Vader THNN Neck is NOT that thin?

USA Custom Shop Acoustic and Electric Guitars

Moderators: Kevio, ElfDude, JesseM, RockCrue, soundchick, ChrisH, peb, Mike Jones, Bundy

User avatar
UnexplodedCow
Gold Carvinite
Gold Carvinite
Posts: 1397
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: Omnipresence nearly achieved!

Re: Vader THNN Neck is NOT that thin?

Postby UnexplodedCow » Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:41 am

Yep, it all adds up. As for the bit of this thread about paint on the tuners, that picture of the returned product is very telling, and I feel bad it happened. That is definitely not on Kiesel, but I'm going to be curious how they handle it, since it's obviously damaged, and by the pattern, looks as though the light strings were tightened first, gouging the most, and then the heavier strings tightened up and pulled the bridge back.

One thing that may make changing all strings easier would be a special block to keep the vibrato level, and prevent gouging. However, one-string-at-a-time works perfectly well, and takes less time to tune up than re-balancing all strings.
We are entitled to our own, wrong, opinions.

Guitar theorem: G=X+1 where G= guitars one needs, and X = guitars one has.

Do or do not; there is no understand.

User avatar
ioneater
Carvinite
Carvinite
Posts: 727
Joined: Jun 2011
Location: Gulfport

Re: Vader THNN Neck is NOT that thin?

Postby ioneater » Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:16 pm

UnexplodedCow wrote: However, one-string-at-a-time works perfectly well, and takes less time to tune up than re-balancing all strings.


That's how I do it with all my trems unless I'm needing to do additional work in the cavity area.

User avatar
kmd09
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Posts: 339
Joined: Sep 2009
Location: Folsom. CA

Re: Vader THNN Neck is NOT that thin?

Postby kmd09 » Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:41 pm

But the OP says "100% guaranteed" it came out of the case that way and it was the first thing he noticed. To me, that would suggest that the damage was done either during shipping or Kiesel did it when they set the guitar up. Don't know how it could be done during shipping and I would be disappointed, to say the least, if Kiesel did it and sent it out that way. I find it odd that this issue was the first thing he noticed but didn't document the issue and contact Kiesel ASAP. His issue was a "thick" neck when he ordered a "thin" neck, not an obviously damaged guitar that had gotten thru QC. As far as QC is concerned, I doubt when they inspect the guitars they are pulling out calipers and measuring each neck to see if is to order-specs. Paint on the tuners would be, I feel, pretty easy to catch but the THNN option not so much. I'm curious to see how Kiesel handles this and hope the OP keeps us informed.
AC375 DEEP RED ON FLAME
V49K DEEP NIGHTBURST ON FLAME
CT624M DEEP AQUABURST ON FLAME
CS624S DEEP PURPLE ON QUILT
SH575 DEEP ORANGEBURST ON FLAME
'79 CM130
PRS SE245
X100B
V3 1/2 STACK
AG100D
BX700, BRX10.2, BRX15.3
FENDER STRAT, TACOMA DM-18, TRAYNOR YGL3-100 MKIII, YAMAHA G1OO-212

ExDementia
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 16
Joined: Jul 2018

Re: Vader THNN Neck is NOT that thin?

Postby ExDementia » Tue Dec 04, 2018 3:20 pm

kmd09 wrote:But the OP says "100% guaranteed" it came out of the case that way and it was the first thing he noticed. To me, that would suggest that the damage was done either during shipping or Kiesel did it when they set the guitar up. Don't know how it could be done during shipping and I would be disappointed, to say the least, if Kiesel did it and sent it out that way.


The issue there is Kiesel posted a picture of the guitar to their FB page after the guitar was all setup: https://www.facebook.com/kieselguitars/ ... =3&theater

Image

That looks like a pretty clear indication that it didn't happen during setup at the factory. As for it happening in shipping, the turners have the paint all the way around the tuning barrels, so someone had to have turned those by hand.

User avatar
UnexplodedCow
Gold Carvinite
Gold Carvinite
Posts: 1397
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: Omnipresence nearly achieved!

Re: Vader THNN Neck is NOT that thin?

Postby UnexplodedCow » Tue Dec 04, 2018 3:26 pm

We also know the OP replaced all the strings, by their own statement, and they later stated they only changed the D string when someone else asked about the paint on the barrels, showing pictures. I'll also note the OP has been incognito for some time.
We are entitled to our own, wrong, opinions.

Guitar theorem: G=X+1 where G= guitars one needs, and X = guitars one has.

Do or do not; there is no understand.

Tones2
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 42
Joined: Aug 2018

Re: Vader THNN Neck is NOT that thin?

Postby Tones2 » Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:20 am

Dudes - I know what I know. Whatever happened after that picture I have no idea. That's all I know is that I received it that way. The only conjecture that I can think of is that I asked for .009 strings so maybe they strung it with .010s then discovered the mistake and restrung, but I really have no idea. In any case, I know that I got it that way. Second point is, I absolutely don't care about that issue - I only mentioned it as a peculiarity, and I would happily have kept it if the neck thickness was correct. The NECK THICKNESS ISSUE is the point of this thread. I noticed how no one commented on THAT issue, which is readily apparent from the picture, which is really what I wanted thoughts on. I didn't mention that I changed one string because I didn't think it was relevant prior to the accusations (jeez). I haven't posted here in a bit because I did return it for Kiesel to EVALUATE the neck issue (not get a refund), and it was pointless to continue to comment.

Think what you may, I don't really care at this point. Jeez, what a friendly group.... :roll: In any case, a sincere thanks to those who actually previously helped me through the thin neck issue.

Now I'm sure I'll get a whole flock of new posts dissing me in some way about the paint thing. So I'll say I did it because I don't care on this extremely minor point and let it go. I loved my first Becker V6 which was flawless and I want to continue to love Kiesel and this community, so I'm done with any combativeness on this point. I do not want them to do anything with this issue just leave it be - I just want a guitar with a thinner neck spec, like I ordered. At this point, I don't really care about any other other minor flaws however they happened - it was all fine.
Last edited by Tones2 on Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:33 am, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Koshchei
Gold Carvinite
Gold Carvinite
Posts: 2438
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: Peterborough, Ontario

Re: Vader THNN Neck is NOT that thin?

Postby Koshchei » Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:29 am

OP: Since you’ve likely voided your warranty, you should have no problem hiring a local luthier to mask off and sand the neck down, since the thickness of the custom finish seems to be your issue.

/thread

Tones2
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 42
Joined: Aug 2018

Re: Vader THNN Neck is NOT that thin?

Postby Tones2 » Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:39 am

Koshchei wrote:OP: Since you’ve likely voided your warranty, you should have no problem hiring a local luthier to mask off and sand the neck down, since the thickness of the custom finish seems to be your issue.

/thread


It's not the thickness of the custom finish (it's satin finish), it's the thickness of the neck wood itself that's the issue. And I'm not sure that a local luthier could ever match the painted neck color exactly. And whatever you want to believe about anything else, the neck thickness mistake was obviously not my fault - it's not a warranty issue but rather a build issue.

If they assess it's their fault on the build (which I can't imagine why they would not, as I have no reason to believe that they wouldn't be objective here), I have no issue with them reworking the neck on this same guitar and repainting if that's possible, and send me back the same guitar with any other flaws they consider my fault left alone. Heck I'd pay for shipping back and forth - I don't care. I sincerely don't want to fight them or anyone on any issue - I just want a guitar I can actually play comfortably per the specs I paid for. I feel that is a reasonable request. The guitar was also way heavier than I thought it would be, but although disappointed I can accept that was a combination of me not realizing how heavy the tremolo unit was and just bad luck on wood weight of the body wood in the build, and realize this is no ones's fault.

But no matter what I or anyone else says here, it's in Kiesel's hands and I'll accept any determination they make about anything, as I'm sure they will have to come to the same neck thickness conclusion because it's definitely not subtle and there is no way that I could have made it thicker. :)

Tony

ExDementia
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 16
Joined: Jul 2018

Re: Vader THNN Neck is NOT that thin?

Postby ExDementia » Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:17 am

Looks like the neck thickness was addressed.

Ricardo Ruiz wrote:Hello Tony,

I checked with our head tech and your guitar does have a thinner neck, keep in mind that the back of the neck is painted so that added back to the thickness of the neck ( A white base coat that is applied to the guitar before the 3-4 coats of Mclaren Yellow)


spudmunkey wrote:The McLaren Yellow, KRG and a couple other colors, they actually put down a white coat before the color, as well. So it could be a grain-levelling clear primer, a white paint, then yellow paint, then clear satin/gloss. Definitely much thicker than Taylor's wood+clear. I could also imagine Taylor being very very purposefully thin, since you're going to notice tonality changes way more with an acoustic than with an electric.


Unfortunately with that McLaren yellow it just seems like it requires quite a few layers to do correctly. I guess it would be a good thing for us all to keep in mind to order a tung oiled neck for the thinnest neck possible.

Sorry the guitar didn't come out the way you wanted, OP. Hope it works out, man. It's a beautiful guitar!

Tones2
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 42
Joined: Aug 2018

Re: Vader THNN Neck is NOT that thin?

Postby Tones2 » Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:44 am

ExDementia wrote:Looks like the neck thickness was addressed.

Ricardo Ruiz wrote:Hello Tony,

I checked with our head tech and your guitar does have a thinner neck, keep in mind that the back of the neck is painted so that added back to the thickness of the neck ( A white base coat that is applied to the guitar before the 3-4 coats of Mclaren Yellow)


spudmunkey wrote:The McLaren Yellow, KRG and a couple other colors, they actually put down a white coat before the color, as well. So it could be a grain-levelling clear primer, a white paint, then yellow paint, then clear satin/gloss. Definitely much thicker than Taylor's wood+clear. I could also imagine Taylor being very very purposefully thin, since you're going to notice tonality changes way more with an acoustic than with an electric.


Unfortunately with that McLaren yellow it just seems like it requires quite a few layers to do correctly. I guess it would be a good thing for us all to keep in mind to order a tung oiled neck for the thinnest neck possible.

Sorry the guitar didn't come out the way you wanted, OP. Hope it works out, man. It's a beautiful guitar!


Wow!! It's like I completely missed a whole page of this thread! I did not visit this site after I returned the guitar until yesterday. I assumed this last page is where I left off, so did not see Kiesel's response here on the previous page until you posted this right now and realized I must have missed this (I was completely confused for a moment).

All I know is that this neck is thicker than the PAINTED JASON BECKER VADER BY FAR as evidenced by the photos I have posted, and thicker feeling then any guitar I owned. No way this can be attributable solely to paint thickness. If nothing else, take that picture I posted with the painted Becker Vader neck (which is supposed to be at the same spec given that I choose the THINNER option) and blow it up and take a tape measure to the photo and measure at the same 90 degree angle at say the 5th fret in both photos and tell me their is not a huge difference. I can't see how that measurable of a difference is an extra paint layer. Certainly if it was going to add that much thickness to a thinner neck because of COLOR choice, I certainly wish that was disclosed somewhere.

As for the paint tuner issue I don't know what to say. I know there was paint on it when I opened the case as the first thing I noticed and was there when I first tuned. I did not check underneath the tuners for damage as I thought at the time it was some minor excess paint thing, nor have a picture or video of me opening the box (lesson learned - I will always do this from now on for any future guitar purchased). Believe me I know how this looks and I've been racking my brain thinking about event sequence and how it could have happened, but I do realize no one will will believe this (and understandably so) so I have no recourse here, so I'll have to assume this responsibility as I have no other options. I have no real idea, but I could have made it worse in playing with the tuners while changing one string or loosing the strings to measure - I don't really know as it wasn't a major issue at the time. Again it wouldn't be an issue for me if I got the guitar with an acceptable neck thickness - now it's only an issue because Kiesel is saying the neck thickness is correct and now they probably won't accept a return.

In any case, I am certainly screwed. Outside of the response from Kiesel on this thread, I have had no contact from Kiesel telling me what the options are. I'm assuming they will play hardball and I get the guitar sent back as my only solution, which I'll never play with that neck thickness. That's $1,500 lost - not a super amount of money, but certainly enough to hurt. Well, I can chalk it up to being a lesson learned on my part (it's not like it's a life and death issue :) ), and depending how this is ultimately resolved, a potential loss of a customer and loss of recommendations to others from me for Kiesel (neither of which I assume they care much about). This is absolutely NOT about the paint issue (so please let's not go there yet again - I accept that liability) but about the neck thickness one, which saying this meets the thinnest neck standard seems crazy to me, especially when I own another Vader to directly compare to that is supposed to be at the same spec (not to mention the guitar weight). I have no other issues with anything on the guitar build not yet mentioned and it was in fact beautiful with a great ebony fretboard / frets and quality build, but the neck thickness is something I simply can't live with.

But let me give out a sincere thanks here to all that did initially help on this issue even though the resolution was less than satisfactory.

User avatar
Doctor Doug
Gold Carvinite
Gold Carvinite
Posts: 1495
Joined: Oct 2013
Links/Contact:

Re: Vader THNN Neck is NOT that thin?

Postby Doctor Doug » Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:00 pm

If the thickness is due to paint, I'd just sand it off. I did that to an old Washburn of mine and it's awesome. It even felt faster without all the gloss.
facebook.com/hamfistrocks

User avatar
texastoast
Gold Carvinite
Gold Carvinite
Posts: 1907
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: Duh, Im in Texas

Re: Vader THNN Neck is NOT that thin?

Postby texastoast » Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:50 am

Doctor Doug wrote:If the thickness is due to paint, I'd just sand it off. I did that to an old Washburn of mine and it's awesome. It even felt faster without all the gloss.

I worry someone without prior experience is going to take some 80 grit and go to town. That would be a bad thing. If anyone is so inclined I recommend using steel wool first. Or some very fine sand paper. I would also recommend using multiple grades or grits. 220 grit or 000 to start and finishing off with 0000 wool or 600 grit paper. I go as high as 1200 grit for people paying me to do this for them.
Common knowledge for some but not all. Just in case.

User avatar
Doctor Doug
Gold Carvinite
Gold Carvinite
Posts: 1495
Joined: Oct 2013
Links/Contact:

Re: Vader THNN Neck is NOT that thin?

Postby Doctor Doug » Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:31 am

texastoast wrote:
Doctor Doug wrote:If the thickness is due to paint, I'd just sand it off. I did that to an old Washburn of mine and it's awesome. It even felt faster without all the gloss.

I worry someone without prior experience is going to take some 80 grit and go to town. That would be a bad thing. If anyone is so inclined I recommend using steel wool first. Or some very fine sand paper. I would also recommend using multiple grades or grits. 220 grit or 000 to start and finishing off with 0000 wool or 600 grit paper. I go as high as 1200 grit for people paying me to do this for them.
Common knowledge for some but not all. Just in case.


Indeed! I did a LOT of internet reading before I gave it a go. lol
facebook.com/hamfistrocks

User avatar
spudmunkey
Elite Carvinite
Elite Carvinite
Posts: 16185
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

Re: Vader THNN Neck is NOT that thin?

Postby spudmunkey » Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:56 am

Nah, just go nuts with a belt sander, angle grinder, or Dremmel.

User avatar
UnexplodedCow
Gold Carvinite
Gold Carvinite
Posts: 1397
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: Omnipresence nearly achieved!

Re: Vader THNN Neck is NOT that thin?

Postby UnexplodedCow » Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:08 am

spudmunkey wrote:Nah, just go nuts with a belt sander, angle grinder, or Dremmel.


You forgot oxy/acetylene torch. That'll take the finish down in seconds!
We are entitled to our own, wrong, opinions.

Guitar theorem: G=X+1 where G= guitars one needs, and X = guitars one has.

Do or do not; there is no understand.

User avatar
wickid
Gold Carvinite
Gold Carvinite
Posts: 2413
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: NY
Links/Contact:

Re: Vader THNN Neck is NOT that thin?

Postby wickid » Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:50 am

UnexplodedCow wrote:
spudmunkey wrote:Nah, just go nuts with a belt sander, angle grinder, or Dremmel.


You forgot oxy/acetylene torch. That'll take the finish down in seconds!


Construct the Deth Mobile in the process ... RAMMING SPEEEEED !!!! :twisted:
Proud Carvin owner since 1985! My Carvin gear time capsule...

Image

Dont miss the purple CT6!
(Any photobucket links are probably now broken. Grrrrrr!!!)

Tones2
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 42
Joined: Aug 2018

Re: Vader THNN Neck is NOT that thin?

Postby Tones2 » Thu Dec 06, 2018 12:43 pm

Tones2 wrote:Just got a V6 Vader and choose the THNN option. I was expecting a pretty thin neck, but it's winds up being one of the thickest neck I've ever played. I don't have any measurement tools, but it's visually much thicker than my other Vader with a Jason Becker neck and any other guitar I or my friends have. The invoice i received clearly states the THHN neck profile for which I paid. Did they just miss doing it, or is even the THIN neck profiles of Vaders pretty thick?


Forgetting all the crazy sidetracking of issues on this thread which I never ever intended (my fault - I hijacked my own thread with the stupid paint issue that I don't care about), I want to get back to the nature of my my original question above. On this guitar, given the yellow paint added thickness, if the measurement on the 12th fret is at 0.90" (I'm not saying it is or isn't, it's just a question) on a spec that should be at 0.86" for a thin neck profile, would you consider this to be significantly enough outside of spec to be considered outside what it should be for a Kiesel thinner neck profile? I'm just looking for honest opinions on this as I'm unsure.

User avatar
UnexplodedCow
Gold Carvinite
Gold Carvinite
Posts: 1397
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: Omnipresence nearly achieved!

Re: Vader THNN Neck is NOT that thin?

Postby UnexplodedCow » Thu Dec 06, 2018 1:29 pm

This is, unfortunately, a potential learning experience for both sides, in that it may have been a question nobody knew to previously ask. Is the measurement itself outside of spec? If we blindly accept specification as .086", then yes. But, we have to define how that is specified; finished, or unfinished, and if the former, what kind of finish. If it's supposed to be that thick with a paint on it, then it's out of spec. If it's supposed to be that in tung-oil, or bare wood, then it likely is not out of spec. Details matter.

.86" to .90" is not a huge difference overall, and since we know the paint can be thick enough to recover the additional wood removal, that's one thing to consider.

In any case, I'm curious how this will turn out for both sides.
We are entitled to our own, wrong, opinions.

Guitar theorem: G=X+1 where G= guitars one needs, and X = guitars one has.

Do or do not; there is no understand.

Tones2
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 42
Joined: Aug 2018

Re: Vader THNN Neck is NOT that thin?

Postby Tones2 » Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:26 pm

UnexplodedCow wrote:This is, unfortunately, a potential learning experience for both sides, in that it may have been a question nobody knew to previously ask. Is the measurement itself outside of spec? If we blindly accept specification as .086", then yes. But, we have to define how that is specified; finished, or unfinished, and if the former, what kind of finish. If it's supposed to be that thick with a paint on it, then it's out of spec. If it's supposed to be that in tung-oil, or bare wood, then it likely is not out of spec. Details matter.


It get's especially confusing how the judge the acceptable neck thickness tolerance when you already own another extremely similar model of the guitar you just purchased that is supposed to spec out the exact same (with the expectation being that you get the same thickness of neck in the new build) but winds up being a lot thicker because of the color of the paint on the neck, even if within spec. :) But again I'm trying to understand what the expectation should be - whether it's just a variance that you just get lucky or unlucky with, like the weight of the body wood, or something that should meet some exacting standard.

UnexplodedCow wrote:In any case, I'm curious how this will turn out for both sides.


They are returning the guitar because they says it meets specs, and won't accept a straight return because of the tuners caused damage (with no other option like paying for a fix offered). I'm fine with the latter and have accepted it. As for the thickness part, they quoted me a 0.84" measure at the 12th fret, whereas I took a much higher measurement that averaged around 0.9". I CERTAINLY could have measured incorrectly. I don't THINK I did anything wrong when I measured to get an incorrect measurement (I watched the how to videos) but who knows.

When I get it back I am going to take a video of myself measuring and see it it comes to the 0.9" measurement, but also to get opinion if I'm measuring in the wrong place or something stupid like that. I do NOT intend to do anything about it even if it measures at 0.9" without any measurement process mistakes, as I'm tired of this all and have resolved to just to accept the return back and that's it (I might just donate it to a music school I'm associated with rather than have it sit there unplayed).

But now this is more about my own education of what to expect or even ask for in any future build with any future manufacturer, as I understand that it is my own responsibility to communicate my exact expectations up front in a quantitative manner. With that in mind, I'm curious what the acceptable tolerance should be, or at least have a more intelligent discussion of my own expectations of what thin means in terms of absolute measurement of the full finished neck, as this is an area I'm hypersensitive to in terms of playability.

And a sincere thanks for your insights on this, as it made me think about what my own expected tolerance level should be before I say it's wrong, which is kinda what I was asking in my very first post in this thread. It's a hard call, especially when you are not comfortable playing it.

User avatar
UnexplodedCow
Gold Carvinite
Gold Carvinite
Posts: 1397
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: Omnipresence nearly achieved!

Re: Vader THNN Neck is NOT that thin?

Postby UnexplodedCow » Thu Dec 06, 2018 7:17 pm

If they quoted that measurement, it's very likely accurate, as Kiesel will have accurate, calibrated tools for such tasks. It's possible that the calipers you purchased aren't as precise in their measurement, even if you measured perfectly. It's good for ballpark, but may not be biblically accurate. The only reason I quoted my own guitar's thickness is because I own calibrated measuring tools that are accurate to a tighter tolerance (0.0001") and use those to compare against my cheap calipers. I wouldn't trust the calipers much otherwise, unless it was something from Mitutoyo or other high end brand.

Total difference between measurements is 0.06". That's just shy of 1/16th" or 1.5mm, and easily possible between calipers. If you post a video, I can tell you if how you're doing is correct. It's easy to get wrong, or use too much, or too little pressure.

The tuner damage is the heartbreaking part, but if you won't play it, selling it and recouping some of the cost back is an option. Obviously, that's not possible on this board, but classifieds exist on the Carvin museum site, as well as a Carvin/Kiesel only FB selling/trading group. Heck, it's possible that you may find something in that group and be able to trade. No sense in holding onto it, though. Best of luck on that.
We are entitled to our own, wrong, opinions.

Guitar theorem: G=X+1 where G= guitars one needs, and X = guitars one has.

Do or do not; there is no understand.


Return to Kiesel Guitars / Carvin Guitars

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests