Details of Howe-Orme tilting neck [Pictures] - created 09-18-2008
kuun, murray - 09/18/2008.08:01:11
There is an article on a great sounding Howe-Orme guitar in the October issue of "Acoustic Guitar". I'd like to know where I can find more detailed information regarding their "tilting neck" mechanism. I have googled but can't find much in terms of drawings etc.
I'm not technically minded but it looks as though the heel only touches the body at the bottom where the hinge is and at the top where the neck rests against the upper edge of the body. Normally, would such minimal contact with the body not negatively affect sound and stability (left to right) of the neck?
Generally, to players, would it be desireable to have a classical guitar with an adjustable neck? It just seems that it may be nice to be able to make quick micro adjustements.
I can't answer the question about the Howe-Orme guitar, but I can offer that classical guitars since, at least, Stauffer in the mid 1800's. Many modern builders are using an adjustable neck as well, especially many of the lattice builders.
Its something that I would like to incorporate in my work some day.
Murray,
I note that adjustable necks were already in use in 1806 in Napoli. I wrote some lines on this (same magazine) on a lyra-guitar by G.B. Fabricatore who has that feature. I found that lyra sleeping in the "reserve" of the Paris Cité de la Musique.
I would like to know more about their soundboard techniques, equally interesting.
Me too. More interested in the partially arched or domed tops and their early double soundboards than in the tilting neck system. There was a topic here a while ago with some links but didn't made it's way into the library.
By all accounts, this particular guitar (steel strings) has a fantastic sound. There must be something to that strange looking dome.
I'd like to incorporate an adjustable neck on #5 classical (I'm still busy with #4 classical, NJ archtop and NJ mandolin). In fact, I'd like to make it with a cantilevered F/B too, if possible. I have seen a number of adjustable neck systems and to be honest, I don't really understand exactly how they work.
Alain, how difficult is your system to implement?
Murray,
I do not believe it has a "sound" advantage, it is just more convenient and/because adjustable than the fixed neck. The Fleta "dovetail" is a good solution too, as all violins and steel string guitars makers know.
At the beginning I used a simple bolt, as the ones bought in any hobby store. Then Bernhardt Kresse, the very famous luthier from Köln kindly told me that the Rubners still make and sell the "real" thing. Very nice and cheap, ask for "halschreuben" pieces. I am also a fan of their tuners.
Take a look at Patent for neck.
Nice info Bill, thanks.
Here's the patent for the domed top and internal resonator.
Paco,
By the way, have you received my question about Weissgerber? I do not find those open strings sound samples you quote.
-"This internal resonator could be classified in the same categories as its (later) cousins, Maccaferri.. and even Gelas you are right. "
The concept is the same, only the ways to approach and resolve them are different. Every maker made them their own way. Howe/Back, Maccaferri, Gelas, Rod Hoyer, the typical spanish tornavoz... The truth is that all of them were usually sort-lived gadgets. Mainly dropped due to the mess and increased costs of installing them just to get a not specially radical tonal variation over a simpler and more traditional guitar design. Anyway I find them really interesting and appealing for one-off instruments.
-"By the way, have you received my question about Weissgerber? I do not find those open strings sound samples you quote."
Yes, I've been outside this weekend. I'll answer you in a few minutes.
Fun topic, these adjustable necks.
From Rick Turner's comments on building steel string guitars based on the Howe/Orme design, I understand he welds the truss rod to the heel reinforcement rod. This rod is the "part C" in the patent drawing posted by Bill Snyder.
This seems to add a lot of strength to the heel.
What do you all think about this?
Dave
Alain: I'm very interested in using the stauffer style neck mechanism. I have contacted Rubner and they sent me a picture of the bolt system. I have some trouble in understanding the correct use. I believe that you have used this mechanism. Can You explain how to use it. Thancks.
It is not difficult to install, just a compression bolt in the middle of the heel. I do not respect the original Stauffer design totally since I usually do not realize any wood tenon, as he did, to hold the joint before the strings are tense. I think it is not compulsory.
A 200 years old solution. Unbeatable.
The only new idea which, I believe, brings a real plus is Allan Beardsell double thread bolt. Very bright, as explained in AL 92 Winter 2007.
Terrific stuff gentlemen, thanks. I think this sort of ergonomic "innovation" should be incorporated in more musical instruments. That is, as long as they do not detract from the ultimate sound quality. They should also not marr the aesthetics too much either.
Ergonomics is a very much-overlooked science when it comes to music instruments. Especially in violins - but that is another subject.
Alain, looking at your photo, do I assume the 2 small metal plates will leave an impression on the white tape - to make it easier to fit the cones? Would one would then remove the white tape?
Hi Murray,
It is a basically sound and extremely foolproof idea... thousands and thousands of guitars like that by gentlemen all over Central and Eastern Europe.
Now, coming to my personal treatment of this old idea. The two "metal plates" are two small Phillips screws heads. I screw them until their head stick to the hardwood plated and reinforced heel. I stick them with a pearl of epoxy (or even Titebond) while screwing. Then I file a little their heads and realize the alignment of the neck by the same token.
The white tape is in fact a piece of bone 1.5 mm thick. The contact "steel against bone" or "brass against bone" is what I felt was acoustically the best after many trials. But wood on wood (hardwoods) works quite well too, as for original Stauffers. I have built two dozens of guitars like that. Until now, no problema.
A very old trick, known since the Viennese vogue of such guitars, is to add a shim of hardwood close to the bottom of the heel and bolt strongly at the end... so that your neck, once well aligned, becomes as hyperstatic as a Spanish neck.
This design has many advantages for those who want to experiment a lot, as maybe you are. I appreciated much to be able to test a serie of different boxes with a limited number of necks. I feel neck building is really time consuming. Plus the fact that changing a soundboard is really easy with that basic design too.
Alain,
I got response from Rubner: the mechanism is indeed cheap (it costs twice as much to get it shipped in fact), so I guess I'll order tree of them.
Am I correct to assume that you put in the shim at the bottom when you have a good set? Is it possible to leave the bottom unshimmed "floating " as it were, to allow for constant adjustment?
I'm going to use headless bolts for the two upper supports instead of te screws, so I can also adjust those.
Bart,
Yes, the shim is just placed once everything is in place, well settled. I am still unconvinced it brings a bonus (soundwise).. but some people prefer to know that this design can be made "hyperstatic" at the end.
They are convinced, and one who has never built a Stauffer can understand that, that hyperstaticity is a must for good sound.
I am still totally unable, after my two dozen Stauffer like instruments, to make an acoustical difference between the two designs.
Bolts will be nice of course. But the caveat is that you have to settle and stick your bridge after having treated correctly the alignment problem. If you modify your bolts after the intonation, you can destroy it (the intonation).
This intonation problem is (rarely once you have done one, but often when you only have theoretical views
A point of detail. The superiority of the Stauffer above the Howe-Orme solution (as I can see it on the Patent above quoted) is that the regulation bolt is located rather down on the heel and that you do not modify anymore the upper two compression points, which are of course much higher and close to the fingerboard, for changing the alignments and action.
I used the word "innovation", with inverted commas, because I did not have another suitable word at that time Alain:-) I'm sure you know what I mean.
If intonation could be a potential problem, would it not be better then to use an adjustment system that allows the neck to slide up and down vertically rather than pivot/hinge (if there is such a system)? It does seem as though most of the adjustment systems pivot/hinge rather than slide. I don't know, I'm just asking.
This sliding up and down system exists and is under patent by a U.S."innovator"(I forgot his name, Babicz, sorry if I am wrong ???). I think I saw that even the Martin people use it, in a limited way however.
The intonation issue is extremely limited (negligible I said) and should not be opposed to the very attractive simplicity of the Stauffer design.
Pons and Lacote also "invented" in the 1820's their "superior" system. My old friend Jimmy Westbrook owns a very exciting Lacote (one in the world!) with it. Nice but complex... apparently it did not meet success.
I can confirm what is said above about Babicz (patented) idea. You can Google that. The sliding up and down move can ease the intonation issue that goes (for better hears than mine) with adjustable necks. But adjustable necks mean adjustable action and, in theory, action is an important factor in computing your ideal length for a given string and reference tuning. So the Babicz idea is likely worthwhile but not a 100% solution. I'd like to see it.
The Pons/Lacote 1827 solution could have been even closer to the ideal solution..but so intricate (and it relies upon the flexibility of the fingerboard! Not for me).For a first exploration of adjustable necks, the Stauffer-Ertl choice is generally considered as good.
I also think that the standard Taylor bolted neck is something that could be very useful to classical makers (personal view of course)
Hi Alain, can one actually google the actual patent? I see the links above go straight to the patent. When I try, I get nowehere.
At the end of the day, if I do implement an adjustment system, it is going to have to be a very simple, commercialy available, one. My mechanical abilities are just about zero.
It would be nice to have a system which is easily user adjustable but maybe more important to have a system which can only be used by the luthier. Last night I glued on my #4 neck (done on my solera which has the neck angle built-in) and now, checking it with a straight edge, I find that the bottom E string may be 0.5mm too high over the 12th fret. Not serious and can be sorted with saddle/nuts settings but it would be nice to be able to twiddle a knob.........
Murray,
I am a fan myself of the Stauffer stuff (with the shim based hyperstatic blocking) but the Taylor treatment (with two bolts) is very nice too. I suppose it is still correctly described at the Frank Ford web-site.
The Taylor treatment was in recent times the first (I believe) to really try to hide, at first glance, the fact that the neck is adjustable. I prefer for my guitars the neatness of the cantilever forward fingerboard, but I understand fully those who prefer the opposite choice.
Is this the one?
Yes Bill, Thanks. The sliding neck is presented as a "side topic" after his special string attachment. As often, the US patent office did not check very thoroughly very old patents, and non US ones. I feel that maybe the sliding neck is a first, I am less sure the string attachment thing is really new, except its "spread" (English?) aspect maybe. But such a protection could be largely useless out of the US (and even in the US) since this principle of attachment was used by some luthiers since two centuries too.
I would like to have access to the figures (Fig.6).. but apparently I have not the right ??
Here's the full Babicz neck patent
Thanks Paco. So it was a different patent. I admire the fellows who still do that.
Looking at the last patent, it seems as though the neck is held in place only by friction - is that right?
I do not see clearly what you mean. Parts 13 and 22 are giving a neat vertical positioning? It is a nice design, a bit massive for a classical
instrument.
But I tend to think that the intonation problem as main argument of this rather complex treatment is not justified, even for extremely exacting hears. Possibly marketing more than anything else
You are probably right Alain. I am a great believer in "simplicity is the essense of good design".
I agree Alain about the Stauffer system. You don't need to retune the strings when altering the action in these guitars. The neck simply rotates increasing or decreasing the neck angle. I was surprised about that behavior the first times I tampered with this system. I was expecting needing to retune the guitar after turning the clock key, but the guitars remained tuned. I have to say I've never measured if the true string length varied to some extent. I'll have to measure if any small change actually happens inducing slight intonation problems. I wonder if in the 14 frets off guitars the system works as good as in the more common 12 frets off stauffered guitars. The ones I used more. Maybe the 14th fret neck joint induces some problems because the neck rotates beyond the center point of the string length (14th fret instead of 12th). I have to measure and check all my stauffered guitars and tell you about what I find.
Paco,
Suppose you have your compression line (or your compression bolts) roughly 20 mm below your 12 th. fret. Then the change in the 12 th. fret position, relatively to the bridge saddle will be :
20*1/325=0.06 mm
quite small and not perceptible by standard and impartial human hears I guess.
If you use the Stauffer trick for a 14 th. fret guitar it does not change this order of magnitude.
Thanks Alain. To tell the truth, I didn't notice until now any intonation problems in my old stauffered archtops with a 14 or 14 & 1/2 fret neck joint. Just wanted to made sure that actually nothing relevant happens about intonation while tilting necks. I measured some of my guitars and found none or almost negligible differences in true string lengths.
I've been working up to the point where I try an adjustable neck. I've looked at the vertical adjustment system, but the hardware is quite specialized to make it work.
I am also in the simple is good camp, so I really like the Stauffer system. When I thought about the intonation issue, I thought that if the fulcrum was as high as possible, then it would have the least negative effect. That way its mostly the heel that moves.
With the intonation issues of this style of neck, wouldn't a trapeze tailpiece and a floating bridge facilitate tweaking the intonation?
Douglas,
Widely spreading the ties (for strings), his other idea, is more susceptible to have an interest, even for classical guitars maybe. But I can be wrong of course.
Alain, I wonder if you or someone else tried the Stauffer neck adjustment on a steel stringed guitar?
I also wonder if you (or someone else) have some more pictures on how it is installed and how the thing you can buy from Rubner looks?
Of course, Tyko. I have some of them. Most old east german archtops (and a few western as well) made in-between the late '40s and the mid '60s have the Stauffer neck system. That's heavy gauged strings with loads of tension. Also, many flat-tops had it, but it was a less common practice than in archtops.
I'll select a few pics of my guitars neck joints and post some tomorrow.
PS: Hey, Tyko. There's a nice picture already posted in this thread. Check post #14.
I can just find one picture in this thread and that is indeed a nice one....
But I was more thinking about how the whole metal stuff looks and how it it is installed in the wood, in other word how the wood is drilled out or carved out.
No problem. Pics due tomorrow. it's too late here in Spain.
Here we go.
The whole system
The neck pocket
Neck pocket with the stuff installed
This a full view of the "halschreuben" and the front face of the neck. Notice that the squared nut has it's four tips curved to to get anchored against the neck block. Squared nut can be susbtituted by modern T-nuts
This is a inside view showing how the squared nut is tightly attached against the neck block.
The system assembled and working
Now you can go from here
...to here taking less tan a turn of the bolt.
These last two pics are from an Otwin Guitar. Otwin used their own bolts driven with any small rod instead of the traditional and specialized squred clock-key. If you lose the proper clock-key you are lost! Not with Otwins. That bolt end works as a strap pin as well.
Most modern makers using the Stauffer system use Hex keys instead of squared.
All those pics I've posted belong to old systems made in the '50s and '60s. All of them need a shim in the upper part of the neck block to make the system work right. In the old days they were always made of wood. Currently, many builders like Sobell, Forster or Beardsell use harder shims like the bone one showed by Alain (in the picture in #14 post) and a couple of steel or brass rods embedded in the neck end to improve stability, support and tone transmission.
-"Sobell, Forster or Beardsell use harder shims like the bone one showed by Alain"
About the shim used by modern makers I should have said "a hard, stiff and fixed plate" instead of a removable wooden shim.
If interested for steel strings, Turner and Doolin are good examples too. The pioneer of things to come likely Beardsell. Good photos Paco.
Thanks Alain.
In the old days every builder used the typical squared clock-key to drive "halschreuben". These keys are not easy to get lost along the years and they were used in different sizes. Here's a chart of the clock-key numbers just in case anyone has to deal with old european guitars
And here is a set of useful multiple keys suited for any of those old guitars "halschreuben".
Thanks for the pictures and the discussion!
Yes, thanks for the great pictures!
Alan Beardsell lives very close to me, I gotta go meet him one of these days. Very interesting work, though I didn't see anything about an adjustable neck on his website. Maybe I missed it?
OK, upon closer inspection, and you have to look closely for it, he calls it "tilt control".
Thanks very much for all the pictures, now I got a grip of it!
I have big lust to try it out right now.....maybe on the 12-string Nashville tuned (just the octave strings from a 12 string set two times) guitar I am currently building.
Anyone who do their one variations of it? It must work with a normal T-nut and some nice bolt I guess.
I just realize that if you are doubtful about the system it is easy to double up with a hanger bolt above to lock it with if you don´t want to change it to often.
-"It must work with a normal T-nut and some nice bolt I guess."
Sure it will work. The original Halschreuben has a brass (or steel) piece which is secured to the neck block with the round nut shown in the pictures. It has a threaded channel to screw the bolt to it and not directly to the nut. But the Otwin system comprises only a bolt and a nut, so the bolt is screwed directly to the nut. In my experience it works the same. I find no difference. The only drawback of the simpler system is that the nut can easily fell off inside the soundbox when removing the bolt. This doesn't happen with the mentioned brass piece. This is not really a problem in round hole guitars, but could be a mess for F-hole archtops to get the nut again in place. In this case, the original system with the anchored brass piece would be advisable.
-"it is easy to double up with a hanger bolt above to lock it with if you don´t want to change it to often."
Yes, but it's not needed. It doesn't move and there's no need to move it often. Once you get the desired action just forget it. It's only needed to check (and sometimes readjust) the action if you remove all the strings at a time. For this system is advisable changing the string one from one. Remember that this is an isostatic system. If you remove all the strings tension the neck is loose. Necks are left loose on purpose. As I said before, this system is not a static joint like most guitars have (glued or screwed). It is an isostatic system, the strings tension holds the neck in place tight enough. The bolt without strings tension does nothing but holding the neck in place and ready to go. The trick here is placing the neck into the pocket and turn the bolt until it holds the neck's front face slightly touching the neck block face inside the pocket. The neck is loose but don't go further for now. Put the strings and tune the guitar normally. Now check the action. It's probably a bit too high... or quite high. This is the time to turn the bolt again to get the action we like. As we turn the bolt the neck tilts backwards getting the fretboard closer to the strings. It's that easy.
A nice set of Howe-Orme instrument's photos can be found on the 2006 "past exhibitions" part of the "Museum of making music" site.
I'm just curious as how you think this system compares to Mike Doolin's system? Advantages verses disadvantages.
I do not know the details of Doolin's version but I can expect it is basically a Stauffer-Ertl design, with maybe secondary refinements as for other recent US builders (only Babicz's "vertical move"idea is different, possibly new (?), but complex without reason.. except marketing
The Back-Howe-Orme solution has a slight disadvantage to my eyes. The last adjustment is, if I get it right, made by turning a screw located close to the fingerboard, the fixed point being at the very bottom of the heel). This unfortunately changes the location of the frets much more, for a same angle of tilt, than for the Stauffer one.
When Rick Turner, a great collector of H-O guitars, decided to complete an adjustable neck design he chose, basically, a Stauffer solution (see an old AL on this). I believe he saw the difference in the stability of the intonation of course, and made the sound choice. As I have so often "explained" to cautious luthiers everywhere (at MIMF too) the disadvantages of the Stauffer neck are not important and certainly not intonation.
Alain, When you get some free time you might want to check out the Doolin system. You might like it. Once you set the top bolt from the inside then the adjustment can be done from the out side. And the neck stays in place when the strings are removed.
Never tried the Doolin system myself, but It seems a clever improvement of the simplest Stauffer system. Anyway, don't be concerned about the neck getting loose when string tension is released, It won't fall, and reseting the neck if necessary (it's not always necessary) it's a matter of seconds. I don't see any problem with it.
I'd like to try the Doolin system, but just like it seems to be a new, quite simple, reliable and different approach to adjustable necks. But not because I feel that the original system should be necessarily improved beyond the bone shim and brass contact/aligning points that Alain suggested.
I have the same kind of reaction as Paco above. No problem during restringing with Stauffer, you just bolt strong during the transition (i.e. changing all strings) and release just a few seconds after your strings are tight.
Recall, I am a lazy person,and a trained engineer of (almost
This being said, I appreciate much some US makers recent ideas, and this includes Doolin of course
Hi Chris,
Where would one find info about the Doolin system, I'd like to have a look at it some time.
What I know about it I pretty much learned here from Mark Swanson and the artical in American Lutherie the issue number I don't have right yet. I have also had some discussions via emails with Mike Doolin also. You might want to start a discussion on it and see what info comes up. We have had some good ones here but it might be a while till it gets to the library. There is a view of the neck block and flying buttresses in my video in a discussion going on now but not a whole lot to see.
Doolin gives all details on his own way to realize a (Stauffer style) adjustable neck joint in American lutherie number 86, Summer 2006. The old logic is fully respected. A larger tenon, and an extra upper bolt to hold things in place are the two main additions. Largely on the strong side.
Nice to see a maker of this level choosing this kind of solution.
Since that artical Mike Doolin has made the bottom bolt accessed from outside the guitar so the neck can be adjusted with the strings on and simply by turning the screw.
http://www.doolinguitars.com/adjneck.html
OK. Thanks. I did not notice he had first made the "inside" choice. I suspect he was a little shy to show the adjustment screw when he started. Something, for pro builders, like a "coming out"
No, the fact is something like Mike didn't realize that since the top bolt and left right yawl set screws were in line and acted as pivot points that he didn't need to loosen the top bolt to adjust the neck and that he could reverse the bottom screw to adjust from out side until after the artical was published. Which goes to show that we all learn as we learn. Also some have eliminated the top bolt in their choice. The other tip Mike gave me was the treatment of the access hole was a string mounting ferrule from a Telecaster. Although you could leave the ferrule out and just leave a hole in the wood but then it's some what of a risk that the finish could be chipped later. He left it up to me to figure out a way to capture the knock down furniture style capture bolt in the heel. I'm sure he would have told me but where the fun in that.
What is the dimensions on Stauffers screw and on Doolins? I am now using m6 for the 12-stringed High tuned (Nashville tuned) one I am building right now. I guess it should work as good with for example m5 or less.
Later on I will post some photos on my solution for the whole thing.
Tyko,
I really would like to see a factory design a new model(using the Beardsell idea for instance... a new idea that counts to my eyes).
If one is fitting an adjustable neck to a steel string, would/could one omit a truss rod?
These are two different things. Adjustable or detachable bolt-on necks avoid further conventional neck resets making them way easier. But they don't prevent neck bowing or warpage. Using truss rods is always advisable with any kind of neck joints.
That could interest all fans of adjustable necks. Google on "Brunner guitars", outdoor guitars in Lavin, Switzerland. The trick used for the bridge is really fun.
Regarding Doolin adjustable necks. Looks like a "push-pull" configuration with the only contact with the guitar body being the 5 points of contact which are metal to metal and only wood to wood contact being on the sides of the tenon. My question is what happens to the sound energy transmitted to the body? Am I missing something?
There is some exageration in the influence on sound of , say, rock solid (neck to body) adjustment devices. It is presented often as a paramount factor in the quality of your sound. I give an anecdote that largely infirm that.
We had in Paris (unfortunately they disappear) a dozen Russian night-clubs where expert "Tzigane" orchestras were justifying the very high entry prices (more than food quality often
But they needed a new guitar each year I were told
My question is what happens to the sound energy transmitted to the body?
Much of it will be lost. But, the vast majority of players, and most likely all listeners, won't ever notice. It's very small.
But it is real. Like the difference between a 'stock' showroom engine and one that was "blueprinted". The 'blueprinting' process is simply making each specification for that engine, -exactly- the best it can be, where the factory's tolerances leave a wider fudge factor. the end result is an engine that is much more efficient, will last longer, and will put out all the power it can possibly put out, given the same accessories as the factory stock offering. But few of us would ever feel the difference on the commute to work. Hence, "good enough" is good enough for most, but for a few, it isn't 'good enough'.
I attended a luthier's gathering a couple months' ago, and one thing I vividly came away with that I had noticed also at the last A.S.I.A. gathering I attended was how few guitar builders can actually pull the max from a given guitar. There were many great players there, but none could push the guitars to their edge. We can talk about a guitar's "headroom" all day long, but how can you know what it is if you've not got the tools to reach the headroom's ceiling, even if simply fr evaluating? I'm sure many in attendance thought I was nuts, or a showoff, for how hard I played each guitar handed t me, but all I was doing was pushing it to see what it could give me back. Many was the guitar's owner who was taken aback at what their guitars _could_ sound like!. While we rarely need to play to an instrument's maximum potential, we certainly can't evaluate the instrument if we can't. That's like buying a new 'Vette and never giving it more than half throttle, yet going around and saying "wow! This thing's got power!". Sure, even at half throttle, it'll blow away 90% of everything at the stoplight, but how do you know what it -can- give you, if you don't know how t drive it t its maximum, at least once?
All this to say, most won't notice if there's anything lacking, and it's these same people who will argue that nothing was lost.
Excuse me for my ignorance. I really looked on the web first.
How do I find the contact details for Rubner?
I am very interested in their bolts for my next projects.
Thanks,
Jacob
Google on Thomas Rubner GMBH Markneukirchen. Nice family but they are not much accustomed to have customers so far away from the German/ Tchequia border. Speak slowly if not in German
Thanks Alain.
I'll try German.
Jacob
My interest for adjustable necks is now deeply rooted and, for classical guitars (only field I can speak with some kind of experience behind me) I am now pretty sure that the influence upon sound, if compared with the Spanish heel solution or even the violin-Fleta solution, is not absolutely zero (as Mario think, see above, for steel string instrument) but extremely limited, infinitesimal I would say. The fact that it has become an extremely rare choice for concert guitars does not impress me anymore. I know that, if sincere, nobody will make a difference in a blind or measured test.
This being said, I went too far in one occasion. But, it was in fact the result of a little tragedy. The worst thing that ever occurred to me in this activity. A bad sticking of a cedar stack for a traditional Spanish heel. The neck was no more rock solid for sure. A brand new instrument and in a few seconds a wreck.
I just cut, in a moment of boldness of mine, the heel flush out of the box, it happened it was one millimeter ahead of the 12 th. fret.
Result is a fingerboard in two parts, almost not visible but.. I do not recommend that "solution"
