Allparts D&B Jaguar necks group order (it is possible!)

[BTL]

On finishing, I'm thinking it may be easiest to do that locally as a one-off (or DIY, obviously). I'll offer an amber-tinted satin polyurethane finish for an additional $150, and I'll try to keep a couple of finished necks ready to ship at all times.

Here's what that looks like, but disregard the glossy headstock face with logo. I will not offer headstock finishing with logos.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Ci6KNRctqMG ... BiNWFlZA==

This is my painter's "standard amber", but I'm sure we can adjust the tint as long as everybody is on the same page. If we do, the tint we choose will be my "standard amber" going forward.

[BTL]

Quoting the previous post, I'll reach out today to get pricing on the following:

SPECS FOR QUOTE:
Scale Length: 24"
Neck Profile Shape: Standard C
Frets: 22 Vintage tall frets (.079" x .055")
Wood: Maple with rosewood fretboard and white binding
Finish: Quote unfinished & finished
Fretboard Radius: 9.5"
Inlays: White pearloid fretboard dots and black side marker dots
Neck Binding: White
Nut Width: 1-5/8"
Heel Width: 2-3/16"
Heel Shape: Round
Tuning Peg Holes: Vintage 2-step hole
0.34" (8.5mm) bushing-hole diameter
0.25" (6.5mm) post-hole diameter
Truss Rod Adjustment Location: Heel
Neck Thickness: 0.85" at first fret 0.95" at twelfth fret

Understanding this is a '65 neck spec with a couple of modern tweaks, I suspect this will be popular enough to move 30 through the market as long as they are priced right.

Are we all in alignment?

[ryland]

Quoting the previous post, I'll reach out today to get pricing on the following:

SPECS FOR QUOTE:
Scale Length: 24"
Neck Profile Shape: Standard C
Frets: 22 Vintage tall frets (.079" x .055")
Wood: Maple with rosewood fretboard and white binding
Finish: Quote unfinished & finished
Fretboard Radius: 9.5"
Inlays: White pearloid fretboard dots and black side marker dots
Neck Binding: White
Nut Width: 1-5/8"
Heel Width: 2-3/16"
Heel Shape: Round
Tuning Peg Holes: Vintage 2-step hole
0.34" (8.5mm) bushing-hole diameter
0.25" (6.5mm) post-hole diameter
Truss Rod Adjustment Location: Heel
Neck Thickness: 0.85" at first fret 0.95" at twelfth fret

Understanding this is a '65 neck spec with a couple of modern tweaks, I suspect this will be popular enough to move 30 through the market as long as they are priced right.

Are we all in alignment?

I'd be in for at least one with these specs and maybe two depending on price. Unfinished is fine with me.

[BTL]

I'd be in for at least one with these specs and maybe two depending on price. Unfinished is fine with me.

That's awesome! I feel like these will be popular enough to move 30 easily enough once word gets out, especially unfinished.

Once I have prices and some kind of timeframe from Allparts, I'll post a for sale thread.

[OffYourFace]

I'd be in for at least one with these specs and maybe two depending on price. Unfinished is fine with me.

That's awesome! I feel like these will be popular enough to move 30 easily enough once word gets out, especially unfinished.

Once I have prices and some kind of timeframe from Allparts, I'll post a for sale thread.

THank you!

[sciuri]

Oh, and things that are different between our spec and the JGRO:

Specifications:
Scale Length: 24"
Neck Profile Shape: C
Frets: 21 Vintage frets (.079" x .043") - 22 Vintage tall frets (.079" x .055")
Wood: Maple with rosewood fretboard - Maple with bound rosewood fretboard
Finish: None/Unfinished
Fretboard Radius: 7.25" - 9.5"
Inlays: White fretboard and side marker dots - Pearl fretboard and black side marker dotts
Nut Width: 1-5/8"
Heel Width: 2-3/16"
Heel Shape: Round
Tuning Peg Holes: Vintage 2-step hole
0.34" (8.5mm) bushing-hole diameter
0.25" (6.5mm) post-hole diameter
Truss Rod Adjustment Location: Heel
Neck Thickness:
0.85" at first fret
0.95" at twelfth fret

Are we sure we want Allpart's version of vintage tall frets (0.079" x 0.055")?

From Fender's manual, the AO 60s Jaguar "vintage tall" measures at 0.083" x 0.045" which is really just a hair taller than their regular vintage frets.

From Fender's website:
6230: Vintage (.078″ x .043″).
6150: Vintage jumbo (.102″ x .042″).
6105: Modern narrow and tall (.090″ x .055″).
6100: Jumbo (.110″ x .055″).
6130: Medium jumbo (.106″ x .036″).

Allparts 0.079" x 0.055" seems like it would feel more like (extra narrow) narrow tall, which is my least favorite fret size. One could level the frets down but it would be just another cost. I would be more in favor of their vintage frets (Allparts 0.079” x 0.043”).

Or have you all found that Allparts necks tend to need a lot of fretwork regardless (fret leveling, re-crowning, fret ends, etc) and so having the extra material to work with is desirable?

EDIT: And thank you for coordinating all of this!

[BTL]

[...] Are we sure we want Allpart's version of vintage tall frets (0.079" x 0.055")? [...]

[...] Or have you all found that Allparts necks tend to need a lot of fretwork regardless (fret leveling, re-crowning, fret ends, etc) and so having the extra material to work with is desirable?

EDIT: And thank you for coordinating all of this!

You're welcome, and thanks to all for their input and MTFBWY for getting this started!

My experience is that Allparts necks (made in Japan) need very little work to be as comfortable and playable as any other neck. Vintage tall seemed to offer the most flexibility, but I highlighted the fret size options on page 4 and copied them again here just to remind everybody what they are.

[Allparts'] supplier offers the following fret sizes: Jumbo (0.118” x 0.055”), vintage tall (0.079” x 0.55”), or vintage (0.079” x 0.043”)

[MayTheFuzzBeWithYou]

Power to the people!

Also: I‘m bad at frets… I never measured - I never really cared.
Don‘t have a guitar that I hate because of the frets… but I also don‘t know what I prefer… this must be the downside of custom neck building. But glad that some of us do know! I‘m looking forward to it either way!

[BTL]

The 6105 profile is what I use on all of my custom builds (0.093 x 0.059) and my clients love it, so I'm heavily biased towards some version of vintage tall. I feel it offers longer fret life while still giving a vintage look.

[GilmourD]

Quoting the previous post, I'll reach out today to get pricing on the following:

SPECS FOR QUOTE:
Scale Length: 24"
Neck Profile Shape: Standard C
Frets: 22 Vintage tall frets (.079" x .055")
Wood: Maple with rosewood fretboard and white binding
Finish: Quote unfinished & finished
Fretboard Radius: 9.5"
Inlays: White pearloid fretboard dots and black side marker dots
Neck Binding: White
Nut Width: 1-5/8"
Heel Width: 2-3/16"
Heel Shape: Round
Tuning Peg Holes: Vintage 2-step hole
0.34" (8.5mm) bushing-hole diameter
0.25" (6.5mm) post-hole diameter
Truss Rod Adjustment Location: Heel
Neck Thickness: 0.85" at first fret 0.95" at twelfth fret

Understanding this is a '65 neck spec with a couple of modern tweaks, I suspect this will be popular enough to move 30 through the market as long as they are priced right.

Are we all in alignment?

I'm in for one. If the quote is low enough possibly two.

[OffYourFace]

vintage tall (0.079” x 0.55”)

I wouldn't be surprised if that's a mistake. That seems like an odd size that no one else really offers. They're website is full of errors but who knows.

I should add... on my Allparts D&B strat neck with the vintage frets, I had to do some fretwork. I got the neck from member HNB, who did a nice vintage worn finish on the back. The frets needed a level and crown and there was some sprouted ends that I had to round over with file.

I wasn't the original owner of the neck so who knows what it was exposed to. I just want to say that extra fretwork could be needed but I think it's probably not the usual case. I'm sure BeeTL will go over them all before shipping them out.

[GilmourD]

vintage tall (0.079” x 0.55”)

I wouldn't be surprised if that's a mistake. That seems like an odd size that no one else really offers. They're website is full of errors but who knows.

I should add... on my Allparts D&B strat neck with the vintage frets, I had to do some fretwork. I got the neck from member HNB, who did a nice vintage worn finish on the back. The frets needed a level and crown and there was some sprouted ends that I had to round over with file.

I wasn't the original owner of the neck so who knows what it was exposed to. I just want to say that extra fretwork could be needed but I think it's probably not the usual case. I'm sure BeeTL will go over them all before shipping them out.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's Jescar 55085, which is close.

[BTL]

Would spec'ing the necks with "vintage tall" frets be a deal breaker for anybody? Would spec'ing the necks with "vintage" frets be a deal breaker for anybody?

My hope is to make the greatest number of potential customers happy, and "vintage tall" seems to check that box, but I might be wrong. Should I ask that question on the main forum?

At this point, that's really the only open item .

[Steadyriot.]

Would spec'ing the necks with "vintage tall" frets be a deal breaker for anybody? Would spec'ing the necks with "vintage" frets be a deal breaker for anybody?

My hope is to make the greatest number of potential customers happy, and "vintage tall" seems to check that box, but I might be wrong. Should I ask that question on the main forum?

At this point, that's really the only open item .

I’m all for vintage tall. 6105 is my jam. Hell I could go 6100 but I don’t think the rest would go for such train tracks!
Vintage frets aren’t a dealbreaker but also not my favorite.

[Daitong II]

Would spec'ing the necks with "vintage tall" frets be a deal breaker for anybody? Would spec'ing the necks with "vintage" frets be a deal breaker for anybody?

My hope is to make the greatest number of potential customers happy, and "vintage tall" seems to check that box, but I might be wrong. Should I ask that question on the main forum?

At this point, that's really the only open item .

6105s seem to be a good middle ground for most, and my personal preference. My only deviation from everything was on going 1.65 for the nut width, but it’s not sacrosanct for me.