Neck joint - is this normal?

[Rob_J]

I just bought a used 2006 Taylor 414ce. I have a question about the visible neck to headstock joint. I've seen this on a few other Taylors but more often, I see necks that have been finished so that the joint does not show like this. Why do some Taylors have a visible joint while others do not? Is this a bad thing? At first I was concerned that it meant that the headstock had been repaired or something, but then I saw a few other photos online where there are visible joints like this. It doesn't bother me necessarily - I just want to know that it's nothing to be concerned about. Was there a reason Taylor decided to let the joint show like this on some models and not others?

[Fire]

I just bought a used 2006 Taylor 414ce. I have a question about the visible neck to headstock joint. I've seen this on a few other Taylors but more often, I see necks that have been finished so that the joint does not show like this. Why do some Taylors have a visible joint while others do not? Is this a bad thing? At first I was concerned that it meant that the headstock had been repaired or something, but then I saw a few other photos online where there are visible joints like this. It doesn't bother me necessarily - I just want to know that it's nothing to be concerned about. Was there a reason Taylor decided to let the joint show like this on some models and not others?

That's a finger joint that Taylor used on pre-2008 models. Taylor now uses the stronger (and better-looking) scarf joint.

[jjrpilot-admin]

I just bought a used 2006 Taylor 414ce. I have a question about the visible neck to headstock joint. I've seen this on a few other Taylors but more often, I see necks that have been finished so that the joint does not show like this. Why do some Taylors have a visible joint while others do not? Is this a bad thing? At first I was concerned that it meant that the headstock had been repaired or something, but then I saw a few other photos online where there are visible joints like this. It doesn't bother me necessarily - I just want to know that it's nothing to be concerned about. Was there a reason Taylor decided to let the joint show like this on some models and not others?

That's a finger joint that Taylor used on pre-2008 models. Taylor now uses the stronger (and better-looking) scarf joint.

+1    No worries friend!

[Rob_J]

Thanks for the info and the re-assurance. I knew that somebody here would have an answer.

[asguitar1]

The look of that neck joint kept me from buying a Taylor.  Now with the scarf joint I like the looks and the tone.   

[ctkarslake]

Yeah, it kind of hard to disguise a finger joint since each piece of wood takes stain differently.  The scarf joint is much better at disguising itself.  The guitars that don't show a finger joint probably didn't have one in the first place (pre-2000 made guitars I think).  Finger joints gave Taylor grief with some guitar's joints coming loose so they switched to scarf joints.  It's unfortunate but the finger joint reminds me of how cheap lumber is treated sometimes.  Today, the headstock and heel are connected by scarf joints.

[Edward]

... Finger joints gave Taylor grief with some guitar's joints coming loose so they switched to scarf joints. ...

May I ask from where you derived this info?  I have personally never heard that "joints coming loose" were the impetus for Taylor changing their joint.  I do specifically recall, however, that Bob himself mentioned that they moved to the scarf joint for aesthetic reasons.  Sure, folks said it, emailed it, wrote it in, and in 2007 they phased in the scarf joint.  The perception that the finger joint is "cheap" or "weak" is exactly that: perception.   But guitars being a "discretionary" purchase as opposed t,o say, food or mortgage payments, Taylor likely said (my guess here), sure, let's change the joint since folks don't feel good about a guitar with joint x, so let's go with joint y.  Economic/business decision, methinks; but not one based on structural failure.
OTOH, I do recall Taylor having stated that they had some "glue issues" and necks way back when ...these were very limited in number, and seemed to fall on the BabyT.  At least to my aging recollection

Edward

[Herb Hunter]

Yeah, it kind of hard to disguise a finger joint since each piece of wood takes stain differently.  The scarf joint is much better at disguising itself.  The guitars that don't show a finger joint probably didn't have one in the first place (pre-2000 made guitars I think).  Finger joints gave Taylor grief with some guitar's joints coming loose so they switched to scarf joints.  It's unfortunate but the finger joint reminds me of how cheap lumber is treated sometimes.  Today, the headstock and heel are connected by scarf joints.

I hope you answer Edward's question, especially since a finger joint is stronger than a scarf joint.

[captainchaos]

Interesting discussion...
The finger joint - by some referred as the "Frankenstein joint" on the Taylor guitars - is by no means a bad joint.
The only problem with this construction is purely how it looks.
I personally did not have problems with this Frankenstein joint, but I think the scarf joint is much more appealing to the eye.
Maybe the problem is that the finger joint looks "mecanic" and not "organic" like the scarf joint, and that what's make some people dislike it on a guitars neck.

Problems with glue joints, especially with the two here mentioned joints, is not caused by the construction itself. It is caused by bad glue or clamping.
The finger joint, when done properly like on Taylor guitars, is as strong if not stronger than solid wood!

[Tugboat]

Problems with glue joints, especially with the two here mentioned joints, is not caused by the construction itself. It is caused by bad glue or clamping.
The finger joint, when done properly like on Taylor guitars, is as strong if not stronger than solid wood!

+1

A properly glued joint, finger or scarf, is stronger than the wood itself. Scarf joints just look better. Finger joints actually have more surface area to glue. More surface area = stronger joint.

[PureTone]

Hi Rob,
Congratulations on the 414CE !
The finger joint on your guitar is normal. It is more visible because the headstock is darker than the rest of the neck.

Yeah, it kind of hard to disguise a finger joint since each piece of wood takes stain differently.  The scarf joint is much better at disguising itself.  The guitars that don't show a finger joint probably didn't have one in the first place (pre-2000 made guitars I think).  Finger joints gave Taylor grief with some guitar's joints coming loose so they switched to scarf joints.  It's unfortunate but the finger joint reminds me of how cheap lumber is treated sometimes.  Today, the headstock and heel are connected by scarf joints.

I have heard of some Baby Taylor finger joints becoming disjointed in the center.
Fewer finger joints, not as tall or narrow, with one large joint in the middle.

The Baby still has the finger joint headstock, but the center joint has an inverted arc rather than going straight across.

[captainchaos]

Interesting to see that Baby Taylor finger joint!

I think the joint on this guitar is flipped 90 degrees and that's why the center finger looks wider.
If you look from a 90 degree angle from where you took that picture you will probably see the "normal" finger pattern.
Taylor might have done this to make the joint less visible.
I don't think that they will use different size of the fingers in the joint. It would just make things more complicated.

Could you post a picture from the side of the joint. It would be interesting to see.

[PureTone]

Interesting to see that Baby Taylor finger joint!

I think the joint on this guitar is flipped 90 degrees and that's why the center finger looks wider.
If you look from a 90 degree angle from where you took that picture you will probably see the "normal" finger pattern.
Taylor might have done this to make the joint less visible.
I don't think that they will use different size of the fingers in the joint. It would just make things more complicated.

Could you post a picture from the side of the joint. It would be interesting to see.

About the same angle of a 300/400 Series NT neck.

Greater number of narrower/taller finger joints than on the Baby Taylor.

[captainchaos]

Hi !
Nice picture again.
I still believe they use the same tools but cut the fingers in a different angle = 90 degrees from the 300/400 series neck compared to the Baby Taylor...

Take a picture from the side of the neck on the Baby Taylor. I mean so you see just the end of the nut and the edge of the fretboard.
I think you will see the same pattern like on the 300/400 series.

It is like they have made the joint "flatsawn" instead of the "quarter sawn" joint on the 300/400 series.
You really have to see how they make finger joints to understand my point.

Regards - Per