daveq Posted August 15, 2003 Report Share Posted August 15, 2003 I have the opportunity to obtain a very,very nice bookmatched maple top. It is about 1/2" thick which I think is much thicker than a standard maple top. Standard meaning what the big manufacturers use. I'd like to know your opinions on what to do with it - 1. should I do a carved top 2. just glue it onto body material as is 3. re-saw it thinner 4. other I really don't like or think I can do #3. I'd also appreciate your opinions on binding. Do you like the look of binding? Would you recommend I use it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roli Posted August 15, 2003 Report Share Posted August 15, 2003 What about making a thinline out of it? You could rout two large sound chambers into the body wood, leaving only the central section there untouched, then you'd close it with the maple either carved or leaving it flat. With a binding it would really look beautiful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted August 15, 2003 Report Share Posted August 15, 2003 beautifly carved, mate! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted August 15, 2003 Report Share Posted August 15, 2003 the big guitar makers use tops anywher from 1/4 to 7/8" thick.usually for carved tops.but for example you CAN use a thick maple top to bring some highs to a wood (like basswood)which is not really great for highs.to balance out the tone, more or less.i have a 7/8" piece of crotch mahogany which i am in the process of using to cap an all mahogany beast type guitar. 1/2" is perfect for a carved top like the schecter omen or esp horizon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jehle Posted August 16, 2003 Report Share Posted August 16, 2003 My first thought was to do the carved top, but I have to admit making a Tele thinline out of it would be totally class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulNeeds Posted August 16, 2003 Report Share Posted August 16, 2003 I think a strat "thinline" is even classier! Especially if you rear mount the pots and edge mount the jack socket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jehle Posted August 16, 2003 Report Share Posted August 16, 2003 I think a strat "thinline" is even classier! Especially if you rear mount the pots and edge mount the jack socket. Now you're talking. What about a JEM Thinline! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roli Posted August 16, 2003 Report Share Posted August 16, 2003 LOL! So here we go: SG thinline? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hezochiah Posted August 17, 2003 Report Share Posted August 17, 2003 I always thought it would be cool to do a Les Paul Double Cut or PRS type shape with the thinline touch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveq Posted August 17, 2003 Author Report Share Posted August 17, 2003 Thanks for the suggestions. Do people buid the thinline type without the F-hole? I'm not a big fan of the F-hole look. Do those chambers destroy the sustain or is there some sort of resonance added that re-gains the sustain lost with the removal of the body mass? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulNeeds Posted August 17, 2003 Report Share Posted August 17, 2003 Thanks for the suggestions. Do people buid the thinline type without the F-hole? I'm not a big fan of the F-hole look. Do those chambers destroy the sustain or is there some sort of resonance added that re-gains the sustain lost with the removal of the body mass? You could always go for a soundhole of a different kind - like a Rickenbacker slash, or something inkeeping with the shape of the instrument. Obviously, the soundholes don't really do much in themselves, but the chambers certainly add something - I mean, A Gibson 330 series is all but a Les Paul, but with the hollow wings. They did build one (The 335 Pro Artisan?) with the chambers but without the holes. Myself, I like the f-holes, and Gibson and Epiphone have Les Pauls with them.. but a DC would be outrageously good looking! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckguitarist Posted August 17, 2003 Report Share Posted August 17, 2003 B.B. King's Lucille is a Gibson 345 without F-holes, only with a fine tuning tail piece. Aaron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roli Posted August 17, 2003 Report Share Posted August 17, 2003 Thanks for the suggestions. Do people buid the thinline type without the F-hole? I'm not a big fan of the F-hole look. Do those chambers destroy the sustain or is there some sort of resonance added that re-gains the sustain lost with the removal of the body mass? Since you don't rout out all the body but only the two side wings of it, the central, unrouted line of wood will keep up all that stiffness you need for good sustain. Also, sound holes may bring lower the resonance of the body, but that's only a shade of effect. Sound chambers already bring resonance lower, which is highly recommended due to the thick and stiff maple, that would sound very bright and pale without resonance-lowering sound chambers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckguitarist Posted August 24, 2003 Report Share Posted August 24, 2003 yayaya! Jem thinline! And instead of an f-hole, a monkey grip!!! Aaron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.