Jump to content

Entry for January's Guitar Of The Month contest is now open!
http://www.projectguitar.com/forums/topic/49179-guitar-of-the-month-january-2018/

Remember to cast your vote for Guitar Of The Year 2017 - open throughout January

 

Pariahrob

Pariahrob's build log

Recommended Posts

I personally love the look of abalone dots. I like the look, ease and simplicity of dots (too bad if it's common--I likes what I likes) and abalone looks like you inset opals. And opals are gorgeous!

SR

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ScottR thanks. I know it's common but think it's the best fit. 

I did consider doing blocks the same thickness as the centreline but firstly I'm not sure I'd do it justice and second it's such a nice piece of very black ebony I didn't want to add much. 

Move since polished the board and it's come out glassy and lovely. Rolled the edges too and feels great. 

Tomorrow I'll be profiling the neck, thicknessing the headstock and hopefully fitting some frets!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. While I finish this build I'm planning the next. It's going to be roughly prs custom 22 shaped but proper semi hollow. Shapeless body. Book matches maple top, probably flame but maybe quilt. 

Im friends with a luthier who makes classical instruments and I love the vibe of some of the proper vintage pieces he has in forcrestoration. With that in mind I'm going to pinch some ideas and build this to incorporate them. 

 16th century styled f hole

oberhanging, floaty ended ebony board

black maple black perfling

three a side tuners with exposed gears and ebony pegs. 

 

Now ive talked to him about some aspects but not sure about following the classical route. For example the f holes. His are all fluted to accentuate the shape but think that might look and feel odd on a guitar. 

Perfling. Looks great on a cello but would binding be better. Maybe black pear and maple (if I can make it work). 

Im going to stain it by hand and try to give a nod to a beauty of a bass he had in. 300 years old and lovely amber to chocolate patina. That was from wear but I think a subtle bust could work. 

So please let me know your thoughts. Some definite challenges ahead but if I do it right it could be quite something  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abalone is nice in the right places. I've never liked it in the purfling, but sometimes as in this instance it suits a particular board. You've really got to play it into the right location well, otherwise it just looks poor. To me anyway. Keep it up, @Pariahrob!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Pariahrob said:

 

Ok. While I finish this build I'm planning the next.

 

The build bug claims another! Be prepared for that sensation to be around for a nice long while.

My feeling is classical instrument details would work very nicely on a guitar whose shape brings to mind a classical instrument. Not a direct copy, but something that give a nod to a recognizable classical shape. They may look out of place on a thoroughly modern shape though.

SR

I'm thinking a scrolled headstock would be awesome....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That bug bit a while back @ScottR but it does seem to be a bit of a bulldog. It's not letting go any time soon. 

 

I have a follow up question about the next build. I'm thinking about neck joints. If I go for a glued neck I'll have an angle, based on my top carve and bridge height. If I go for a blot on would that stay the same or would it be better to go more strat like and raise the relative height of the fingerboard. 

That sounds like a stupid question even as I ask it but, as much as a non angled set neck feels wrong, an angled bolt on doesn't seem 'right'. 

Any thoughts? I want this to be a bit snappier than a traditional set neck but don't want to have a longer scale length and the next option is a maple neck but they're not so good to glue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Pariahrob said:

I have a follow up question about the next build. I'm thinking about neck joints. If I go for a glued neck I'll have an angle, based on my top carve and bridge height. If I go for a blot on would that stay the same or would it be better to go more strat like and raise the relative height of the fingerboard. 

That sounds like a stupid question even as I ask it but, as much as a non angled set neck feels wrong, an angled bolt on doesn't seem 'right'. 

Any thoughts? I want this to be a bit snappier than a traditional set neck but don't want to have a longer scale length and the next option is a maple neck but they're not so good to glue. 

It depends a lot on what type of bridge you intend to use, and the relative "height off the deck" of the bridge and fretboard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @Norris. I understand the physics of it but was wondering more about the feel. 

Trying to imagine how an angled bolt in would feel compared to a flat set neck. 

Mill be using a bridge where the saddle height is a minimum 14mm off the body so could go either way. 

I'm wondering what would feel most natural really. The angle can make for a comfortable guitar with less reach for the fretting hand but no angle looks better to my eye. 

Someone suggest d I angle the bottom of the heel and keep it bolt on. Use angled pickup rings to keep them on plane. This would work but would it look odd?

I guess my question is less about the mechanics and more about feel and look. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right then. I think I have things straight now. Please let me know if I've missed something. 

Note: I'm not trying to build a replica cu22 but something with a similar body shape. Think I'll go semi hollow too. 

Heres my initial 1:1 sketch. I'll get a clean one done in illustrator once I'm happy. Ignore the fact xtra thickness on the bottom of the body. It will be narrower.

File Mar 09, 1 19 03 PM.jpeg

Edited by Pariahrob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pariahrob said:

Use angled pickup rings to keep them on plane. This would work but would it look odd?

This is what Les Pauls do. Actually most Gibsons, I believe.

I prefer the feel of an angled neck and I prefer some space under the strings in the picking area. so it varies depending on what bridge I use, but in general my set necks have the fretboard flush with the body where they first meet. The fretboard will rise a bit above the body then depending on how far it extends into the body and how much neck angle I end up using to work with the bridge. 

Les Pauls angle the upper bout of the body to match the fretboard angle, but I've never felt mine looked odd or unusual. It's one of those things you may notice but never take much note of.

SR

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @ScottR. I think that's how I'll continue then. I'm happy using the carve on the top to help it sit right. I think that might be another advantage now I think of it. Keeping my a deeper maple top means I'll be able to have a deeper carve. 

Cheers, now back to the current build. Frets are going on in the morning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, most modern and vintage Gibsons anyway. In between you had all sort of craziness such as Flying Vs with little to no neck angle, with the fingerboard hoisted almost half an inch (well, thereabouts) above the body.

Bolt-ons have the baggage of Fender making people think that no neck angle is the norm with these. It certainly isn't. It all comes down to the combination of the height of the fingerboard off the body (as mentioned), the height of the witness points on the bridge (TOMs are higher, hardtails lower) and any additional planes in between. A Les Paul has three; a neck plane, a pickup plane and that of the bridge which is parallel to the back of the body. The neck/body plane difference is the fundamental one whilst the pickup plane is somewhere in between. Add into this angled pickup rings which bring the pickups back into parallel with the strings. Yeeps.

I've done a few bolt-ons with neck angles, a couple of neck-throughs with no angle and everything in between. None of them are incorrect approaches as long as the fundamental geometry is correct.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strictly-speaking, the pickup cavities in that CAD plan should be perpendicular with respect to the neck/string plane rather than the pickup plane itself. Sorry if this is getting a bit OT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ProsthetaThank you so much for all that. I think you confirmed what I should do. Go with my gut! I was worried I'd missed something  

I'll draw up my sketch on the computer and get some accurate measurements and think I'll be good to go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all. 

Time has been getting away from me recently so not much done. Frets are fitted and bevelled on the superstrat (I must name it) and here's a little progress in the FF semi hollow. Since I took the photo I've drawn on and hogged out the cavities. Basically left an edge room no the body at about 15mm, with a xtensions for the strap button and neck pocket plus a chunk where the bridge studs will go. 

Thecrest is coming out tomorrow, so along with the control cavity will have gone on a serious diet!

Had some worries roughing the neck. I took it down from the top view first then realised that would make the headstock angle harder. I was going to shim up one side to level it out but turns out there was enough meat to keep it stable. 

Glued on some ears before I left the studio but will concentrate on the body tomorrow. Now I need to hunt for a nice too. Not sure if I go quilt or flame but I do know I'll be staining a kind of vintage burst. It's a bit more caramel than others I e seen but still refining....

 

IMG_2687.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Small update. Little bit of body routing. The weight has come down substantially and after a little tidying will be ready for the top to go on. Which I've not even got yet!

theres 4mm depth left behind the main cavity. Too much, not enough or does it not matter?

Im not sure the tone will alter in a meaningful way if I take more out and it's plenty deep enough for the f hole to look right but if you can tell me different I'll listen. 

Ive not made this style before so learning lots. I panicked a little as I routed the channel for the bridge pickup wiring but then realised it's fine. I'd accounted for the cap and I've a support piece that sits there, flanged to aid access for the wires. It also aids getting the ground wire to the bridge.

Next question: should I stain the visible cavity or leave it bare? Or design a label of sorts? 

IMG_2705.JPG

Edited by Pariahrob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't go much thinner than 4mm - you'll need a bit for finish sanding. I think I left about 6mm on my Tele. Take it steady when you get to it.

You'll probably want to apply some sort of finish to the chamber. Dye/paint/clear lacquer - up to you. You won't be able to do it once the top is on - at least not very easily.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers @Norris I'll stop where I am then and I think apply the same stain that the back will have, which is a chocolate brown alcohol born stain. 

Ive tidied the routes up now and added a 1/4" roundover to the back.

Oh and just had an email with some top choices. This is my choice so should have it soon. 18mm quilted top. 

IMG_2706.JPG

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pariahrob said:

 

theres 4mm depth left behind the main cavity. Too much, not enough or does it not matter?

 

The piccolo bass is about that in the area where I scooped the back.  However, as Norris says, it's pretty much as thin as you would ever want - it's a bit unnerving when you run your hand over the grain and can actually hear the hollowness from that slight friction!

Also, clearly you won't be able to carve any 'paunch relief' at the back.... 

Looking very good, though :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4mm is fine in my opinion. You could feasibly go a little thinner but not much.

I'd stain the inside, however either option is good. Just put a little thought into whether you want to see a matching finish inside to the outside. A label would be nice touch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Norris said:

18mm? - you could probably get that split again and get two tops out of it

It's actually 28mm and I'm definitely going to get two out if it. Two decent tops and such a nice piece. Feels like my birthday. 

Mill post some photos when it arrives but for now I'm back to dressing the frets on the superstrat. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make sure that it's resawn cleanly! Not just for maintaining the stock weight, but also for a better match....looks like a birthday alright!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×