Official Luthiers Forum!

I do sincerely appreciate every response. Even if I don't use that method I tend to learn something from every post. So thank you.

I'm still fiddling with it. My goal is get her to play really well, as in perfect tune across the fretboard so I'll know how by the time my build is ready. She's getting there but still not perfect. I keep breaking strings. Winding and unwinding to check is wearing them thin.

Did someone say I'm obsessing?

-j

I tried the same and it was a miserable failure. Junk guitars are likely made of plywood. Despite a light and even touch, I managed to sand through the veneer on the sides before I could get all the finish off.

At this point I am considering gluing veneer over the sides. It's a complete mess.

Glenn


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For you to say "absolutely wrong" seems a bit egotistical. Every guitar I've worked on or built in my career has been nut then saddle, now you are telling me that I did it all wrong. Dang, I'd better get them all back and do them over.
The saddle is not in the picture when the nut is set up (properly), it is only a reference between the nut and first fret. So when the saddle is lowered, I see no logical reason than any action would be too low in reference to the nut.
Yes, there are many ways to skin this proverbial cat. For me, frets, relief, nut then saddle has worked very well.

AGAIN - setting up a junk guitar, not a spanking new one.

All you custom builders who have never done guitar repair aren't getting it. Junk guitars are usually done wrong at the factory. You fellows usually have your crap together, and don't expect wild swings in dimensions. OK?

Please read the original post. Thanks.

_________________
"Act your age, not your shoe size" - Prince

Paul I will have to join you in making phone calls to clients too since I also do the nut first and then the saddle.... I do set-ups every day and lots of them as well and as such I may be doing more set-ups than most others on this forum. I would estimate thousands in the last several years always with the nut first and then the saddle.

But more importantly let's present the facts in a manner that others can use their own reasoning abilities and see how this works for them.

Nut slots and saddles have an inverse relationship in respect to a desired or static action setting at the 12th fret. Or, another way to put it with all things equal, the relief already set if you are shooting for a desired measurement for action at the 12th if you say lower a nut slot you would also have to raise the saddle by the same amount to keep that very same desired action setting.

The guys who say they do the saddle first also say that this is how they set the action at the 12th. If you then, after setting the saddle for that desired spec at the 12th cut the nut slots you will or may have to return to the saddle and likely raise it to maintain the very same desired action measurement at the 12th. Make sense? This is that inverse relationship between the nut slots and saddle in respect to action at the 12th.

The nut slots can be cut in isolation from everything else with the standard practice and widely used in the trade method of fretting and holding between the 2nd and 3rd frets. When the nut slots are cut first they can 1) be cut as low as need be with no fears of any adverse impact on the rest of the set-up and 2) be cut in isolation of the rest of the set-up affording us an opportunity to turn one moving target or variable, nut slot depth into a constant and take it out of play.

It is the "opportunity" to take a variable the nut slots out of play and turn it into a constant that affords us the additional opportunity to have a truly sequential approach to set-up with a sequential methodology that will return predictable results time and time again.

The alternative if one sets the saddle first to get a desired action setting at the 12th is that if the nut slots are then cut, last... you just screwed up your saddle setting and the action at the 12th may change.... What also results is that the saddle has to be revisited a second time and this method becomes unpredictable and repetitious where going back and forth not only wastes time but one's ability to predict outcomes reliably is compromised as well.

More specifically when I cut the nut slots first I never have to return to them and cut them again, they are done and right the first time but also no longer a variable in respect to the rest of the set-up. The slots are taken out of play early on leaving us to concentrate on the saddle only for action (with relief already properly set). This also affords us the opportunity to know that if we want to say reduce action 1/64th on the bass side at the 12th that since the nut slot depth remains constant we can reliably predict and realize that a 1/32nd reduction in height of the saddle on the bass side will get us that 1/64th reduction of action at the 12th.

There are other nuances that come into play that can skew the relationship between the idea that saddle adjustments are 2X desired outcomes at the 12th. Things such as how tall a saddle is and how much torque it places on the top pulling up the top etc. impact the direct 2 X relationship but usually not all that much. Additionally string height can add or reduce relief as well also because of saddle height etc. but this is usually also minimal so that 2X relationship stays pretty true, true enough anyway.

Beater guitars are no different, nut first and then saddle. I'll add that our experience which is considerable... with the volume that we do and we are NOT a music store either only doing repair work tells us that beaters may if anything be more robustly built than the usual suspect guitar producers. We fix up beaters and give them to homeless people who live outside in the winter here in Michigan.... One of our homeless friends who is a fantastic singer will be receiving his third from us in a couple weeks after our 11 year old apprentice finishes some of the stuff that she is repairing (with direction) on a donated, misrepresented import that a client graciously donated to the cause.

In the past these guitars seem to do surprisingly well outside and even in the winter with no case.... They do not however survive well when our friends gets into knock down drag out fights and has the thing smashed over his head..... That’s what happened to the second one we gave him….

But again as far as dimensional instability and/or any other reason why a beater would have to have a different approach to set-up I can't think of anything nor has our experience been that beaters need to be set-up differently either.

Set-ups are my world and I like to think that I am pretty good at it since I do lots of them every single day. It's always nut first then saddle and this is how I was taught too it's also how every other pro that I know does it as well. There was also a thread on FRETS a couple of years ago asking the same question and IIRC everyone there, more pros than here, agreed nut first then saddle.

Not trying to be unkind but it's also not always a case of different ways to skin that poor cat. In this case doing the saddle first will require revisiting the saddle a second time.... which when time is money and folks are waiting is not a good thing. Additionally saddle first methodology does not take any variables out of play when the nut first method most certainly does. This greatly aids in one’s ability to systematically and sequentially “dial in” an instrument with predictable AND repeatable results. It also and here is the most glaring thing that is wrong with doing the saddle first it makes nut slot depth a critical element in action at the 12th which it was never intended to be. Nut slot depth should only be a factor for playability and not used to achieve an action setting. Otherwise the player will have to struggle with slots that are too high… If you set the action at the 12th with the saddle first and then do the nut slots and they need to be cut down and they very nearly always do.... you just lost your action setting at the 12th. You can ignore the nut slots which is what a lot of unskilled folks who do guitar repair and shouldn't.... do but this leaves the client struggling with high nut slots and intonation issues resulting from the strings having to bend more than necessary when fretting in the first couple of frets.

Do the nut slots first then the saddle and beaters are no different either.

My approach is as follows:

Adjust relief or more specifically there is a shape that I want to see in the neck when tuned to pitch.
Cut nut slots fretting between the 2nd and 3rd and observing string height over the 1st and correcting accordingly.
Measure action at the 12th and deal with the saddle to get it where I want it. The saddle determines action but only after the nut slots have been cut, relief set, etc.

There are a bunch of other things that I do in my set-ups and some of these things are dependent on what the heck I am setting up be it an electric with a Floyd… or a mando, a beater or a $25K custom built guitar.

It’s always nut slots first though so that they can be cut correctly. Nut slots properly cut are one of the very most realizable benefits that a guitar maker or repair person can do to provide real value to our clients.

It’s also something that f*ctories shy away from doing (and don’t usually do well at all….) because it requires skilled labor to do well and there is potential liability in cutting the slots too low.

For builders and I have said this time and time again before really decent set-ups are an opportunity for you folks because most f*ctory instruments have not been properly set-up. It’s an opportunity for differentiation and most importantly an opportunity to up your value proposition over the competition making your stuff way easier for a prospective buyer to bond with and ultimately take home at closing time…..

Amen!! This alone at times can make a "piece of junk" turn into a playable guitar like object.

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

Let me first reiterate that I am a nut-first person, but there is a point raised here by murmac that I think was probably not understood by most -- at least no one commented on it.

After setting the nut slots with strings fretted between 2nd and 3rd, followed by setting open 12th action by adjusting the saddle, it is quite likely that the open action at the first fret will be HIGHER than is necessary and can indeed be lowered further to something closer to Martin's spec cited by murmac. In other words, to achieve 0.007" clearance over the 1st on the open e-string may require the clearance when fretted between 2 and 3 to be very slightly NEGATIVE!

This might be considered by some as obsessive fine-tuning, and is impossible to achieve using the 2-3 fretting technique alone. Rather, it requires measuring clearance over the 1st with the string open, something that should NOT be done unless all other action settings are already really, really close. Personally, I don't do this on routine set ups (my own builds or junkers), but I don't immediately start filling slots when a string is touching the first fret when I do my usual nut-first set-up sequence. In those cases, I'll continue to do the saddle adjustment before measuring first-fret clearance open to determine if the slot really needs to be raised.

Murray's point IMO is the phenomena that it's possible to cut a nut slot below the height of the first fret and still have the string not making contact with the first fret crown or causing buzzing anywhere else. This is possible because some strings are stiff enough that they bend over the nut slot face and remain a tad higher. When I used to post quizzes in an attempt to engage folks in on-topic conversation here that was one of my quiz questions. Murray is right too!

Martin's specs for nut slots are way higher than we cut them. .007" is much higher than need be and indicative of a production environment. Dave Collins cuts slots lower than I do because he can still see..... and we have discussed this often believing that he may be cutting sub .001" for the high e at times. A nut set-up like this is a joy to play and requires the most minimal finger pressure to get clean notes.

Tim if I understand you correctly you are right too because the Martin spec is WAY high and does leave room to revisit the nut slots after setting action with the saddle and lower the slots further. If on the other hand one cuts the nut slots low enough, forgetting the Martin spec completely... on the first pass while fretting between the 2nd and 3rd you won't have anything left to cut down further when revisiting the nut.

Obsessive fine-tuning? You bet and that's what folks pay us for.... and as always it's all about the players and again guitars are tools for musicians so it should be all about the players.

It's important in respect to filling slots or determining that a slot is too low to adjust relief first but the action level, initially, matters not because it's completely taken out of play by fretting between the 2nd and 3rd.

Fretting between the 2nd and third is intended to remove the variable of action height and removing or isolating variables in one's set-up regime is pretty important IMO.

We never measure clearance of an open string over the first likely because we cut slots way lower than Martin's spec routinely but as to the clearance over the first of say the high e when fretting and holding between the 2nd and 3rd it's not about a measurement but instead the idea that a very slight clearance exists regardless of what it is. It's often the presence or absence of light viewed from a very specific angle that we look for and of course I want to hear that "tink" when I tap over the first too guaranteeing that I have some clearance since I can't really see well enough to measure clearance.

A tip for folks if I may as well too: Got a nut slot that is a tad low and the open string buzzes. Although by no means a long term fix or something to do with a paying client it's often possible to back file a nut slot, increasing the break angle and exploiting that arching phenomena that Murray brought up increasing the ark of the string and making the string no longer buzz open. This only works when the slot is low but very close to ideal. Care should be taken of course to not dig the nut slot file into the head stock.....

You guys might be surprised just how wonderfully a guitar with very well cut nut slots plays and what a joy it can be too. This is my point about our value-add and understanding just what a truly great set-up can be like. As such I think that at least many of our clients expect us to obsess and go after the nits which is exactly what we do.

For me: I roughly cut the nut, leaving the strings a bit high (ie to the top of pencil mark). After that rough cut the saddle, again just a bit high.

Then dial it in: nut first, then saddle. Seems like either way would work if careful.



A little OT - Maybe a long time ago. I've never heard anything but "thou" or "thousandths", for stuff like this. "Mil" is used more for thicknesses of sheets of stuff.

Chris, would you mind telling us why you believe the quality of the guitar effects setup procedure?

35 years of experience as a repairman and builder. I'm done here.

_________________
"Act your age, not your shoe size" - Prince

funny, one of the worst fights i ever had with my boss was over how to cut a nut.

Hmmm, I have one of your boss's guitars in the shop right now. I'll have to take a real close look at the nut slots. Do you recall who in the shop cut the slots for Jeff D's signature guitar?

Actually I recall having had that argument with your boss as well. Then I checked one of his according to my methods, and they were exactly, perfectly where I would have ended up setting them. So ideal results are possible many ways, but I still say mine is more reliable and efficient.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

A third way: measure action with a straight edge resting on the first fret and saddle. Use a taper gauge. Result: much more accurate readings, and now it doesn't matter whether you do the nut or saddle first.

The idea that nut slots can be set below the plane of the frets is just silly. If the nut can be set below the plane, then the first fret can be set below the plane of the next two, and so forth. That's back bow. Just lower the saddle if the fret plane isn't buzzing. Does the string get deflected slightly upward as it leaves the nut? Yes, and that's taken into account in the third fret test. Does the string get deflected slightly upward as it leaves the nut? Yes, but not as much as a fretted string is deflected.

The bottom line when evaluating action, is whether strings will buzz at the same note volume up and down the neck. On a responsive guitar, there will always be some variation. If the builder wants to allow for variations in humidity, and perhaps alternate tunings, there is a limit to how uniform that buzz can be.

Hesh and David-- I gather that you do great work. I certainly respect your experience. Others have experience too.

I've always thought the same thing. Things like 5 mil plastic come to mind. For depth or a span measurement, I've always heard thousandths.

That, and $5 will get you a nice cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Seriously, do you not think there is some serious experience on this forum? The fact that you do it your way is great. If it works for you it works for you. My problem is that you said "absolutely wrong" to any other method. Methods that have been working for a lot longer than your 35 years.
The fact that the original post was about "junk" guitars is irreverent, in my opinion. I've worked on many junk guitars and shy of being set up very high, I've never seen one done "wrong". I'm not even sure what "wrong" could possibly be. If it's a case where the action is completely, unplayably high, I would argue that starting with a new nut and saddle are also started that way so the comparison to "junk" guitars is pretty similar. (yes, I just compared my guitars with $99 specials from Target)
Here's a thought: take your 35 years of experience along with your absolute opinion on the matter, and $5...get a cup of coffee and calm down. Then come back and join in a productive discussion. Rather than telling everyone that they are "absolutely wrong" how about you explain "why it works for you". I'm pretty sure you'll get a lot more listeners that way.

As sort of a side bar and most likely many already know this -- there is a goofy practice by several of the Chinese factories of shipping the guitar with usually two spacers under the saddle -- weird? So it goes without saying its likely a good idea to remove them -- so I guess that is a saddle first adjustment?

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

I'd still hit the nut first if it were in my shop. Chances are good that the slots were high on that as well. (though probably not shimmed)

There's a lot more to it than that, but yes in some cases but slots can be it lower than the fret plane, and still leave the string (even a broken in one) clearly above it after it's arc. A G string on a Fender with no string tree will certainly have less arc past the nut than affected on a string pressed against a fret. The low E on a slotted peg head though, or the extremely thick core of lower bass guitar strings - drastically different stories.

It comes down to systems of accounting for all pertinent variables including string arc and break over angle in each variable case. Again, everyone is free to use whatever method they find works for them, but I'm quite confident that the methods I've adopted are pretty bulletproof in accounting for all factors which can have any effect on this adjustment, while removing any unnecessary ones which may act as false indicators or unreliable references.

As alluded to in my last post though, I've seen others who use different methods prove able to achieve equally ideal results, so I'm not discounting others' experience. At this point it is more an argument about underlying principles, references, and factors or influence. I don't believe I've discounted other approaches as ultimately wrong, as much as I have tried to encourage developing a more clear picture of what factors are necessarily relevant to this adjustment and why.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

Been kinda busy here, so I've not had a chance to catch up on this rather contentious thread. Nice to see you back, Hesh, but I wish you'd spend a little think more time thinking about other posts before jumping to conclusions.

Actually, I don't think that was murmac's point at all, which is why I made some effort to present it another way.


Martin's spec is clearance of the unfretted string over the 1st fret, which you state you never measure.. The clearance of the unfretted strings will be greater than that measured when fretting between 2 and 3.


No, I don't think you've understood. Please go back and read slowly. We both do set ups the same way. My point is that nut slots can usually be lowered even further than is measurable using the 2-3 fretting approach. Use a stewmac string height dial indicator and start measuring open string height over the first fret AFTER you've done a slot adjustment for clearance while fretting 2-3. You may be surprised.

Another thing I'd comment on is folks insisting that frets reference a "plane". Having brought the instrument to pitch and adjusting relief, the frets reference an "arc". Strings reference a plane, but more than two frets do not.

I'm not the most experienced repairman or builder on this forum -- caveat emptor.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Tim thanks for your thoughts.

Regarding the fretting between the 2nd and 3rd and observing the string height over the first I would disagree with your point that the string can be cut even lower and here's why: As mentioned we cut em way lower than most and we are often one file swipe on say the high e from cutting too low.

Let's define terms here in an effort to be more clear. What's too low? For say the high e again too low is when the string buzzes on an open note with relief properly set, tuned to pitch and to be even more precise with a properly cut nut slot that has enough break angle, does not have a hump in the middle, and the string is actually breaking off the nut slot face.

Back to why I disagree with your point that slots can be cut lower and you might want to try what I am saying to you as well... Again we cut the slots so very low for say the high e that if we go too far with the 2/3 fret and hold method when the open string is plucked, the instrument tuned to pitch, relief, etc. all there the string immediately buzzes open - that's too low by anyone's measure because it's unplayable.

Where I suspect that your experience with this and mine may be different or more specifically the causation of why what you assert, that the string can go lower after using the 2/3fret and hold method is that we are cutting lower in the first place than you may be. Again on a high e it's pretty common for us to take it down as low as .001 and Dave may go lower again because he can see....

If you are not cutting the slots this low on again the high e of course the string open could go lower. Please consider this and if I have not explained my point well enough please indicate so and I am happy to see if I can be more clear.

We may be using the same nut first then saddle method and some have even said that they may return to the nut slots again likely because they may not be cutting low enough on the first pass.

My point and how we do this is that we cut the slots as low as they can go on the first pass never needing to return to the nut and take it down further. This is again why for us we can do the nut, do the saddle and call it a day without repeating any steps. Our method which is also done by others as well is not uncommon in the professional guitar community and I don't know where it started but it's not uncommon.

Going back to the original OP question, nut or saddle first what I would add is that if the nut slots are not cut correctly the first time you may have left some slot reduction on the table. Again too if the saddle is done first and used to set the action when the nut slots are done next that action setting just got lowered and the saddle may have to be raised if the original action setting is the goal. This makes the saddle first method at least a three step method and has other issues as well such as the tendency to use nut slot depth as a function of the desired action setting. What's wrong with this is that nut slots should be cut to an optimal depth for playability independent of any desired action spec and they most certainly can be if the saddle is done after the nut slots and the saddle is the determining factor along with relief for dialing in the desired action.

Cutting the nut slots first, if done correctly makes this a two step process AND permits the slots to be cut completely for playability independent of any targeted action setting.

Regarding your your comment about how much time I should spend thinking perhaps let's keep this on a higher, professional level in so much as that's what I am going to do.

It may be that I don't understand you but I most certainly do want to so if I have your points wrong please let me know. Disagreeing with the notions and ideas of others if one can support their point is what a forum should be all about. Getting personal is not why I am here.

On the other hand if I'm not explaining how I set-up a guitar well enough to be understood please tell me too. I'm all about the exchange of ideas for sound practices in Lutherie and would most certainly want to do what it takes to be better understood.

I too am not the most experienced repairman on the forum either. I will say though that my baptism has been by fire so-to-speak with only 10 years in the trade so far but working for several successful businesses and for the last couple of years we have repaired close to 1,100 instruments annually. We are not a store and don't do work for stores, that's another conversation...... so what we work on are not toys or $69 imports but we do also believe that everyone deserves to have great music in their lives so we will work on what ever we believe has a defined beginning, a defined ending, a complete understanding and agreement from the client, and a possibility of success. This can range from a $20K Top tier Luthier built instrument belonging to an A list famous person to a $99 import that needs to be set-up for a little girl to be able to play easily.

I understand why some would question my chops in only ten years but I would also offer how many people here will set-up say 5 guitars daily, all different, all old or new, and then reglue a bridge, fix a crack, etc. Baptism by fire is what my world has been all about and that's how I wanted it too having made my own bed and now loving every minute in it.

I'll also add that I was a builder and had some pretty good success with it too. I sought out repair work for two reasons: First our friend Rick Turner asserted on this very forum that none of us know..... shineola..... if we don't learn repair work.... Rick was correct in my experience and pertaining to me and me only.... Second when I was a builder I noticed that say making a nut was not easy for me and I was not happy with my results. What I needed was practice but turning out 12 guitars a year I only got to do a nut once a month and what I had learned from last time was often forgotten by me a month later..... The same holds true with fret work, I did not do it often enough to get good at it. There is also the issue of who's standards one subscribes to. I ended up apprenticing for a great guy who liked to look at my latest nut and say that's nice, pick it up, pitch it in the trash and tell me to make another one. He also asserted that most folks would benefit from making 100 nuts because it does take lots of practice. I'm not speaking of a functional nut either, that's not so hard but a nut that fits perfectly, looks like it was finished on the instrument, has perfectly spaced slots and from an artistic point of view is not too massive or too small and has the proper design elements to belay the wear process. That's harder.

Lutherie schools at least one of them also has a trash can full of student nuts and lots of corian laying around so students can make those 100 nuts...

Not to get too mushy.... but I absolutely love this stuff and fully believe that at some point I may turn into a guitar.... Please wish me luck, I am living my personal dream, and please also hope that if I become that guitar that I wish to be when I grow up that it's not an Ov*tion.....

Thanks Tim

so i think i can sum up an answer for the op"s original question.
when setting up a guitar from scratch it is important to consider the effects of both the nut and saddle when adjusting the set up. the problem is that the action at the nut effects the overall string action and the saddle effects the action at the first fret. to solve the problem you must either simulate a final nut height or use a technique that takes the saddle out of the equation. both are effective and some may prefer one to the other.
I personally like to rough the saddle in to approximate height by simulating the first fret action by depressing the string to the approximate final first fret action and then measuring at the twelfth fret and adjusting the saddle based on that measurement. then i slot the nut the way that i find works best for me and then do a final action check before removing the strings to polish the nut.
i do not like to cut my nut slots to the lowest possible height nor do i like them .020 high. i take the nut down until the "springiness" of the string goes away when it is fretted at the first fret.
mr. collins did give me a quick demo on how he cuts his slots and i have been incorporating his technique into my own because i saw the merit in it.
this brings me to my closing point, there are many ways to do things in this business. i have mine and you all have yours. by sharing our techniques we are enabling each other to try other ways to further improve our own individual understanding of the instrument. so take all of the suggestions you hear with a grain of salt and keep an open mind because even an old dog can learn a trick or two

Exactly. Two frets reference a plane. By definition, right? When we try the frets with a fret rocker, we're looking for a local discrepancy. (Checking the fret rocker is a good idea. Many aren't straight.)

When we measure nut slots by fretting at three, we're establishing a plane based on frets two and three. The upward deflection of the string at the nut is incorporated in that measurement.
(Finger pressure will alter the fret deflection slightly.) Whatever mumbo-jumbo you cook up for this measurement needs to work for a finger or capo at fret four, and five, and six. And barre chords? Walk this out for me.

Perhaps since the word "plane" and what we may mean in respect to our work defining things a bit further would be helpful.

I agree that two frets and only two frets by the precise definition of the meaning in the mathematical sense of the word plane define that plane. I would agree with this and now we need one more thing so that perhaps.... others who really wish to understand what someone is describing here might and that last thing is which... two... frets....

Eric said: "When we measure nut slots by fretting at three, we're establishing a plane based on frets two and three. The upward deflection of the string at the nut is incorporated in that measurement."

I disagree since you want to tighten up definitions lets be more precise - when using this fret and hold method fretting between the 2nd and 3rd the plane is defined by the nut slot face and fret two. Three is as out of play as the rest of the fret board. We fret between 2 and 3 and hold for the purpose of observing string clearance over fret one. The goal is to lower the nut slot so that there is no contact with the crown of fret one using a fret plane defined by the nut slot face and fret two. That aside when I speak of the fret plane I'm admittedly not being very precise likely because which frets define "my" plane are not the important part of the point.

To be even more specific since that's where some seem to want to go as they are interested in literal definitions of terms and there is nothing wrong with that either, I actually greatly appreciate anything that gets us closer to speaking the same language so thanks for bringing this up.

Admittedly I'm a bit of a one trick pony in my own definitions of terms pertaining to the operations that we do to repair or set-up guitars. This also means that how one levels and dresses frets has bearing on what can be correctly defined as a fret plane or, here is comes.... fret plane(s).

If you level frets as we do addressing the entire fret board and all frets with a desired outcome and if you are keen to mill in fall-away I would describe the fret plane as actually two fret planes. Once relief is induced the first fret plane is the 1st though the 12th with all fret in-between these two being below the fret plane. The second fret plane exists because of the inducement of fall-away and although relief is not present from the 12th to the last we could call it many fret planes such as the 12th - 13th, 12th - 15th etc. True in between frets actually would be called out in the pure definition of a plane.

Anyway that's as far as I can get with Eric's post and I would ask that Eric explain the parts about walking something out for him further I honestly do not understand the question but would most certainly wish to if I have an answer or thoughts that might have any value.

Zero fret?