Acoustic Guitar Construction

or this:

http://www.zeroglide.com/default.asp

Both examples have slots far too deep (only half the string thickness is necessary and desirable). I don't like the bone thing at all, seems it could be a real hassle to make accurately messing with angles, slots, dados etc. not for me.

The commercial product has merit ---- but ----- if not using the exact same fret as the rest of the finger board it could be a challenge as well.

The beauty of a true zero fret is that it is getting dressed and leveled with all the other frets, so the elevation is automatically correct.

I am with Ken on both of his comments. I think both of the later solutions offer no benefit over a traditional nut or even a traditional zero fret with much more hassle.

I don't understand. It has been stated here numerous times that a zero fret gives the lowest possible non-buzzing string height at the nut position. I realize that the statements were made about the traiditional metal fret, but I see no advantage over the simple two-piece unit in my picture.

The slots in my picture - it does not matter if they are deep or not, really - their only function is to keep the string spacing correct and to lay the string correctly over the 'nut' - in this case, the bone that takes the place of the traditional zero fret. The fit is not that important.

Using the half-pencil, it is a snap to set the bone fret at exactly the same height and radius as the first fret. I don't see what the problem would be.

I used a 1/8" piece of bone backed up by a 1/8" piece of plastic - went very quickly.

What am I missing?

The first solution in the thread is a nice zero fret solution. You can pull the nut and level all of the frets including the zero fret. The all bone solution in the middle is not a zero fret it is an oddly shaped nut. I use the half pencil technique on a nut to get close, but I still need to file individual strings to fine tune the setup; it would be hard in this solution. The commercial solution works great if the zero fret has the same height as the rest of the frets, but since they probably have been leveled, my guess is there would be a tendency for the zero fret to be too tall.

What I find missing is what is wrong with a normal zero fret solution like the first one shown? If the issue is the fret board is already cut or positioned for a standard nut, then I would use a standard nut rather than either of the retro fit solutions.

Also I do not agree that a zero fret gives the lowest possible non-buzzing string height at the nut position. I go lower than a zero fret on my high E and B.

Having the slots too deep increases the likelihood that the strings will pinch when tuning.

it does not matter if they are deep or not, really - their only function is to keep the string spacing correct and to lay the string correctly over the 'nut'

Well not really -- slots are also supposed to define string direction to the tuning post in a manner that does not bind -- deep slots especially for the wound strings are notorious for causing tuning issues.

I am not saying that either or any of the methods won't work --- for me, just don't see the value add?

I'm not convinced, John, but then - who really cares? :-)
Anyway, the method works fine for Yamamoto - in fact the picture above shows his default 'nut' and he charges extra for a 'regular' nut - wonder why? - and for me so far. Who knows? Maybe you're right.