Talk:Neck-through-body construction

message: The Advantages section doesn't list any advantages, it just has manufacturing info. 206.183.124.161 00:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantages 

message: I don't think that one-piece guitars are the only "true neck though" ones. I'd never hear of such a thing until I came here. Hell, "neck-thru" implies it goes through something else. The page should be rephrased. --Howdybob 13:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, feel free to rephrase it, if you have better variants. --GreyCat 21:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, though this article still needs more content. --Howdybob 03:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neck 

message: Doe anyone else think that the page would be better called 'Through neck' construction or something like that/  I think it can apply to some other strig instruments too! 8-|--Light current 16:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "neck through body"  would be best as it's a complete phrase with proper spelling. The article does need work and you can feel free to add to it if you  have info on other instruments or anything else.  --Howdybob 23:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with "neck through body" version --GreyCat 01:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page title 

message: Most neck-thru guitars I've seen have the neck made of either 3 or 5 pieces, never only one single piece. That'd be kind of a lot easier to warp 201.23.64.2 06:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One piece neck? 

message: I know one neck-through owner concerned that the life of his guitar depends on the life of the neck.  Dos reality justify this concern? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ToMega666 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. If the neck breaks in any part, at the neck joint or at the head, as they commonly do, he's screwed. Maikel (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disadvantages. 

message: In the aricle, it is stated that the Neck-Through design was first used by B.C. Rich, although I know for a fact that Rickenbacker guitars and basses have used this feature for long before the B.C. Rich company was even created, having been used since at least the mid 1950s. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.86.151.244 (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins 

message: The neck-through construction dosnt mean there is more sustain. It's totally subjective. A bolt-on neck has just as much sustain if it is set up properly. Although low quality bolt-ons have much less sustain
:Neck-through bodies are less prone to lose acoustic energy at the neck-body transition since there is no joint. Maikel (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neck-through dosnt mean more sustain 

message: under the "Advantages and Disadvantages" section of this Neck-through wikipedia entry, there is a note stating that a citation is needed for the claim that neck-through construction  is  primarily found in high-end production models. I was hoping that you all could help me name the wikipedia robot idiocy to cite something that just is, so that when I request a change of policy so that facts do not have to be stated as "If you consider all production base guitars, and from that data base, analyze the statistics of the type of construction employed in low, mid-range, and high-end models the data would reveal what the laymen would use the adjective  "primarily" to describe the construction termed neck-through, specifically, primarily in regards to high-end as opposed to low and mid-range models". How do I explain to editors that things which just are come from one thing that just is, and that normal people do not take pleasure in mental master perturbations they way forum members do? You'd think since they state wiki is not a forum, they would understand this thing that just is. Can you help me put into words why a citation is not needed for stating that neck-through construction is primarily found on high-end models? Thanks Friends - Dirtclustit (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, this is not the beginning of the truly free or honestly free thought revolution, it isn't even a pre-cursor to said revolution of truth, it just so happened, or just is a fact that musicians tend to know the truth about certain facts, much like the tuning by ear of  string instruments you all don't need instruction on trigonometry maths, you can feel the in-phase truth by simply hearing harmonics, so it makes logical sense that you would more easily come up with a real name for things that just are, as opposed to the supposedly logical robot that added the citation needed note. If this was the throwing down of a Gauntlet, I would be wearing Gauntlet-style gloves (welding gloves) and I would throw it down on entries that have no citation needed notes on assertions that "just aren't" facts such as the entry wherein an editor claims degrees are no longer used for graduations of Kelvin Temperature, claiming some bogus org to be affiliated with IUPAC. -Dirtclustit (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: Quote: This method of neck-to-body affixation is also popular with independent guitar builders, who can typically devote more time to such a labor-intensive neck joint than a mass-producing company could.
Why the heck would a through-neck more time-costly than a joined one? But if the material is wood, that is certainly going to be exponentially more expensive. Maikel (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Indies

message: Quote: The Jackson RR1 model is a neck-thru design guitar
The picture pretty clearly shows a guitar with a bolt-on neck. Maikel (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: False neck