Gil Yaron Bolt-S

Expensive and ugly. I know his reputation as a builder is heads above the others, but DAMN SON

I don't really think he is heads above any numerous builders (thorn, koll, huber, ruokangas and more). On par with, but I don't think he's any more a magician than anyone else.

What he is was super smart to get a ton of mileage out of extremely well documented build threads on tdpri.

(please don't read this as I DON'T think he's a great builder, I'm sure he his. Just saying, there are tons of great builders who are on the same level).
 
There's a lot less involved in building a bolt neck guitar. They were designed to be easy to run on an assembly line. So, yes, they should cost a lot less than something with a set neck, binding, separate top, tilt-back headstock, etc.

Yes and no.

A bolt on actually costs about 2 bucks more than a set neck. A flat headstock angle set neck and a bolt on are almost a dead heat in terms of time to build.

It's the angled headstocks that'll get you.
 
Bolt on necks shouldn't inherently mean a cheaper price. Never got that logic. Just because anyone can screw them together, that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of planning and attention to detail in making a great fit. And yes, a bolt-on sounds different. Better? Worse? That's up to individual interpretation.

Yeah, Paul Reed Smith addressed this when he made and then stopped production of the CE line (before bringing it back again). People assumed they should be cheaper, but he had the same builders, building to the same specs and tolerances, with what was essentially (if not completely) the same neck pocket. However, instead of gluing mahogany to mahogany, he had them bolt maple the alder and later maple to mahogany. The only area where it was "cheaper" was the cost of alder body blanks and plain maple neck blanks compared to mahogany for the set-neck guitars. At the volume he was buying the savings might have been less than $20-50 per guitar. Decidedly nowhere near hundreds, let alone thousands.

That said, the skills for building a high-end acoustic are fair more refined and frankly demanding than building solid-body electrics (and even many semi-hollow electrics). I could get two or three amazing acoustics for the price of this masterfully built yet aesthetically unappealing variation on a Strat. And I would much rather have the acoustics. Hell, even one acoustic at $2,666.00 would be preferable. Or how about a nice electric bass for about $2K?
 
I once read an Ed Roman article that claimed that Leo Fender invented bolt-on necks because in the 50s Fender was using wood that wasn’t completely dry. If the necks were glued in and then warped the guitar had to be thrown out, but with a bolt-on the necks could just be replaced. Of course that’s from Ed Roman, so he might have just made it up.

As for the Bolt-S, $7,000 of meh.
 
Bolt on necks shouldn't inherently mean a cheaper price. Never got that logic. Just because anyone can screw them together, that doesn't mean there isn't a lot of planning and attention to detail in making a great fit. And yes, a bolt-on sounds different. Better? Worse? That's up to individual interpretation.


Perhaps. While I am not a luthier, I find it hard to believe a bolt-on neck guitar isn't easier to manufacture in two separate pieces...that's my logic on it, anyway.
 
Yes and no.

A bolt on actually costs about 2 bucks more than a set neck. A flat headstock angle set neck and a bolt on are almost a dead heat in terms of time to build.

It's the angled headstocks that'll get you.


Lemme guess...the 2 bucks more is for the bolts.
 
If you're a professional, like Pete Thorn (who now owns a $10k Yaron), then it makes sense. You, me, and this entire forum aren't his target market.
I guarantee Mr. Thorn would sound just as good playing just about any decent guitar. He does;t need an $8000 guitar either. It might make more sense for him, but he would be just as amazing playing a $1000 Strat.
 
I once read an Ed Roman article that claimed that Leo Fender invented bolt-on necks because in the 50s Fender was using wood that wasn’t completely dry. If the necks were glued in and then warped the guitar had to be thrown out, but with a bolt-on the necks could just be replaced. Of course that’s from Ed Roman, so he might have just made it up.

As for the Bolt-S, $7,000 of meh.

I am under the impression that Fender did this for replaceability, and ease of service, not due to the dryness of the wood. Basically copying the Henry Ford Model. That would make much more sense than "he used crappy wood so it needed to be replaced."
 
I guarantee Mr. Thorn would sound just as good playing just about any decent guitar. He does;t need an $8000 guitar either. It might make more sense for him, but he would be just as amazing playing a $1000 Strat.

Sound does not equate to feel, tactile response, buyer satisfaction, and placebo effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tig
It's the nicest Yaron I've seen posted here.

Not gonna add the obvious, BUT yeah, I'll take the Rev for the 900% discount.
 
Perhaps. While I am not a luthier, I find it hard to believe a bolt-on neck guitar isn't easier to manufacture in two separate pieces...that's my logic on it, anyway.

Again, a flat headstock neck of either type of joint is basically the same amount of work to build regardless. Especially if you use a PRS style joint for your set neck (like we do). That makes it a pure draw as the process is the same regardless.

The angled headstock is where you have many more steps. For instance: My Arcturus neck is about 2 hours start to finish. My set neck (angled headstock models) are about 4. They have many more stages to remove the material from the back of the headstock, neck and tenon.

A flat headstock neck's only machining on the backside is the the neck profile itself. So much easier.

Lemme guess...the 2 bucks more is for the bolts.

Yep and the plate :wink:

I guarantee Mr. Thorn would sound just as good playing just about any decent guitar. He does;t need an $8000 guitar either. It might make more sense for him, but he would be just as amazing playing a $1000 Strat.

There is truth to this. Now I get if you are a touring musician who loves LP's then touring with the best alternative to a 100k burst makes sense. That being said, no LP to me is worth 8k in any form outside of investment reasons. If I'm going to spend 8k on a guitar I want a luthiers creativity, not who is more anal about hide glue and catholic truss rods (condom free)

I am under the impression that Fender did this for replaceability, and ease of service, not due to the dryness of the wood. Basically copying the Henry Ford Model. That would make much more sense than "he used crappy wood so it needed to be replaced."

Exactly. Gibsons broke back then too. Leo was smart enough to realize that if he wanted to build a product the every man could tour with then making the most fragile part of the guitar replaceable was not a bad idea.

Shit, if I would have hit that $325 million lottery last night, tele and Doug would probably end up telling me to leave them alone :grin:

You hit 325 million and you can call me all you want.
 
Yes and no.

A bolt on actually costs about 2 bucks more than a set neck. A flat headstock angle set neck and a bolt on are almost a dead heat in terms of time to build.

It's the angled headstocks that'll get you.

I can see that if you're talking the same guitar and bolt vs glue. If nothing else, the neck plate and screws cost more than a few drops of Titebond.


My brain keeps floating back to the never ending argument of why a Les Paul Standard costs so much more than a Fender Strat.

On that angle, it's no comparison. Mahogany body blank is much more expensive than alder, then you have to resaw, join and attach a costly figured top. Mahogany neck blank (twice the size of a Fender neck blank) with tilt-back headstock. Then binding, inlays, etc. it adds up in a hurry.

So I guess I was kind of projecting my les paul vs strat beliefs onto a more narrow question that has nothing to do with les pauls and strats.

I'll go back to sitting quietly over there>>>
 
My brain keeps floating back to the never ending argument of why a Les Paul Standard costs so much more than a Fender Strat.

Gibson might have higher labor costs than Fender. They make it pretty clear that they avoid modernizing their finishing techniques and you’re paying for silly stuff like manually scraping paint off of the guitar because they don’t do any masking. Then again, Gibson has notoriously low wages, so they still might spend less on finishes.
 
Back
Top