Fret width and wear, etc.

[man dough nollij]

I have a couple of different mandolins, with frets ranging from very thin (Eastman) to quite fat (Weber).

Do fat frets last longer? I like the look of the fatter frets, and I think I like the playing feel of them better. They seem to allow a little more room for bending, hammering, etc.

I'm just curious if the extra meat on fat frets makes them last longer. If we use the skinny vintage-style frets, what's the advantage, other than authenticity and looks?

I know it's a whole 'nother debate, and one that's been discussed at length here, but what about stainless frets?

What would the downside be to big (banjo sized?) stainless steel frets? Wouldn't they be bomber in terms of wear and replacement times? Is SS available in the big size?

[Mike Snyder]

I'm sure hoping the fatties last longer. I only got one fret-dress out of the originals, and played grooves into them in less than 12 months. My luthier had fret wire on hand (.084 I think) so I went with it, but was sorely tempted by stainless and the gold stuff that's been discussed lately. Refrets are a pain.

[Paul Hostetter]

Refrets happen. I have done thousands of them. Do fat frets last longer? You bet. But there are some players who grip so tight that they kill any fret. If you fall in that category, you need to reckon with the fact that refrets happen. It's OK, they're only frets.

FWIW, I am pretty much convinced, now that I've launched and observed enough of each for long enough, that the gold EVO frets outlast even stainless frets. If you're obsessed about avoiding refrets, get gold frets. Instead of nickel they have iron and titanium in the alloy, evidently a winning combination.

[Tone Monster]

Originally Posted by Paul Hostetter

Refrets happen. I have done thousands of them. Do fat frets last longer? You bet. But there are some players who grip so tight that they kill any fret. If you fall in that category, you need to reckon with the fact that refrets happen. It's OK, they're only frets.

FWIW, I am pretty much convinced, now that I've launched and observed enough of each for long enough, that the gold EVO frets outlast even stainless frets. If you're obsessed about avoiding refrets, get gold frets. Instead of nickel they have iron and titanium in the alloy, evidently a winning combination.

Paul what do Collings use and what is you exsperance with them?

[Paul Hostetter]

I'm not exasperated with them at all.

Seriously, all the Collings instruments I've seen have good old nickel-silver frets. For the most part, these are all anyone needs. I have two guitars that I have played the living s**t out of - one since 1979, the other since 1989, and both are on their original set of normal nickel frets. I am not a fret killer. My 1989 is a Sobell Sicilian that's a same-day littermate of Martin Simpson's recently retired Style 1, and several of us refretted that guitar of his probably seven or eight times before he had it bronzed and donated it to the National Trust. I certainly don't play as much as Martin does, but if he'd put as many hours on mine as I have, it'd have to have been refretted at least two or three times by now. There's no single standard for this sort of thing, no one product that exceeds all others. It's very much about who's playing the guitar.

[Mike Snyder]

Originally Posted by Paul Hostetter

I'm not exasperated with them at all.

Seriously, all the Collings instruments I've seen have good old nickel-silver frets. For the most part, these are all anyone needs. I have two guitars that I have played the living s**t out of - one since 1979, the other since 1989, and both are on their original set of normal nickel frets. I am not a fret killer. My 1989 is a Sobell Sicilian that's a same-day littermate of Martin Simpson's recently retired Style 1, and several of us refretted that guitar of his probably seven or eight times before he had it bronzed and donated it to the National Trust. I certainly don't play as much as Martin does, but if he'd put as many hours on mine as I have, it'd have to have been refretted at least two or three times by now. There's no single standard for this sort of thing, no one product that exceeds all others. It's very much about who's playing the guitar.

Very much so. I have some trauma related issues with my left hand which cause me to grind, mostly on the A and E courses. I'm working on it, but it surely cost me an early refret.

[Ivan Kelsall]

That's a bit of useful info.there Paul,re.the 'gold' fretwire having Titanium in it.Titanium 'work hardens' ie.the more you try to cut it,bend it - the harder it gets.So,with continuous 'working' due to fretting,the 'gold' fretwire should last quite a while. I still like the St.Steel stuff that my local luthier showed me a few weeks back - smooth wasn't even near it. It's nice to have a choice,
Saska

[Fretbear]

You get more millings out of bigger frets because of their depth down, not because of their width across.
These diamond fret re-crowners Stew-Mac sells can quickly pay for themselves if you still have some fret left to work with. A quick polish afterwards with some 2000 grit paper and you're good to go.

http://www.stewmac.com/shop/Tools/Sp...ret_Files.html

[Paul Hostetter]

I don't mill frets anymore, gave it up about 25 years ago in fact. If a fret is worn to the point it doesn't function well, I replace it - the height is more important than the look. If the fret looks grooved but still plays a clean note, which is usually the case, I let the sleeping dog lie. Why mill all the frets down to the lowest point of the few that are worn? It's a waste of time and materials. The lower the fret, the harder you have to grip to get a clean note, and the faster you wear out that lower fret. Pretty soon you have to replace them all. Most people only wear out one or two, or at most the lower five or seven.

[Michael Cameron]

Originally Posted by Paul Hostetter

I don't mill frets anymore, gave it up about 25 years ago in fact. If a fret is worn to the point it doesn't function well, I replace it - the height is more important than the look. If the fret looks grooved but still plays a clean note, which is usually the case, I let the sleeping dog lie. Why mill all the frets down to the lowest point of the few that are worn? It's a waste of time and materials. The lower the fret, the harder you have to grip to get a clean note, and the faster you wear out that lower fret. Pretty soon you have to replace them all. Most people only wear out one or two, or at most the lower five or seven.

I used to think I liked wide frets;but,what I really like is tall frets.(both for feel and cleanliness of notes and re-crowning/leveling).

It just so happened that the wider ones were also taller. .050" or so x .080".
If they are crowned properly,the width won't make any difference as far as intonation.

[Michael Cameron]

BTW,I remember some guys at Gibson telling me that hey didn't do "partial re-frets",only total re-frets and "planing" the fret board.

Makes sense in some respects. Not all respects.

This ain't proprietary is it,Big Joe?

[Rick Turner]

Bernie Leadon had me refret his prewar D-45 just because he felt too much ebony when he fretted notes. The original frets were really quite OK, he just wanted a better feel. It was interesting to refret a guitar worth more than my house was at the time!

[man dough nollij]

I wonder if anyone has thought of making titanium fret wire? I know there is no such thing in practical terms as pure titanium (old mountain biker), so it would have a certain amount of aluminum and vanadium in it. It would make killer frets.

You would probably have a hard time working with it-- it's VERY hard, but it would probably last forever.

[Fretbear]

Originally Posted by Michael Cameron

BTW,I remember some guys at Gibson telling me that hey didn't do "partial re-frets",only total re-frets and "planing" the fret board. Makes sense in some respects. Not all respects.

It's their prerogative; I don't "Do Gibson"....
I don't want to start up anything here, but worn frets are very easily and efficaciously partially milled back to smoothness with no actual requirement for the other unworn frets to be milled down to match. The playability (on mandolins especially) remains excellent (improves in fact) and the decrease in fret height in combination with the increasing action toward the bridge is not an issue in real playing terms. Telling people how their instruments "must" be set-up and maintained is like telling someone how they "should" play; arrogant, futile and usually ignored.

[Bernie Daniel]

Michael Cameron: I used to think I liked wide frets;but,what I really like is tall frets.(both for feel and cleanliness of notes and re-crowning/leveling).

This is the conclusion I have reached as well. IMHO the ideal fret is tall, hard, and thin -- in that order.

After trying various gauges I have come to the opinon that the frets Gibson uses on its current mandolins -- about 0.046 in width and 0.031 in height above the fretboard are about the best I've used -- but I think if they were even a little taller -- say 0.045 inches in above the board they would be even better. Then make them out or the titanium-iron alloy Paul mentioned.

[Paul Hostetter]

You want tall and narrow? These are Lloyd Loar's "fairy frets."



Those .031" tall frets are just too low. Jescar makes their 39040 in either 18% NS or SS, it's basically half-round at .039 tall and .040 wide, and it's the smallest wire I'd use for a mandolin. A number of other wires, such as Dunlop's #6230 (18% NS) clock in at .043 tall and .078 tall, which I like better. Smoother slides, more mass. Not a traditional look, but an awful lot of of my serious mandolin clientèle are crazy about these frets. I'm wishing the Jescar 39040 came in gold though.

[hank]

Paul are those jescar 39040 in the photo or are those some Loar era prototypes? I often hear comments about better sustain with "banjo frets" (i hate that term) larger frets but to my limited understanding the only thing that could do that is a taller narrower fret that lets the string vibrate more freely and cleanly at the edge of the fret. Then if this gets extreme like the Fairy frets above it would require a lot of finesse(light touch) to slide smoothly. Since I like to play lightly and bear down from time to time I see the importance of having some width to smooth up the speed bumps as well. Like everything it seems a compromise, in this case between feel, sustain and wear. Where I'm going with this is--- I'm not quite sure but after having a flat board with .031x.046(Gibson Goldrush) and a 10"radiused board with ?x.080(Weber Fern) to play side by side I'm beginning to question the common modern consensus that .080 has better sustain and plays easier than a narrower fret.

[Lefty Luthier]

I'm not certain why many wear out their frets so quickly and some don't. Recently I replaced the first 7 frets on my sister's mandolin that I built in 1961 and only the G string area was really worn down. She plays daily and records religious music so I know those frets saw lots of action. Possibly the player rather than the fret material is the real issue.

[fishtownmike]

I wear through frets on the mando and guitar. I have a death grip. I'm gonna have to try the jescar FW39040-S wire. I have been using the jescar FW37053 nickel wire...Mike

[Big Joe]

The choice to do partial or complete refrets is up to the luthier. We chose to do only complete refrets in MOST cases for several reasons. First, in most cases the fingerboard surface is not in very great condition and doing a planing will bring the fingerboard to the state is should be for best performance. It allows the fretting surface on a really flat surface (even if it is radiused the fingerboard needs the humps and dips removed) and you can then achieve optimal playability when the frets are installed and leveled properly and the nicely crowned.

Another reason is that often when only some of the frets are heavily worn and others don't seem to have divots they are still worn down and no longer the original shape or size. If you look at them you can see where they are flattened and worn by the string sliding over them for a good period of time. The friction wear does not appear like the deep grooves in the frets, but they can be just as much worn. Imagine a tire on a car. One has bald spots and the others do not. However, they have so little tread left that they won't perform very well. That is what happens to frets. When the frets are worn like that and you only replace some frets the new frets and the old frets will have to be worn down by dressing and crowning so the frets will be level. Often you remove a good amount of the new frets to get them to level with the old frets.

We feel, and I am not going to argue this with anyone, that the best job for your instrument and to give the optimal playability is to replace them all and do what we feel is right for your instrument. The new frets will last longer and the playing surface be better than doing it another way. Is this more expensive? Yes....and no. Yes, it is more expensive to have a complete plane and refret done than just a few frets replaced, but if it gives you better performance and you get a much longer life out of the new frets is is not any more expensive and can actually be less expensive in the long run.

A good number of our clients are working musicians and they demand optimal playability out of their instrument. They are very fussy and want their tool to be at its best. They also don't ever want to spend any unneeded money on their instruments. We have fretted thousands of instruments and our customers are always pleased that it gives them what they need in the end.

I know some do partial refrets. That is a choice they can make and if their customers are pleased, that is fine. For our shop, and Gibson, and other shops it is a choice we make not to. It is a matter of philosophy and ours is that it is the best way to do the job from our perspective. Others have a different view and they are entitled to that. Our experience over many years confirms our choice and our customers agree with us on this point. When we examine a customers guitar and it can be taken care of with a fretdress and a recrown we will tell them that and if it needs a refret we will tell them that as well. If we see it needs a refret and the customer indicates they only want a few frets replaced we explain why we don't do that and we are happy to repair their instrument, be we are responsible for the outcome and this is our recommendation. If they do not wish to take our recommendation we would refuse the job. We will not take a repair we do not believe to be the right one for that instrument. In the end the consumer has control over what he/she wants done, but we have control over what we chose to do in our shop. We do not mean to be arrogant but I don't want to do a repair that I don't believe to be right for anyone's instrument. This is our opinion based on a lot of experience. Again, I'm not going to argue here or anywhere about this. I just answered a question and stated our reasons. Thank you.

[hank]

Joe what's your thoughts on the newer options of Evo and Stainless frets? Are the pros. using these alloys and comfortable with their effect on tone and playability? What is your most requested or recommended fret size and material for mandolin?

[Big Joe]

Most are not using them. We can do whatever frets one wants, but so far the Stailess frets have not really taken off in our area. The extra work and expense of installing them has kept some away and some have tried them and not liked them. I am still a bit undecided. I think it is great to get extra fret life, but it is still a compromise and when you use a compromise you get one positive but and equal amount of negative. Standard frets seem to serve most quite well and are still the most often requested. Who knows what the standard will be in ten more years, but at this point it is still standard fret material.

As far a size, it varies so much. I don't know that there is a "standard" size. Some want the old larger frets removed and smaller frets installed. Others want small ones removed and larger ones installed. Some like tall crowns, some like short crown and wide frets. Some have no idea and just tell us to do what we think is best for their instrument. There is no clear winner in fret size at this point. I tend to prefer smaller, taller frets personally. Our customer base is all over the map on that issue.

[hank]

Thanks Joe. I guess in a perfect world we could walk into a shop and test play some examples of fret material and sizes with different neck and radius profiles to find a good fit. I can understand the resistance to change when a bad fit causes so much expense, down time and frustration. I'm still surprised to find I like the smaller frets and blindfolded I don't think I could distinguish flat from a 10" radius. I suspect some of differences in preference are not only in hand size and how a person plays(tension and pressure,etc.) but also in the kind of music they primarily play(mostly melody and simpler double stops and chords or fast moving complex chord structures etc.

[Big Joe]

That is part of it. It is what one gets used to. I have a preference, but I play so many different ones that it really does not matter to me if it is radiused or not. There are advantages to each. I don't know that hand size is that big an issue either. I have very big hands and have no problems with smaller boards but do have a bit of an issue with very wide frets. It makes my hand feel cramped...especially up the fingerboard a bit.

Each player develops a preference for what ever the reason may be. When I started playing mandolin...and guitar...I played fingerboards that were a bit radiused. When I began playing Martn guitars I did not like it because the board was so flat compared to my Gibsons. Once I got used to it I find I actually prefer flat. The same with mandolins. I started on radiused boards and my first few really good mandolins were Gilchrist with radiused boards. When I got my first MM I had the board radiused. After a bit I found I preferred the flat board on my mandolins as well.

Since I play nearly every kind of instrument and fingerboard imagineable in the shop I find it really does not matter any more to me. If it feels good and sounds good that is more important than anything to me. My personal collection has a vaired mix of flat and radiused and it does not matter to me anymore.

The main thing is what makes one want to play. When an instrument moves you in the way it sounds and plays to make you want to play it that is what really matters. If you have an instrument that does not move you to play, you should probably get rid of it and get one that does. At least that is my opinion and the name on the headstock is a long way from what I look at first.