Frets like the great wall of China?

Some people do, some people don't. The 2015 models have very low frets, as allowed by a new PLEK program that provides for tighter fret dressing. Some people are complaining about them, but most guitarists seem to like having the better intonation that lower frets allow.

Yes, I've spent the past week playing two old Gibson acoustics, a 1949 LG-2, and a 1954 LG-2, that I have here on loan and they are dressed like "fretless wonders" so you can slide up and down the board without a second thought. The interesting thing about this is the fact that the LG-2 was more or less a student grade guitar. Oh my!!!
 
I own a 199? SG that has/had jumbos but I crowned the frets extensively so that they are smooth, round, and just plain sexy.
 
This Supreme was dropped off by a musician who wants me to make it lovable. He didn't articulate what he wanted more better, he just asked me to give it back when I thought it was sweet. The electronics seem pretty milk toast but there's nothing that needs maintenance.
 
I think the fact that the frets literally feel like cinder blocks as you move about the board seems remarkable.
 
I like playing different guitar setups to change things up and this sure fits the bill. :-)

Hi John,
 That is very interesting. I don't get out enough, or surf the guitar forums, to have realized that this is an ongoing topic of discussion. My OP was just a reaction to the jolt that was running up my forearm as I slid down the fret board. I am fascinated by the effect it has had on my improvisational playing. When I play on a smoother fret job I can slide along easily and if I get lost I can use my *hearingtuition* to slide back into the harmony, but with these frets I am so busy dealing with the mechanics of hopping the speed bumps that my attempts at slide-n-search are stopping short and leaving me stranded in the weeds. I switched back to playing one of my guitars last night and it all came back to me and suddenly I could play guitar again.
 
 I'm having a hard time imagining how anyone would buy this guitar after a test play at a store. In fact, this guitar was originally provided to a touring artists through a take this guitar and try it out program, and it eventually was gifted to the artist's guitar tech who left it here with a local musician who shares a house with the tech. In other words, the guitar tech had better things to do than crown the frets on what amounts to just another fancy guitar. 
 
 I've been drawn in now. I'm gonna see what I can do to make this axe enjoyable.
 
 When I first read about PLEK it never occurred to me that it would just flatten the frets and not crown them. Wow.
 
 When I first read about PLEK it was described as an achievement of perfection so imagining that the machines could be updated with a new PLEK program for tighter tolerances was beyond my vision of what the term "perfection" would seem to describe. 
 
 I started crowning the frets last night. I use a work a little, restring and play little, work flow when I am going for the gold. 

i've always preferred hand tuned frets,
even tho the strength of the PLEK system is obvious.....
 
i like medium frets..
but one of my favorite guitars, my old ibanez artist, has huge frets, but are very low and flat.......
with a 12" radius on an ebony neck, it feels ultra smooth.
 

I can appreciate the physics of cryogenic metallurgy, but it seems like an exaggeration to explain that low frets and wear are a major issue dissuading guitar makers from using small fret wire. Lots of guitars come with tiny frets and sexy fret work. I don't have to look any further than the classic and original Les Paul, but I have a dozen or so other examples sitting here as well... including the 1949 and 1954 Gibsons acoustics that I mentioned previously.
 
 
You have me curious; What is the Cryogenic fret wire's hardness on the Vickers HV5-___ scale?

Hi Paul,
 Interesting question. I guess I'm used to actually touching the fret board. I play relatively heavy tension strings. I think it's easier to play with a light touch with lower tension strings.
 I haven't had to learn to worry about fret wear so I must not be pressing so hard that I'm wearing my frets out prematurely from doing so.
 
 I want a Heritage 535! :-) I own two of the Heritage 575s, both with tiny frets. I bought the first and liked it so much that when I saw another that was a good deal I snatched it up. 
 
 The thing about fret wire is that it comes in varying hardness. Even the regular old 18% nickel wire is available with different hardness ratings and more importantly, or more specifically, different wear resistance factors.
 
 The cheap stuff wears fast and the good stuff wears slowly.
 
 The polymorphic nature of an inter metallic alloy provides an opportunity for the factories to choose the most appropriate crystalline structure for the intended task.
 
 The sentiment that small frets wear unnecessarily fast is usually based on anecdotal experiences with fast wearing frets rather than frets that simply wear less quickly.
 
 
 Gibson states that they tested their new cryogenic treated frets against their normal frets.
 
http://www2.gibson.com/Ne...-Frets-Are-Better.aspx
 
 The Cryogenic frets last 4 times longer. Then they go on to say that: 
 
 "In practical terms, this means that your 2014 model year guitar will almost certainly never need a fret job (unless you plan to live for several centuries)."
 
 In practical terms, for the past century a lot of guitarists have been satisfied with frets lasting only 1/4 of several centuries and they have generally prioritized a preferred choice of the size and shape of the fret over any fears of, or warnings about, accelerated wear.
 
 
edit spelling

 
Here is a example of just some of the choices available:
 

Agree with you there, Tom. I can't stand the wider neck of the 2015's. The old neck size was perfect.

mike_mccue
I can appreciate the physics of cryogenic metallurgy, but it seems like an exaggeration to explain that low frets and wear are a major issue dissuading guitar makers from using small fret wire.

 
I never said it was. I was talking specifically about Gibson being able to lower frets without being as concerned about wear. I didn't say anything about guitar makers in general and whether they are or are not dissuaded to use particular frets for particular reasons. Gibson doesn't want people to have to re-fret guitars. I don't know if that's a priority with other manufacturers or not.
 

Lots of guitars come with tiny frets and sexy fret work.

 
Yes, but that's not the point. The point is fret wear. As Paul P said right after your post:
 
"The tiny soft frets on my acoustic were notched in no time.  I prefer the much bigger ones on my Heritage 535.
I wouldn't want tall square frets though."
 
I don't know how much touring or studio work you've done, but fret wear is a problem for people who play guitar professionally. Re-fretting is to be avoided if possible because it's difficult not to affect the neck to some degree in the process. Obviously, the lower the frets, the more a given amount of wear matters.
 

You have me curious; What is the Cryogenic fret wire's hardness on the Vickers HV5-___ scale?

That's not relevant. The upshot of cryogenic treatment isn't a change in hardness, but a) resistance to wear and b) increased strength. Strength and hardness are not necessarily related. Here's a basic description of the process.
 
Here are some links to research papers regarding how cryogenic treatment affects metals. The same site also talks about diverse applications of the process.
 
http://www.300below.com/the-influence-of-cryogenic-treatment-on-the-dimensional-stability-of-en-353-gear-steel/
 
http://www.300below.com/deep-cryogenic-treatment-improves-wear-resistance-of-en-31-steel/
 
http://www.300below.com/the-effect-of-cryogenic-treatment-on-distribution-of-residual-stress-in-case-carburized-en-353-steel/
 
http://www.300below.com/enhancing-the-wear-resistance-of-case-carburized-en-353-steel-by-cryogenic-treatment/
 
 

Craig, It's Christmas....
 
...If you want to quibble about the difference in hardness and wear resistance, which I have alluded to in the post I addressed to Paul, you may wish to advise Gibson to use the correct terminology on this page:
 
http://www2.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/Why-Cryogenically-Treated-Frets-Are-Better.aspx
 
and ask some one to edit the erroneous use of the phrase "molecular structure" to the correct metallurgical description "crystalline structure".
 
I didn't read the links you provided but I suspect, if they are informative links, that they will explain the appreciable difference between molecular structure and crystalline structure in polymorphic compounds, and alloys in particular.
 
I acknowledge that discussing fret "hardness" will elicit the enthusiastic response of the "fret tone" aficionados. If the characteristic that has been improved is actually the crystalline structure and its associated wear resistance rather than a change in hardness, it may be beneficial to point out that crystalline structure can be enhanced without substantively changing hardness.
 
In other words, a benefit of cryogenic frets is that one may enjoy increased wear resistance while keeping the fret tone associated with a "fret tone" aficionados' favorite frets.
 
I was entertained with the hyperbole about the cryogenic frets lasting several centuries, or as the author also stated: 4 times as long as normal frets. The statement reminded me that the good quality regular frets will last a pretty long time too.
 
I have no doubt that cryogenic frets are extremely wear resistant but I also know that most good frets are sufficiently wear resistant while the less wear resistant examples, as can be found on some factory guitars, may be problematic to people.
 
Last week I had two post WWII Gibsons at the house, and enjoyed them very much. This week I am playing a 1929 Gibson for fun and relaxation. I like the Gibsons and I am well aware of how frets wear or don't wear over time.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In any event, I have crowned these frets. They are still quite tall, but now they are rounded and smooth, I strung it up with some Slinky strings. I turned the truss rod a bit, and now I have found that this particular guitar needs a new nut before it can be its very best. The A string slot was carved too low (let me spell this out: it was certainly not carved too low at the factory... it probably happened while out on tour) but it will be a simple fix to carve a new bone nut. The guitar is starting to play like a rocker.
 
 
 
 
edit spelling  
 

Mix some bone fillings with super glue and bring the A slot up (is the factory nut actually bone?).
Replacing the nut on a Paul is some pretty advanced stuff (mister you're a better man than I).
Nut work is something that I am VERY careful with, and mind full of my own limitations!
That being said I could write a pretty lengthy essay concerning the nut work on a couple of
"Custom Shop" Gibson's I have owned.
BUT, in truth, they varied a lot back in the Gibson, Inc. Kalamazoo Mich. days too!
But a properly setup Paul (and I'm not talkin' a Black Beauty "fretless wonder") remains
the "standard" by which all must be judged.
I was once "seduced" by a PRS CU 24, she plays like "butta", but has never, ever had the tone of my old Paul.
Just ask my wife...
T
(spelling)

You've done Gibson's before?
T

mike_mccue
Craig, It's Christmas....
 
...If you want to quibble about the difference in hardness and wear resistance, which I have alluded to in the post I addressed to Paul, you may wish to advise Gibson to use the correct terminology on this page:
 
http://www2.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/Why-Cryogenically-Treated-Frets-Are-Better.aspx
 
and ask some one to edit the erroneous use of the phrase "molecular structure" to the correct metallurgical description "crystalline structure".

 
You're the one who characterized what I said as an "exaggeration." So Christmas or not, I needed to address an inaccurate summary of what I said, the topic under discussion, and provide links for those who want to know more about this process. If that doesn't include you that's fine, but there are some knowledgeable people reading this thread who might want to know more about cryogenic treatment.
 
You may consider the difference between hardness and wear resistance as quibbling, but I respectfully disagree. The difference is significant and important to many guitarists. There are harder fret materials available but they are not preferred by the majority of guitarists. So Gibson considered it important to increase wear resistance without increasing hardness. 
 

I didn't read the links you provided...

 
If you had, you would have seen "molecular structure" is the term the company that invented this particular process uses. Gibson is not the inventor, so of course would defer to the inventors' description of the process and would not change it based on a comment in an internet forum. Take it up with 300 Below and if they change it, let me know and I'll ask Gibson's editor to change it. 
 

I was entertained with the hyperbole about the cryogenic frets lasting several centuries

 
Well, that isn't what it said. I checked the article link and it said "In practical terms, this means that your 2014 model year guitar will almost certainly never need a fret job (unless you plan to live for several centuries)." The parenthetical phrase is called humor (obviously, only vampires live for several centuries) so it's appropriate you found it entertaining.
 

The statement reminded me that the good quality regular frets will last a pretty long time too.

 
No one ever said they didn't; the point is that cryogenically treated frets exhibit less fret wear than non-treated frets.
 

Last week I had two post WWII Gibsons at the house, and enjoyed them very much. This week I am playing a 1929 Gibson for fun and relaxation. I like the Gibsons and I am well aware of how frets wear or don't wear over time.

 
So if you understand how frets to or don't wear over time, then that's why nothing I said could be considered an exaggeration. To summarize: a) frets can wear, b) people don't like to do fret jobs on necks, c) if frets wear less, you can have lower frets that will retain the way their height for much longer because they exhibit less wear, and d) this helps insure the owner won't have to have a fret job done for a long time, if ever.
 
But so much for frets. What I really want to know is why the forum software sometimes changes font sizes arbitrarily, so I have to edit the post font family/size.

I revisited this thread and did more research on PLEKing and called a luthier in OH last week regarding this. I have done a lot of work on my first guitar, yet still default to others which has been due to fret action alone, and the gentleman was a real treat to speak with. He typically turns around a guitar in 2-3 days (not weeks) and since he took the time to speak with me I shipped him that guitar this week, so will give you guys feedback when it comes home.
 
He mentioned something during the call that caught me by surprise which was (paraphrasing) "Yes, Gibson uses PLEKing, but as a manufacturing process so the guitar necks are not under tension. Not all necks respond the same way, so I have actually PLEK'd brand new $3000-$4000 guitars because of this."