The Carvecaster

[marksound]

Score the finish at the base of the nut. Give it a whack with a wood block and hammer. OR if you're not particular, grab it with pliers and wiggle it loose.

[Mickguard]

Okay, the operation was a success...took a bit of effort to get the nut out of there. USed a wood block and a little hammer to loosen it up, then tapped it out from the side. Didn't want to mess up the slot--which came out pretty clean.

And I figured out what went wrong...the neck definitely came off of a Fender, but the nut isn't factory --looks like it's a replacement, maybe one of those delrins, because it doesn't look like the normal plastic nuts I've seen.

And once I got it off it was pretty clear that someone had tried to file his own nut slots--and failed miserably. It's not just the spacing...the actual slots are really poorly done and some of them even slope off to the sides at the bottom...no wonder the seller wanted to get rid of the neck!

Luckily I have two graph tech nuts here--one of them is a bit too wide, but the other fits perfectly.

So now the E strings are pretty much where they need to go, at least at the top of the neck.

Now I have to adjust the neck so it's properly seated--and I'll still have to move the bridge over a mm or so to get it perfect, but that shouldn't be too hard if there's some extra room in the pickup route. That'll clean up the line at the bottom of the neck (it's playable now, but could be just a little bit better).

[marksound]

Moving the bridge is a PITA, but sometimes necessary on a parts build. I've had to move the bridge on one twice (mainly due to inexperience), but when it's finally right it's soooo right.

[Mickguard]

Moving the bridge is a PITA, but sometimes necessary on a parts build. I've had to move the bridge on one twice (mainly due to inexperience), but when it's finally right it's soooo right.

←

It'd be a lot harder if it was a string through, but since the strings are top mounted, it shouldn't be too difficult--just need to plug the screw holes, shift it over about 1 mm, and redrill the holes, then do the same for the bigsby --although I might start with the Bigsby, maybe that'll shift the saddles over just a bit? With the new nut on there, it's already really close. The good part is that the distance is so slight, the holes shouldn't show at all.

But I think the guitar's going to be worth all the fuss...

Now, who wants to encourage me to go with the P90 idea?

[marksound]

[Hunter]

Nice guitars, but I'd add an elbow contour too. The Strat is my favorite body shape because it contours my body so well. ^______^

[skibum5545]

Don't know why Fender never came out with an official carve telecaster...

←

Ahem?

Carved Tele

[marksound]

The one on the right.

[Mickguard]

Ahem?

←

Well, according to the "essential telecaster features" description I posted before (inspired by comments from Drak, so blame him ), the tele in that ad is NOT a tele...

Mahogany? Humbuckers? Hardtail? No pickguard? No control plate? Nope, that's no tele, that one was designed by the marketing department!

And besides, it's a 'special edition'. I'm wondering why Fender never adopted the carve for the standard telecaster. You'd figure once he came up with the Strat, he would have figured it out.

Harumph!

Hunter: I considered adding a forearm carve but didn't because I feel that a flattop is essential to the telecaster look. But I also don't like the carve's effect on my playing style-- I'm used to playing a flattop Gibson, and I'm used to planting my palm on the bridge. But with my strat I find that difficult--my forearm ends up planted in the carve...it's a different way of playing.

[marksound]

Adding insult to injury, mine has a flame maple top, a set neck, and humbuckers.

[Mickguard]

In the meantime...I've been thinking about ways of increasing the downward tension/angle on the strings as they come off the bigsby. As it is, the tension seems adequate but not perfect --I get the feeling there's a slight shifting going on.

Alternative A would be to route a bed for the bigsby and sink it into the body a couple of millimeters. But that would ruin the look of the flattop, and it's more work.

Alternative B would be to add a second tension bar behind the bridge and before the bigsby's tension bar.

I could use some kind of nylon/plastic (like an acoustic guitar saddle strip, maybe one of those slippery graphtechs). Then clamp the strings down so that the string angle would be more like that from a string-through tele. With the right material, there shouldn't be any string breakage issues.

In fact, I just remembered I have one of these:

All I'd need to do is turn it upside down (maybe flatten the curve a bit too?). The main issue I can see would be that the bar would block access to the intonation screws --I'd have to set that before applying the tension bar to the strings--but as long as the strings come off the same point on the saddle, that shouldn't affect intonation, right?

(It might be possible to place the bar right in front of the Bigsby's roller--that way I'd still have access to the intonation screws. )

Think it'll work?

[Marzocchi705]

Trying to hijack the thread, eh? 

←

...no, not at all...

[Mickguard]

Adding insult to injury, mine has a flame maple top, a set neck, and humbuckers.

←

Blaspheme! Heresy!

[donald k wilson]

The tele I posted with the p-90 soapbar sounded great. It had the full range of sound from tele twang to delta blues. IMHO you can't go wrong, do it. dkw

[kitchen door]

those pics on the previose page make it look like its made of copper ,i love it

[javacody]

Cool. I did a similar parts project with an unknown licensed rosewood fretboard neck (allparts?) and a sunburst alder johnson body.

The johnson "teles" are top loaders. If its a top loader, its just not a tele (unless you have a bigsby on it).

I got to drill my first ferrules and string throughs. I had to sand the neck pocket. Apparently, the folks in the plant who made it thought a neck should couple up to a really bumpy, partially paint filled surface. I had to fill the old neck screw holes, because they weren't even close to Fender spec, and I had to fill the original pickguard holes.

I then got a replacement vintage type bridge, pigtailmusic.com compensated brass tele barrel saddles, an earvana nut, some Kluson copy tuners from Brian (great tuners Brian!), and a Fender vintage reissue top plate, with pots, cap, and switch still in it and soldered up. Last but not least were Mighty Mite tele pickups. I'm sorry, but name brand pickups don't sound $100 better than these $30 pickups.

Anyway, my point is that I screwed up in bridge placement the first time. I had to move it over about 1/8" or so to the back and left (looking down at the front of the guitar). Of course, now the string through holes don't line up right. I drilled a path through, but its hard to get strings through. I figured I can bend the end of the string a little and turn the string until it finds the path. The guitar sounds and plays great though, and its my first tele in about 10 years.

After screwing up bridge placement (it was similar to idch's problem), I'd read someone say they ducktaped their bridge on the face of the guitar and use the two E strings to line everything up. It worked like a charm. Its perfect now. Man, I love duct tape!!!

[Mickguard]

The johnson "teles" are top loaders. If its a top loader, its just not a tele (unless you have a bigsby on it).

After screwing up bridge placement (it was similar to idch's problem), I'd read someone say they ducktaped their bridge on the face of the guitar and use the two E strings to line everything up. It worked like a charm. Its perfect now. Man, I love duct tape!!!

←

Yep, this one started out as a Stagg...the Bocaster started as a Johnson. I had to clean up the Stagg's pocket a little but the Johnson's was okay.

The neck screw holes in the Stagg body match the F plate I'm using, so no problems there. But the bridge was set to match the Stagg neck --which is this big thick baseball bat kind of thing--the heel is a good 1 mm wider, enough to shift things over a bit.

But that's a great tip about the duct tape, I'm going to use that.

Right now I've cut a maple shim for the Fender neck --came out pretty nicely, I'm pleased--and I also fashioned a shim for the treble side of the pocket, just to make things a bit more snug and to fill up the gap there. I'm getting ready to reattach the neck, make sure it's nice and straight (I'm going to post a pic so one of you eagle eyes can catch it if it isn't).

I honestly don't believe there will be much of a difference, if at all, in the sound of the guitar with this maple shim vs. the metal shim. You never know though!

I decided to replace the bridge plate with a modified Fender plate I just bought from that giant guitars guy on ebay (he mods them by shaving the lip and adding extra screw holes).

Right now I'm trying to decide if I really want to keep the Bigsby. On the one hand, I love the look, dig the sound and the extra weight helps balance the guitar, now that I've carved it. On the other hand, I'm really worried I'll face tuning issues--and I have a pathological fear of having to retune on stage. Since I don't use the Bigsby much (and not at all with the band), I'm thinking of just leaving it off for right now...hard to choose!

As for the top mount thing...well, the original Telecasters WERE top mount, weren't they? Anyway, I don't really buy the 'string through = sustain' thing all that much. It just doesn't make sense to me. I don't like the look, but that's a minor thing compared to the EXTREME hassle I'd have in getting the ferrules lined up right

Maybe there's a bit of string through in the ultimate sustain equation, but not enough to warrant the extra hassle involved.

Anyway, while I'm mounting the bridge, I plan to drill string guide holes at the base of the bridge (the original top mount holes were near the top). This will better approximate the string angle of a sting through bridge.

On the other hand, I can definitely see where the extra screw holes on the bridge can have some effect on the sound of the guitar--since the tele bridge is supposed to be a big part of the telecaster sound.

I have to say, this is turning into a really fun project!

Other possible/future mods: I'd really like to rearrange the electronics. As I said, I'd like to move the switch to the horn--I keep knocking the existing switch, which is a real PIA. And I think I'd prefer having separate volume controls for each pickup, that way I could dial in the sound I want (heavy on the bridge, with just a touch of neck).

I'm still thinking about the P90...the main thing stopping me is that I really like the look of that chrome lipstick, to me it's a big part of the overall tele look.

[marksound]

But that's a great tip about the duct tape, I'm going to use that.

If you can get your hands on gaffer tape, try that instead. It holds tight, but comes off a hell of a lot easier and doesn't leave that nasty residue. It costs about 3 times as much, but it sure is handy.

By the way, masking tape works too.

I have a pathological fear of having to retune on stage

Really? Just get an inline tuner like this or this or one of the multitude of others. Run through a volume pedal with a tuner output and no one will hear a thing. Edited September 4, 2005 by marksound

[Mickguard]

Actually, I'm going to use double-sided tape (which has turned out to be one of the most valuable tools I have!).

I have an inline tuner and it works great. But since I'm singing too, also trying to make contact with the audience etc, and generally completely hyped up when I'm onstage, it's just becomes too overwhelming...

Besides, I usually only notice I'm out of tune during a song --I'm just not experienced enough yet to tune on the fly, but that's my ultimate goal...

It wasn't a big issue back in the old days...we just slogged through anyway, and it always worked out all right. With this band, they don't like things to be so loose...

[javacody]

Yeah getting those ferrules lined up is no easy task. However, its not really a tele without 'em. All the pics I've seen of vintage tele's have ferrules. I think you should go for it. Mine turned out at least as well as pictures of vintage broadcasters that I've seen. If I would have made a template out of wood first, they would have turned out perfectly.

My parts tele sustains way better than my strats and my strats are premium wood and parts from USA Custom guitars, not some no-name asian mass made thing. I think its a combination of the 2 strings to a saddle tele bridge and the string through.

[Mickguard]

Yeah getting those ferrules lined up is no easy task. However, its not really a tele without 'em.  All the pics I've seen of vintage tele's have ferrules.

←

Well, there's three things. The first is that I'll eventually put a bigsby back on there anyway --especially if I can pick up one of those F bigsbys. So there's no point in having ferrules catching on my belt buckle.

The second is that no one can see the ferrules from the front of the guitar

But the main thing is: I just don't buy the 'string-through = sustain' equation. It just doesn't make any sense at all to me.

It makes much more sense that, if the bridge pickup is going to pick up any additional string vibration, it will get much more if that vibration is directed to the bridge plate, not to the wood. There's a reason they make church bells out of metal and not wood.

And I wonder how much, if any, of the vibration actually gets transmitted to the neck pickup. Again, it makes more sense that if the string vibration is directed to the bridge plate, and the bridge plate is making firm contact with the SURFACE of the wood, those vibrations will be more likely to be translated to the neck pickup.

Sure, I may be completely off-base --but that's better than trying to get those ferrules lined up!

And I wonder how much string vibration there really is after the saddles? With the normal string-through method, you've got a pretty extreme angle there--wouldn't that break off most of the vibration anyway?

Anyway, WD has a top-mount style bridge that lets you hook the ball ends directly under the base--anyone try one of these?

[Mattia]

Warning! Freeform conjecture to follow!

Couple of things: go pick up a nice, resonant guitar, pluck the low E string, and lightly tought the guitar body. That thing should be resonating. Vibrating along nicely. Some vibration of wood probably gets transferred to the neck pickup, particuarly if it's direct-mounted, but it'll be minor. Pickups can't pick up wood vibrating, and they're rather on the massive side for them to be 'moving' with the vibration, moving them in the magnetic field. They're more likely to 'move' a bit when mounted in a pickguard, hanging on by some springs and screws. Direct mounting should, theoretically, give you a more 'grounded' sound. What I think the wood does is influence the way the strings vibrate, ultimatel. It absorbs certain frequencies, lets others ring more freely, and that difference is what you pick up.

Also, you don't want your bridge resonating overmuch; probably just dampen everything. By having the strings go through the body, you're coupling them more directly to the body. They're anchored firmly (and behind the saddles, not vibrating appreciable, I'd think), taking the shear tension off the bridge, mostly, so the whole things is 'free' to resonate, instead of resonating while countering string pull. There's a reason guitar bodies aren't made of metal (well, most of them), but wood. It's the wood you're listening for, not the metal. In theory, string-through should give the strings a slightly different feel (longer back-length), but in practice that's probably negligible.

[Mickguard]

Ha, mattia, as a self-confessed wood addict, it seems only natural that you vote for the string through design

Anyway, I mounted the bridge today --had to route the pickup cavity a bit for that, that went smoothly enough though.

But there's still something weird about this bridge, or this guitar...

Here's the deal : The neck is straight and seated straight in the pocket. The bridge is straight. The strings are now pretty much exactly where they should go (I favored the high E, giving it an extra half millimeter of fretboard over the low E, but the low E is still very playable) . The strings run dead center over the bridge pickup poles. The saddles are straight too (even though not all of the holes I drilled into the base plate are exactly where they should be I'll correct that when

I modify the Fender bridge I have coming in the mail).

So all's right in the world, right?

Well...sure. Except that the bridge itself isn't in line with the neck, or at any rate isn't dead centered to the guitar -- it's easily 5 mm closer to the bass side than to the treble side ...

Is this because it's a cheapo bridge from a cheapo guitar, or is this something particular to teles?

The only thing is it's making me a little nervous for when the real bridge gets here in the mail --I'm prepared to refill and redrill the screw holes for the new plate...but I'm kind of expecting to discover that I didn't need to route out the pickup cavity quite so far, leaving a nice lil' visible gap showing... (I know that teles often have a gap showing on the treble side, so it's not that big of a deal if I end up with a gap on both sides...right? )

The adventure continues!

[Mickguard]

Big day today --I'll be stringing up the carvecaster this evening!

I can't believe the incredible number of steps it's taken to get this guitar to the end --I recognize that people here look down their noses at mod projects, but I can honestly say that this one had me working almost as hard as a real build.

File this one under: EXTREME Mod. Literally every single piece of the guitar has been modified or changed out or both!

Anyway, this week I was able to repolish the guitar --came out much better this time.

I also spent some time modifying the bridge plate (Gatton mods, top-mount conversion).

For the wiring, right now I've assigned the P90 to the normal bridge pickup position. I've placed the neck and bridge pickups on the mini-switch (on-on). That means I can combine one or the other with the P90. Eventually I'll probably replace the switch with an on-on-on switch...I've also routed an additional cavity under the pickguard that can accept another switch or gadget, if I ever find one I want.

The only thing that's left is deciding on what to do with the P90, that is, should I:

A) keep it as a 'stealth' pickup beneath the pickguard --the pickguard is made of wenge, I routed out the underside a bit where it covers the pickup. Right now there's about 1 mm of wood left hiding the P90. So there's little effect on the tone, and so far the pickups seem pretty well balanced.

Expose the P90's posts-- this would look pretty cool, and would also give me more adjustability in terms of tone. I've already prepared a template for the post holes and, barring any accidents (like splitting the wenge or tearouts) it would indeed look VERY cool...picture it...that row of chrome screws....

Option A is obviously easier and means the guitar is ready to go tonight.

Option B is more difficult --mostly I'm afraid of messing up the placement of the holes, although I've routed space both in the guitar and in the pickguard to allow me plenty of wiggle room in that eventuality. This one can also be done any time in the future.

Whichever, pictures tomorrow!

[Mickguard]

Here's a look at the guitar's innards:

I made the P90's cavity wider so I have more placement options --the upper edge of the cavity would give me more of a strat placement. But I like the sound of it at the lower edge too.

There's routing for a switch too ---it'd be really nice if some genius could design a barrel-shaped FX unit that could run off of the jack's power... get to work people! It's the 21st century!

In the meantime, I might end up putting in a 'tremolo' switch (i.e., an on-off-on kill switch)...then I can do a Pete Townsend...