Neck angle second chance.....

[ken cierp]

Ditto Tim

We have one of those protractors in a bottom drawer somewhere --- certainly not user friendly!!!

[MarkAndrew1]

So, just for the sake of my clarity. The bottom row of numbers
is the one I should have been reading to get the neck angle?
I'm terrible at this stuff but trying to learn.....

[Tim Benware]

Well it's hard to see the mark you are measuring by but I believe John P is right, it is probably closer to 89*. Seems like it depends which surface you put that on as to which row to read. I am pretty sure if you contact the maker he'll know what degree he cut it to and it should be real close to that if not dead on.

[MarkAndrew1]

Well it's hard to see the mark you are measuring by but I believe John P is right, it is probably closer to 89*. Seems like it depends which surface you put that on as to which row to read. I am pretty sure if you contact the maker he'll know what degree he cut it to and it should be real close to that if not dead on.

maybe I should just invest in a digital one :)

[dave d]

So, just for the sake of my clarity. The bottom row of numbers
is the one I should have been reading to get the neck angle?
I'm terrible at this stuff but trying to learn.....

For your situation (that brand of protractor, placed on the neck in that way), yes, it's the bottom row.

As a visual double-check, your second photo does look like it is less than 90*, which as the other fellows have said, is correct. It should be close to 89* and that's what it looks like to me. If you held a small machinists square (90*) on it, you would see a gap there, so therefore the angle is less than 90.

[MarkAndrew1]

So, just for the sake of my clarity. The bottom row of numbers
is the one I should have been reading to get the neck angle?
I'm terrible at this stuff but trying to learn.....

For your situation (that brand of protractor, placed on the neck in that way), yes, it's the bottom row.

As a visual double-check, your second photo does look like it is less than 90*, which as the other fellows have said, is correct. It should be close to 89* and that's what it looks like to me. If you held a small machinists square (90*) on it, you would see a gap there, so therefore the angle is less than 90.

Yeah, you're right Dave. The black line in the protractor is between 90 and 89deg's. So,
should I just call it 89deg's? That would give me 89+91=180. The complimenting angle
at the body should be 91deg to form the straight line I'm looking for.

[ken cierp]

You need to flip the protractor the other way so the long part lays along the "cheek" of the heel --- not next to the tenon. that is the angle which is important, where the heel contacts the body -- I bet its 88.5 +/-