a huge project. He also wanted $4000.

What's "wrong" about adding 1/4" or so of wood binding to each side of a neck and plopping longer frets into it?

[sgosnell]

Wu makes acoustic archtops almost exclusively, with carved solid tops and floating pickups if desired. Just because the website says 'jazz archtops', don't assume they're electric only. I ordered mine without any electronics at all, and installed my own floating pickup. Wu carves excellent tops, in the Benedetto style, and they are loud.

I agree that putting a wider fingerboard on a standard neck is a terrible idea. A new neck is just about the only solution, other than learning to play like everyone else does. People with large hands play mandolin, and do it very well. Tal Farlow's hands were probably almost as large as yours, as are Pasquale Grasso's. His pinkie looks to be longer than my middle finger, but he gets around fine on a regular neck.

[Saxophone Tall]

Wu makes acoustic archtops almost exclusively, with carved solid tops and floating pickups if desired. Just because the website says 'jazz archtops', don't assume they're electric only. I ordered mine without any electronics at all, and installed my own floating pickup. Wu carves excellent tops, in the Benedetto style, and they are loud.

I agree that putting a wider fingerboard on a standard neck is a terrible idea. A new neck is just about the only solution, other than learning to play like everyone else does. People with large hands play mandolin, and do it very well. Tal Farlow's hands were probably almost as large as yours, as are Pasquale Grasso's. His pinkie looks to be longer than my middle finger, but he gets around fine on a regular neck.

No, Tal's fingers don't appear to be anywhere near as long as mine. Very few people's are. Maybe Shaq; his are probably bigger. I can easily palm a basketball.

Interestingly though, if I wanted to adopt Tal's thumb style, I'd not use as wide a neck. Pasquale (what a great player!) looks to be about 5 foot 7. Not big hands at all from what I can tell. And just because somebody somewhere wants to cramp up their fingers doesn't mean that I'm going to do so and play an instrument that doesn't fit right when one can be made to do so. Again, I've modified my saxophones (main axe) to fit. Guitar is no different. Neither is my bicycle. Why would a 6'6" guy ride a bike made for a 6"2 guy and risk injury? I had to go custom to get a bike to really fit. The only raso I could afford one is that I got lucky and a heavy metal roadie my size ordered tow and only used one (Waterford). Heck, I just bought a digital piano at double the price and an extra 10 pounds just to get a longer key length / fulcrum. A lot of people don't consider that ill-fitting musical instruments are dangerous. I got a cyst from the wrong RH thumb rest placement on my 100 year old Conn New Wonder alto sax. Not cool. Off to the tech's bench it goes for a mod.

FWIW, I have an 8 string converted to 6 string Stat clone. Those metal cats dig 8 strings... It has a 54 mm nut and a whopping 72 mm string spread @ RH. And it fits great, although I'd use a different neck profile than its "Louisville Slugger" ideally. Harder to get this in flat top or arch top.

The guitar in question is a flattop (Seagull). Does Wu make flat tops? I don't see any on the site.

Precisely, WHAT is wrong with widening a fingerboard?

As stated, if the archtop (Eastman, where Wu worked) that is a 7 string being converted to a 6 string doesn't work out, Wu is the next step for an archtop (although the wait sucks). Also, most of the guitars on his site don't show full specs. One of his 7 strings shows that it's available in "50 or 52 mm nut, but its string spacing @ the top of the fretboard is only 57 mm, so even Wu would have to widen the fretboard. Lora simply said "we can make a guitar to your specifications" without actually answering my precise question. If widening the fretboard won't be done, I'd have a guitar NOT to my specs with little recourse.

Two different guitars for me here - archtop and acoustic.

[RJVB]

Two different guitars for me here - archtop and acoustic.

On this site one has to be more specific. "Archtop" on its own could eve mean a solid-body e-guitar with an arched top, and "acoustic guitar" really covers any kind of guitar played acoustically (that would include classical guitars).

For a Wu build it would surely be best to give Lora a complete description of what you want,, including the width of the fretboard at the neck join and the highest fret you want, and ask for a fully-specified quote. That should coerce them into answering your question if they can/will build for a wider spacing at the saddle, esp. if you mention that you wish the neck profile to match the fretboard width. I do agree this is better; if not we'd be seeing more guitars that cut prices by making the necks thinner than the fretboard.

Which is not to say that one couldn't learn to cope with an overhanging fretboard...

[Jimmy blue note]

Precisely, WHAT is wrong with widening a fingerboard?

.

A fingerboard is an integral part of a neck. The wood is afforded stability by its being fitted and solidly glued to the neck. It's the neck surface that your fingers feel as one piece. I don't know about you, but my thumb rides continuously between the area of the 'neck' and the part of it you're determining to be a separate 'fingerboard'. So it's not one continuous neck surface, it's a neck with a curve contour and a piece of wood hanging on an edge where a thumb might not want a protrusion.
But I'm also thinking of the fretboard and the integrity of a piece of wood that is less than 1/8" thick, shaved along the bottom edge to eliminate the hard edge (I'll assume you'll do this), being slotted deep enough to hold the tang of a fret (reduced integrity of the wood) and then forced under pressure again as the frets are hammered into place. The fret ends being subjected to the filing, crowning and fingerboard beveling (you might get away with eliminating this) and the way that ridge of slotted and pressured wood will possibly be effected by changes in weather and seasonal humidity fluctuations. Steel has a specific expansion coefficient, and wood has another. They're very different, so the frets are hammered in tight and the stress applied relies on the integrity of the fingerboard wood and the neck blank wood beneath. All these forces on a relatively thin piece of wood are really reduced when the fretboard is made one with the neck beneath and then carved into one unit.
It's a little like building a bridge with road surface designed as one unit and deciding that a train can run up the middle by retroactively adding a road surface via a half lane overhang.
Well, it might work. Maybe it'll be fine. Maybe you play without ever touching that area of the neck where the fingerboard joins. Maybe the fret job will be solid and you never have to deal with the fret lift on the edges as the wood expands and contracts. I think there's a chance that it could work, but as a luthier and tech, the fingerboard, especially the fret ends, are something I handle very carefully because it's so stressful and vulnerable.

I can only give you advice and opinion based on a long time building and repairing guitars. In the end, I'll always insist that the owner knows what he or she wants. I have the luxury of making referrals to other luthiers when I question the chance of failure. This is one I wouldn't take, personally.
By the way, both Mr Wu and Yunzhi will build you a flat top guitar. They do a nice job and they have experience with both types of construction. I trust them and have seen their work in both designs.

Best of luck to you. I hope it all works out the way you imagine it!

[Saxophone Tall]

On this site one has to be more specific. "Archtop" on its own could eve mean a solid-body e-guitar with an arched top, and "acoustic guitar" really covers any kind of guitar played acoustically (that would include classical guitars).

For a Wu build it would surely be best to give Lora a complete description of what you want,, including the width of the fretboard at the neck join and the highest fret you want, and ask for a fully-specified quote. That should coerce them into answering your question if they can/will build for a wider spacing at the saddle, esp. if you mention that you wish the neck profile to match the fretboard width. I do agree this is better; if not we'd be seeing more guitars that cut prices by making the necks thinner than the fretboard.

Which is not to say that one couldn't learn to cope with an overhanging fretboard...

I just utterly fail to see what is "wrong" with an overhanging fretboard. Aesthetic concerns? I don't care about those, at all. It's a tool.

I am not going the Wu / Lora route at this juncture. That's somewhat out of my comfort zone due to the time, distance and language issues. Maybe down the line. I didn't see where they made custom fretboards / necks, at all. Maybe they do?

I "get it" about "being specific," but I'm really just referring to a garden variety flattop acoustic guitar, and OTTH, a Jazz guitar, archtop not flattop, with f holes.

[Cunamara]

What's "wrong" about adding 1/4" or so of wood binding to each side of a neck and plopping longer frets into it?

Nothing. It's just going to be really hard to do and make the neck feel good to play. You would have to widen the fingerboard, which would probably take routing out the existing binding or making a rabbet to anchor the new wood into. The fingerboard is then going to protrude beyond the curve of the neck with an acute step-out; more wood would have to go under that (curved to match the curve of the neck) and be shaped to blend in. On the top of the guitar, it would be easier as you just have to add strips of wood alongside the existing fingerboard and glue that down to the top, as well as to the edges of the neck. A pin-style bridge on a flattop is going to be a problem, as it will have to be replaced with one in which the pinholes are spaced wider, or they will pull the strings back to the narrower spacing that you were trying to replace.

It seems like trying to have a tailor make a 40L suit fit you- it can be done with enough money, but it'll never be quite right. Better to get a suit (or a guitar) that fits in the first place and that may mean going tailor-made to begin with.

FWIW, I'm 6'3" and run into this stuff all the time, but probably much less than you. Finding a car I can sit in comfortably, a bike I can ride, a desk chair that I can sit in without getting sore or a desk I can work at without slamming my knee into something, etc. The Western world is designed by and for people 5'8" to 5'11" for the most part. Maybe Holland is different. Oddly enough, despite my shovel like hands I don't find too many guitars that difficult and have never had RSI.

[Saxophone Tall]

A fingerboard is an integral part of a neck. The wood is afforded stability by its being fitted and solidly glued to the neck. It's the neck surface that your fingers feel as one piece. I don't know about you, but my thumb rides continuously between the area of the 'neck' and the part of it you're determining to be a separate 'fingerboard'. So it's not one continuous neck surface, it's a neck with a curve contour and a piece of wood hanging on an edge where a thumb might not want a protrusion.
But I'm also thinking of the fretboard and the integrity of a piece of wood that is less than 1/8" thick, shaved along the bottom edge to eliminate the hard edge (I'll assume you'll do this), being slotted deep enough to hold the tang of a fret (reduced integrity of the wood) and then forced under pressure again as the frets are hammered into place. The fret ends being subjected to the filing, crowning and fingerboard beveling (you might get away with eliminating this) and the way that ridge of slotted and pressured wood will possibly be effected by changes in weather and seasonal humidity fluctuations. Steel has a specific expansion coefficient, and wood has another. They're very different, so the frets are hammered in tight and the stress applied relies on the integrity of the fingerboard wood and the neck blank wood beneath. All these forces on a relatively thin piece of wood are really reduced when the fretboard is made one with the neck beneath and then carved into one unit.
It's a little like building a bridge with road surface designed as one unit and deciding that a train can run up the middle by retroactively adding a road surface via a half lane overhang.
Well, it might work. Maybe it'll be fine. Maybe you play without ever touching that area of the neck where the fingerboard joins. Maybe the fret job will be solid and you never have to deal with the fret lift on the edges as the wood expands and contracts. I think there's a chance that it could work, but as a luthier and tech, the fingerboard, especially the fret ends, are something I handle very carefully because it's so stressful and vulnerable.

I can only give you advice and opinion based on a long time building and repairing guitars. In the end, I'll always insist that the owner knows what he or she wants. I have the luxury of making referrals to other luthiers when I question the chance of failure. This is one I wouldn't take, personally.
By the way, both Mr Wu and Yunzhi will build you a flat top guitar. They do a nice job and they have experience with both types of construction. I trust them and have seen their work in both designs.

Best of luck to you. I hope it all works out the way you imagine it!

Thank you for a very through explanation! I can dig that the added material would not have the support of the neck beneath; I didn't know that frets are "hammered" into place and yeah, that type of force would be difficult for the piece to withstand.

That's why this forum is so great!

FWIW, I play with my really long thumb over the neck, like Hendrix. I'd have to cut half of it off to have it under the neck.

So for the acoustic, flattop Seagull Concert guitar that I recently bought from Sam Ash (which I can return), would you advise having a tech / luthier enlarging the string spacing as much as the existing neck will permit (about 1 mm on each side, from what I can tell), or simply returning it and going the Wu route? It can't possibly go more than 52 or 53 mm string spacing (it's 50 mm now) and the nut is 44 mm.

So, "assuming" that I could deal with those figures, do you think this is worth doing? I do really like the "sound" of this Seagull. I "can" play it (for some reason, acoustic is a little more forgiving that an electric for me as far as string spacing goes, but I'd prefer wider).

This is regarding a flattop acoustic guitar; I have the Eastman 16-7 seven string converted to wide neck 6 string coming (hopefully next week; the seller, who is a luthier, is converting it for me). So, I won't be without a playable guitar while waiting for Wu if I go Wu...

Thanks again for your input!

[Peter C]

What's wrong with an overhanging fretboard? Ouch.

Anyway, I was thinking of taking up sax and sticking a traffic cone in the bell to get more projection, like that guy from Moon Hooch. Don't see why not.

You need a custom-made neck.

[Saxophone Tall]

Nothing. It's just going to be really hard to do and make the neck feel good to play. You would have to widen the fingerboard, which would probably take routing out the existing binding or making a rabbet to anchor the new wood into. The fingerboard is then going to protrude beyond the curve of the neck with an acute step-out; more wood would have to go under that (curved to match the curve of the neck) and be shaped to blend in. On the top of the guitar, it would be easier as you just have to add strips of wood alongside the existing fingerboard and glue that down to the top, as well as to the edges of the neck. A pin-style bridge on a flattop is going to be a problem, as it will have to be replaced with one in which the pinholes are spaced wider, or they will pull the strings back to the narrower spacing that you were trying to replace.

It seems like trying to have a tailor make a 40L suit fit you- it can be done with enough money, but it'll never be quite right. Better to get a suit (or a guitar) that fits in the first place and that may mean going tailor-made to begin with.

FWIW, I'm 6'3" and run into this stuff all the time, but probably much less than you. Finding a car I can sit in comfortably, a bike I can ride, a desk chair that I can sit in without getting sore or a desk I can work at without slamming my knee into something, etc. The Western world is designed by and for people 5'8" to 5'11" for the most part. Maybe Holland is different. Oddly enough, despite my shovel like hands I don't find too many guitars that difficult and have never had RSI.

Thank you. I would absolutely go the full on custom luthier route if finances permitted. That's at the level of my saxophones (I just bought a vintage Selmer Mark VI alto sax for big bucks). I'm more able to pay $2,000 for a guitar than $8,000.

I just visited Europe, including Amsterdam. Yeah, taller people there than other places! Germany as well. It was cool.

Office chairs! I just bought one, and I had to research quite a bit to find one that would accommodate me but not be a "big "and" tall one. That's the same for clothes ... most that are long enough are far too wide.

So, Wu / Lora is affordable. Would you advise just returning the Seagull flattop acoustic and going full Wu? Does he make wider fretboards / necks? I see a max of 52 mm nut (fine) but 57 mm RH string spacing. That's larger than the Seagull (44 mm nut, 50 mm string spacing, can be pushed a mm on each side .. I think..). But if it's custom, I'd like larger, if possible...

Thanks...

[RJVB]

FWIW, I'm 6'3" and run into this stuff all the time [...] The Western world is designed by and for people 5'8" to 5'11" for the most part. Maybe Holland is different.

I'm 1m89 (6'2" ?) which was well above average in my youth but below nowadays. You'd hope the country is following suite, but I never had issues there from what I recall. One thing I did notice there: in normal cars I have to put my seat so far backwards (not even all the way in my Skoda, btw) that traffic lights tend to be blocked by the roof if I'm first in line.

The remark above about pin bridges is very true. You can increase spacing at the saddle a bit by slotting/scoring it but there's only so much you can gain with that.
What model Seagull is that, btw? I had one of their mini-jumbos, which had a 1.75" nut and a spread at the saddle that wasn't too much smaller than that of my archtop (which has approx. 56 mm).

Something else to keep in mind: having large hands like you doesn't necessarily mean their strength and resilience scales up. If you get a wide-neck guitar, esp. and archtop with its usually heavier string, your hands will need to keep down those big bass strings at the end of those long fingers (and supposedly proportionally long arms).

As far as flattops are concerned there is an easy solution to all this: the classical guitar! Nut widths can be up to about 53mm I think, and scale lengths of 660mm exist too. You can even put steel strings on if that's a requirement for you; Thomastik have 2 steel sets for classical, and there are a few other string makers who sell sets with a sufficiently low tension.