Warwick neck thinning.

[B.Flat]

Hello again.

Further to the re-furbishment of my Warwick Fortress One, 1995, (subject of a previous thread for preamp upgrade) I am hoping for advice on the possibility of reducing the front-to-back thickness of the neck.

I would be interested to hear how much wood people think, if any, could be removed without compromising the structural integrity of the neck, and  possible ways of deciding this. A luthier once told me there was a way to decide how much wood was underneath the trussrod by using a magnet and shims, anyone else know about this ?

Also, assuming I go ahead with this, would reducing grades of sandpaper followed by reducing grades of steel wool reproduce the existing finish on the wenge neck ?

 

Answers on a postcard, the winner will be drawn at mid-day.............

Brian

[HazBeen]

The neck finish I understand is a mix of melted wax and lemon oil. These are readily available and it should therefore not be an issue to redo the neck after thinning.

And indeed, different grits and steel wool.

Wrt how much you can reduce depends on several factors and I would take it slow. You can always reduce more, never less.

Do you have a picture if the neck? If it is a 1995 I imagine this is the rather large slide in trussrod, which actually limits how much you can thin the neck quite a bit. A couple mm max.

[Jabba_the_gut]

You might also be surprised as to how little you need to change to make it feel different. I built two basses essentially the same but one felt slightly nicer (to me as this is a personal preference). I measured them with calipers and rechecked the profile. I probably only took a mm off the back of the neck and changed the profile by a similar amount in places and it felt much better to me. He interested to see what you think as you do this. Cheers

[B.Flat]

4 hours ago, HazBeen said:

The neck finish I understand is a mix of melted wax and lemon oil. These are readily available and it should therefore not be an issue to redo the neck after thinning.

And indeed, different grits and steel wool.

Wrt how much you can reduce depends on several factors and I would take it slow. You can always reduce more, never less.

Do you have a picture if the neck? If it is a 1995 I imagine this is the rather large slide in trussrod, which actually limits how much you can thin the neck quite a bit. A couple mm max.

Thanks for the replies.

Yes, HazBeen, it is the slide-in trussrod. I have never seen one out of the neck, I did not realise it was bigger than the two-way.

 

[HazBeen]

6 hours ago, B.Flat said:

Thanks for the replies.

Yes, HazBeen, it is the slide-in trussrod. I have never seen one out of the neck, I did not realise it was bigger than the two-way.

 

It is larger than normal, something like a 1x1 cm, sizeable but manageable. It is hard to give you “proper” advice, but myself I would not be thinning more than a few mm.

[HazBeen]

8 hours ago, Jabba_the_gut said:

You might also be surprised as to how little you need to change to make it feel different. I built two basses essentially the same but one felt slightly nicer (to me as this is a personal preference). I measured them with calipers and rechecked the profile. I probably only took a mm off the back of the neck and changed the profile by a similar amount in places and it felt much better to me. He interested to see what you think as you do this. Cheers

Agreed 100%

[B.Flat]

I am re-thinking this.

I have been spoilt by the neck on my Vigier Passion ii carbon, which though I did not take to immediately, I now think is probably the most comfortable neck (and bass) I have owned in  sisxty years (you were right Ped!).

I can't make the Warwick the same profile etc. but after some very careful adjustments it is not uncomfortable, and I think it is better to leave it alone as it is in unbelievable original condition for its 25 years.

The preamp mod I have now configured so that it is completely reversible.

Time to get back to actual notes and music and avoid the rabbit hole of "perfection". Just further to the topic of comfortable instruments, the openening pages of "Bird Lives" by Ross Russell about Charlie Parkers' alto sax puts it all in perspective !

 

[prowla]

I’ve got one Warwick whose neck is too chunky; I’ve often thought about whether to trim it a bit. 

[Chopthebass]

A lot of 2-way truss rods are about 10-11mm tall and 6mm wide. Assuming your neck is on the chunkier side at 23mm @ first fret, I would assume fingerboard is 6mm at center, plus truss rod = 17mm. Leaves about 6mm of meat. I wouldn't take more than 2mm.

[4000]

I’m not sure about later Warwicks, but I know Martin Petersen has said a problem with the earlier basses is the truss rod is too near to the back of the neck. If that’s the case I’d be wary about slimming it down, 

[Chopthebass]

13 hours ago, 4000 said:

I’m not sure about later Warwicks, but I know Martin Petersen has said a problem with the earlier basses is the truss rod is too near to the back of the neck. If that’s the case I’d be wary about slimming it down, 

Agreed. I only assumed it is flush with the underside of the board. If they buried it deeper, then its a bit risky.