mike_mccue
... 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.

Could it be that you're used to hitting the fretboard when fretting so tall frets would make that painful ?
 
I'm no guitar expert (and I don't know how huge the frets in question are), but it seems to me if you go with a light touch, that doesn't require bottoming out on the fretboard, there wouldn't be any bumps to be felt.  Just speculation.  I'm just interested in the mechanics of what makes a tall fret bad.
 
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.  That's odd.

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

I had an American Deluxe Strat that had Jumbo frets on it, not square, but well rounded and polished. It felt a little odd at first, being so large, however, string bends were really easy on the larger frets. Maybe people who play lead and solo a lot prefer the jumbo fret type.

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

Here's a link to Dan Erlewine (stew-mac) explaining the how and why of fret dressing.
link
I passed on a "fretless wonder" back in '68 and opted instead for a goldtop.
Its the closest thing to a "real" '59 burst I've ever played.
I gotta "feel" the frets; just sayin'...
"Flattopped" frets are just "wrong"; for a million reasons.
Gibson needs to stop trying to re-invent the wheel and get back to basics.
Just my nickel98....
Tom

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

The StewMac #150 (0.110/0.055) fret wire is what I have used for refretting (but also requires the nut to be replaced). I was playing one today and taking note of my playing style... most often I will slide using my ring finger which has the largest callous and also put tension on strings with my middle/index a lot as well. Because of this I never noticed the "speed bump" effect, but today I just used my index finger intentionally, and the speed bump effect is very noticeable even crowned properly.
 
Another thing that never occurred to me until I was critiquing myself today is that I do barres with my pinky more than I realized. When I need reach with my index finger, I noticed I was digging in my pinky quite a lot across 2-3 strings. I think the increased scallop helps this, as my pinky is not that strong, and the angle I was doing this at was awkward in some cases.
 
 

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/
 
 

DeeringAmps
Gibson needs to stop trying to re-invent the wheel and get back to basics.
 

But that's the whole point of doing a new model year with guitars that have different features. A guitar lasts a lot longer than a year; no one except maybe rich collectors are going to buy a new guitar every year, and people have different preferences in guitars. If you want an older school Les Paul guitar, you can still find 2014 and 2013 guitars. The changes that are in the 2015 models may or may not end up in the 2016 ones. For example, I passed on the 2014s except for the Melody Maker, which has great single coil P90s, and the EB 5 bass because it's a 5-string, light, and gets eight different sounds through pickup wirings, without active electronics. I have a 2013 Studio that's a great little guitar, and a Dark Fire and FBX for the automatic tuning.
 
But the 2015 LP Standard is really tempting me. I was trained on classical guitar so my thumb is on the back of the neck most of the time; there's no wrap around. I'm also very active with vibrato and with the extra 0.050" of an inch width, I never pull the 1st or 6th strings off the neck any more. Also, I've been playing a lot more slide guitar because the adjustable nut makes it easy to raise the strings, and the G FORCE automatic tuning makes open tunings easily accessible for slide. The Standard does retain the electronics from the 2014 model with the coil tap pull knobs (and no active electronics), so having 13 distinct pickup sounds appeals to me.
 
The thicker fingerboard in the 2015s helps with stability, particularly on the SGs, and I personally like the lower frets because I hit the strings pretty hard so I press down pretty hard, and lower frets means less intonation issues. The double-V tip in the output jack is more secure on stage, which is not a huge deal but every little bit helps...and I really like the feel of the new buffing and oiling process on the neck. Finally I've been told the case allows the guitar to survive a 15-foot drop (I haven't tried) which is kinda helpful if you take Delta Airlines to Europe...I don't like the Les Paul 100 signature on the headstock, but I'll cope. 
 
Now, this doesn't mean everyone or even anyone else will necessarily agree. I just happen to find these change suit what I want from a guitar more than the 2014s. So I'm going to snap up one of these babies this year, because some changes may or may not make it to next year. If the wider neck didn't make it to 2016, I'd regret not having picked up a 2015.
 

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