Taylor Big Baby guitar, bolted-on neck, should I be concerned?

[Arthur Sweeney]

Hi, I have been thinking about maybe getting a Taylor Big Baby acoustic

guitar, but I have read that the neck is actually bolted on, with 2 hidden screws going

straight through the fingerboard. That seems odd to me, should I be concerned?

Also, I have read that the Big Baby Taylor has less internal bracing than other guitars

in that price range. But then again, that guitar gets good reviews, so I don't know what

to think. Anyone out there have any comments or experiences with this guitar. Thanks.

[Paul Verticchio]

Hi Arthur.

Taylor, and many other major makers, have been using a bolt on neck system for decades. Tonal contributions aside, it's a proven design that has no real drawbacks.

Taylor got a badrap from traditionalists in the industry when they started using bolt on technology.  History has proven it to be a stable approach.  As a matter of fact, the biggest detractors are now offering their own "Taylor style" copy instruments.  Taylor has gone from being a much maligned builder to one of the largest producers of pro-grade instruments on the planet.  Why? They build consistently good sounding and serviceable instruments that have withstood the test of time..

I have several pro player friends with Big Baby's (BB's) and they have had zero issues with them.,  The BB's are a world renown "bang around" guitar.

If you're looking at a BB, I urge you to try Taylor's GS-mini. It's like $50 more (street) than than BB but it's an entirely upgraded guitar over the BB.  Regardless of Taylor's over-romanticized ad copy, they've hit a home run in the $500 range of instruments.  Plus, its smaller body size will really help with your hand issues as it will 'snuggle into you' a lot better. Also, they make a plug & play pickup for it ($100 street) so you can add  a noninvasive pickup system anytime you wish.

The thing that no one can deny about Taylor is that all of their guitars pretty well play the same.  From the BB to their $20K+ presentation instruments, the feel is the same.

Best of luck with your decision making (:

[Russell Vance]

Hi Arthur,

Like Paul, I am quick to commend the BB Taylor.  I look after two of them for a local touring rough and tumble band (A bridge Between) who beat the daylights out of their instruments in their very physical stage act but at the same time are great musicians and entertainers.   They have done sterling service in this environment for many years and show no sign of quitting - they sound fine and hold their tune fine despite looking worst for wear (heavy strings and energetic playing style). Highly recommend over all others in it's class.  Rusty.  

[Mark McLean]

Hi Arthur

For sure, the BB Taylor is built down to a price.  It is not a "pretty" guitar - laser etched rozette, no bindings, and those "hidden screw" that you mention are not at all hidden.  They are right there for everyone to see in the middle of the fingerboard at the 16th fret.  They use cosmetically flawed and sometimes non-bookmatched soundboards (cheap, but sound fine).  The finish is flat and they don't waste time and effort with pore filling on the sapelle laminate back and sides. 

But I think they are great.  If you just want best bang-for-your-buck soundwise, and a superbly playable neck, look no further.  They are designed to have everythng that produces good sound and feel - but absolutely no frills.  I like that, but many people will be put off by the very plain styling.  The laminate back has no bracing.  The top is X-braced but has no kerfing around much of the joins of top and back to the sides.  This leads to my only misgiving - they are prone to getting separation of the plates from the sides around the lower bout, especially if they get knocked around a bit.  Mine has experienced this after about 10 years of heavy use, but I just reglued it and it is good as gold. 

You should look at one and definitely play it.  You will probably know straight away if it is the one for you. 

cheers

Mark

[Christian Johnson]

I'll add that to Mark's comment.  I have re-glued a few of them.  The bodies will separate if they're man-handeled

[Chris Rochow]

Art, I am a service center for Taylor... you have nothing to worry about.  All Taylors are bolt on.  Makes it it quick, easy, and inexpensive to adjust the neck angle. It's a great system.

[Arthur Sweeney]

Hi, OK, that sounds good, but, what about the lack of internal bracing on the back, and kerfing around the edges.

What is the point of that? It sounds to me (and I am not a luthier) that that would make the body of the guitar very unstable.

[Mark McLean]

The bracing on the back is not needed because it is a 3-ply laminate.  In a solid back you need bracing for 2 main reasons - to hold it in an arch, and to afford some support and strength.  The ply back is  formed by gluing the ply sheets in a curved form so they hold the radius without any bracing.  Also, if the ply sheets alternate in grain direction they are a whole lot stronger than quartersawn solid wood.  So, I don't think the lack of back bracing is a design flaw in these guitars. 

However, the lack of kerfing in the plate joins is a defeciency, IMHO.  The surface area for the glue joint is just so much less, and there are lots of examples of them failing.  Mind you, most of them hold up very well, and it is easy to fix if they separate a bit years later. It would be an overstatement of the issue to say that they are "very unstable".  Actually, I don't know if the latest ones are still made like that - it would be worth checking that fact.  Taylor have modified the design a bit lately, and I notice that they now have an inlay rosette rather than the laser etched decoration they used to have. Does anyone know if they have started kerfing the side-to-plate joints now?