What component of fret wear is due to material loss, due to a lack of wear resistance, and what component of fret wear can be ascribed to deformation, or displacement as a result of hardness?
 
When you observe a fret that has a section that has simply disappeared, perhaps from sliding, or bending a string across it, that is a wear issue.
 
When you observe a fret that has been flattened and appears to be squashed by the string action, that is deformation.
 
I think it's easy to agree that wear resistance is an important factor in fret longevity.
 
I wonder if we can also agree that "hardness", as quantified on something like the Vickers Hardness scale, is also relevant?
 

In case anyone is curious about why I have mentioned the Vickers scale instead of the other common hardness scales, it is because there are Vickers scale ratings available for several fret manufacturers' products and so there is an opportunity to make comparisons that some people feel are relevant.
 
 
 
When I read a statement such as
 
"Cryogenically treated metals become more durable, stronger without being harder, and are much more resistant to abrasive wear."
 
I think it's relevant to learn the hardness of the frets, regardless of an idea that the cryogenic process doesn't effect the hardness, because terms like "stronger" and "durable" don't just apply to resistance to abrasive wear.
 
 
 
I didn't initiate this thread to debate fret wear. It's not something I think of as a big issue, but now that it has been described as a "problem" I think it is relevant to explore the details. 
 
 
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)

Hi Tom,
 Thanks for the tips!
 
 I'm pretty comfortable with replacing a nut. :-) I really enjoy the craft of shaping them and making the strings sing up on top of one that is properly notched. 

You've done Gibson's before?
T

Yes,
 Gibson, Heritage, Hamer, Epiphone.
 
 More often because the slots are too wide rather than too low. I assume that they get this way when someone who doesn't have a full collection of fret files attempts a small adjustment with a file that is larger than an ideal size.
 
 I've done a few left hand conversions too.
 
 
 
 As we have noted, guitar construction changes over the years... is there some thing you want to warn me about?
 
 
 

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.

 
That adjustable nut + zero fret is a great idea.  I just might fabricate my own.  I've made three bone nuts and adjusted a few others.  It's tricky business and you're kind of stuck with the result.  I'd really like to be able to just dial in the nut height with an allen key.
 
I wonder though what happens when the nut is no longer in total contact with the neck, but only through the contact of two small allen screws.  The middle of the nut is just floating between the two points.  Maybe a screw between each string would be better.
 
 
 

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."

unsubscribe
Frets like the great wall of China?
 
What's up with that?
 
I'm working on one of these today...
 

 
...and I am somewhat amazed to see that the frets feel like big squared off fences, and I mean a big fence... like the Great Wall of China or something.
 
Do people really like that sort of feel?

Who cares?! it's PURDDY! If you don't wantsit can I havesit?