Telecaster with 24" neck - does it exist?

WezV

idiotwindow said:

Presumably it has had the bridge moved (presumably involving some routing of the body to accommodate the pickup) to enable it to intonate properly.

if making a new neck from scratch there is no need to move the bridge, you just work from its existing position for your measurements.   This is how conversion necks work, but warmoth have done the tricky measurements for you so it fits a standard body




if using a pre-made neck from a different style of guitar with different scale, you often have to move the bridge or amend the neck join to make it all work - often makes sense to split the difference and take a little off both

ICBM

It all depends on the number of frets. A 24"-scale, 20-fret neck will fit perfectly on a 25.5"-scale, 21-fret body. That's essentially what you're doing by capo'ing at the first fret, only you move the position dots up one fret.

If you still want a 21st fret you just need a fingerboard overhang, like the modern Fenders with 22 frets have, as do the 24-3/4" conversion necks.

That's why the baritone neck in WezV's illustration has 24 frets - the extra two are at the nut end, not the body, which you can see in the pic... it's just the dots that have moved two positions further down.

idiotwindow

WezV said:

idiotwindow said:

Presumably it has had the bridge moved (presumably involving some routing of the body to accommodate the pickup) to enable it to intonate properly.

if making a new neck from scratch there is no need to move the bridge, you just work from its existing position for your measurements.   This is how conversion necks work, but warmoth have done the tricky measurements for you so it fits a standard body

Ok, understood, thanks. I'm intrigued by the neck on Bill Frissell's Tele which has a Fender Esquire decal on the headstock. Was this decal likely to have been added to a completely new "Gibson scale" neck made by JW Black (if so, that's a bit naughty) or was radical surgery done to actually convert an original Fender neck to a shorter scale? As the frets of an original longer scale neck will be too widely spaced for the shorter scale (and being a maple neck you can't remove the fingerboard), is the method to shorten the scale to cut off the headstock at the nut, remove the first fret's worth of neck and glue the headstock back on to the shorter neck? Shortening the neck from the heel end would presumably involve removing the frets and repositioning them closer together and that sounds like a messy thing to do with a solid maple neck.

ICBM

idiotwindow said:

Ok, understood, thanks. I'm intrigued by the neck on Bill Frissell's Tele which has a Fender Esquire decal on the headstock. Was this decal likely to have been added to a completely new "Gibson scale" neck made by JW Black (if so, that's a bit naughty) or was radical surgery done to actually convert an original Fender neck to a shorter scale? As the frets of an original longer scale neck will be too widely spaced for the shorter scale (and being a maple neck you can't remove the fingerboard), is the method to shorten the scale to cut off the headstock at the nut, remove the first fret's worth of neck and glue the headstock back on to the shorter neck? Shortening the neck from the heel end would presumably involve removing the frets and repositioning them closer together and that sounds like a messy thing to do with a solid maple neck.

This one? That's a non-Fender conversion neck by the look of it, with a 22nd fret overhang. You can't just shorten the neck between the nut and the first fret because the dots would be in the wrong places.

ennspek

Anderson do a short. I can't remember the exact measurement though.

idiotwindow

ICBM said:

This one? That's a non-Fender conversion neck by the look of it, with a 22nd fret overhang. You can't just shorten the neck between the nut and the first fret because the dots would be in the wrong places.

That's true though it would be a lot easier to move the dots than the frets. Assuming it's a new neck then, presumably it's a bit off sticking a Fender decal on the headstock (even if most of the rest of the guitar is an Esquire)?

alexh

Not off at all in my view. Presumably he couldn't sell it on the classifieds here now and potentially be reported to eBay as a trademark infringement if listed there.

Should the fender logo go if you change pickups too?

idiotwindow

alexh said:

Not off at all in my view. Presumably he couldn't sell it on the classifieds here now and potentially be reported to eBay as a trademark inevitable if listed there.

Should the fender logo go off you change pickups too?

An interesting question. I don't think it is ever questioned (and nor should it be) if someone sells a guitar with third-party pickups as a "Fender" and I guess you could argue the neck is just another part being replaced. Leaving aside the whole infringement thing (and in this particular case, the guitar isn't for sale nor is anyone trying to pretend the guitar is anything other than what it is), I wonder at what point the guitar ceases to be an Esquire? It's one thing to leave a Fender logo on the headstock of an otherwise heavily modded guitar (even one where the only original part is the neck), but it's another thing to stick on a decal where it doesn't already exist. Particularly a guitar that has new pickups, a new bridge, new pickguard and a new neck. (It's a very cool guitar though – even with the phoney logo.)

ICBM

idiotwindow said:

Assuming it's a new neck then, presumably it's a bit off sticking a Fender decal on the headstock (even if most of the rest of the guitar is an Esquire)?

Only if he sells it.

AuldReekie

More thanks to all who have responded here, very helpful