Meet the Twins

[Mickguard]

Mickgard 6 screws should be okay for the neck join. The only reason I used that unusual join was so that I could put the neck pup around the second octave point and still have total neck access. If you are only having a bridge pup then you could have had an extended tenon through the body covered by the pickgard.

As 6 aside headstocks go the Dolphin style I don't mind. IMHO I would prefer that to the tele.

The current build is going to have two humbucker-sized P90s...the next one is going to have a single P90 in the bridge, but that one's going to be a set neck with a long tenon, so there won't be a problem there.

I'm going to let my wife decide on the headstock--I also asked her to design an f-hole for the guitar, if she has the time (it's called strategy, see? Well, you married guys will understand ).

Only problems with the 6 screws is that the pack of inserts I ordered from StewMac are in the box that's won't get here for a couple of months... I have four inserts here though, maybe I can find a couple more at the hardware store.

Right now I'm toying with shifting the neck into the body by about a centimeter, as a compromise, just to make sure it'll be stable. Doesn't affect the look too much.

In the meantime, I built the template for the neck pocket route today. Tomorrow I'll route the pocket, then try to do the humbucker routes too, if there's time (don't have much of that these days!)

[Mickguard]

This is the choice I'm faced with today:

My interest is making certain I'll have a stable neck joint --so I think #1 won't work for that. It'd work for a setneck with a long tenon.

Between #2 and #3, my choice leans to 2, even though it's the deepest of all --2 cm deeper than #1, 1 cm deeper than #3. But I like the way it flows with the lines more.

The biggest issue I see--but this is a general design issue-- is that I'm sacrificing some of the ergonomics with this guitar. There's very little guitar behind the bridge-- so I lose forearm support. I'm afraid that will force me to pull the guitar in while playing. But I have an idea for a solution for that, so that might not end up being a problem.

Now that I've cut out a dolphin-like headstock, I really like it --definitely works better with the guitar than the telel headstock. I think I might go with a two-tiered Batwing type, like the old Epiphone headstock. The lowered part will be black to match the hardware.

This is just the body of the guitar--you can see roughly where I'll be hollowing out (I plan to hollow completely beneath the bridge too). I've been planning to cap it with maple, but I really think I should hold out and find some ash to match the bottom ...I really love the look (I'll be doing that black-grain trick too)....in fact, I'm going to hit the road to the lumber yard right now. Can't route the neck pocket until I know how thick the top is going to be! Maybe I'll get lucky and find a one-piece top...

Of course, it's probably obvious by now that I like a certain 'flow' in my building process...design on the fly...it's the Jackson Pollock influence...and yeah, I always work on the floor like this...

Edit (later that same day): I just got back from the woodshop...I bought a 3.5 meter plank of ash, nice and dry, it's 30 mm thick and about 27 cm wide...cost me 20 euros...and I found a carpenter who's going to bookmatch a top for me. I should end up with something between 5 and 10 mm he says, so that'll be perfect.

The thing is, the more I work on the guitar, the more 'serious' it becomes --so I figure I might as well go all the way. That includes the neck --I'd love to make a new neck, using the same ash...hmm...if I make a new neck for it, I'll go ahead and order a new fretboard --I'm thinking ebony would look really nice against the ash...I have a second ebony fretboard here, but it's 24.75 scale, and for some reason, this guitar just wants to be 25.5... I'll still complete the neck I started though -- I need the practice, and besides, the Bocaster needs a new neck.

[thirdstone]

Mickgard for what its worth this is what I think

I like the modified tele design although if you make your own neck you could make a dano style 3 a side headstock.

I know it doubles the work but if you can , make a neck. Remember this will be a guitar that you will play for years so an extra month building it will soon be forgotten.

Once you decide to make the neck then you have so many more options as to the design of the neck to body join.

If you decide on a bolt on (which is what i would do ) you could have a heal block large enough to give good support, you could even build in a small rail on the bottom of the neck join area to fit a channel in the heel block for lateral stability. Any of the designs would then be feasible.

A set neck is a posibility although youwould have to extend the tenon into the neck pup route if a normal heal is desired. It would be the same join a the Gibson SG.

Keep the strat length as the shorter gibson scale would not lok as good IMHO . Longhorns look the best with a long neck and the fender scale will give you an extra 3/4".

I would have a solid block under the bridge to reduce the chance of squeeling feedback at high volumes.

It would change the tone a bit towards the fuller tone end of things but I guess it depends on what you are aiming for tone wise.As you are fitting humbuckers then I would assume you want a chunky sound .iIf a low fi tone is what you want then stick with your toughts.

Looking good

Kev

[Mickguard]

Hard to say what I'm expecting the guitar to sound like...when I was a kid I used to build go-karts and bicycles out of junk I'd find in the neighborhood on trash day...baby carriage wheels, twisted up bike frames, old crates, whatever I could find...I'd spend plenty of time building them, then we'd take them to the big hill and took off...you never knew what would happen on the way down, whether we'd crash or it would fall apart or just fly, but it was always fun...For me, building guitars is like that...

Anyway, I'm building necks for both guitars --I actually started the neck for the ash guitar, but today I got it into my head to make an ash neck to match the body... so the other neck is going to be my practice neck--if it works out all right, it's going on the Bocaster (an old project).

I agree that the design looks best with a longer neck -- that's another reason to start again. What I have here are two ebony fretboards (pre-slotted and radiused). They're Gibson scale --which I prefer --but there's an extra few inches at the end where the board isn't fretted...this will let me make a longer neck....I figure I can add a couple of extra frets if I like...or add some kind of design element... I rarely play all the way up there...

I'll probably still make a bolt-on neck for the ash guitar-- I want to keep some of the snap of a bolt-on. The other guitar is going to be set-neck for sure. But that's why I'm building that one second. And the second guitar is going to have a 3X3 headstock --but I'll be using more of the Gibson Melody Maker headstock shape for that.

Anyway, I have time to work out the details --the box that has my new fretting tools and fret wire won't be here for a few weeks...

[mikhailgtrski]

I like your "new" take on the Dano thing!

The ash neck makes me think "Louisville Slugger"

[Mickguard]

I like your "new" take on the Dano thing!

The ash neck makes me think "Louisville Slugger"

That'd make a nice name for the guitar --the Slugger... or the Slug more like...

[Mickguard]

I've been trying to work something out with the length of the neck for the guitar design. I've pretty much decided that the only way the design will work is if I go with 24 fret necks --this will:

-- allow me to create a more stable neck joint, because I'll be able to set the neck deeper into the body

-- place the 22nd fret further out from the body, which will be more comfortable to play

-- make the neck itself longer, which really makes the design work overall. A stubby neck just makes the design look...stubby.

But it also means I must go with a 25.5 scale for the double-humbucker version --the shorter Gibson scale just won't work as well in terms of bridge and pickup placement placement-- I'd have to position the two humbuckers really close to each other, and that just wouldn't look right. The Gibson scale will work fine for the single-pickup model, however.

Means that I have to order a new fretboard for the 25.5 scale neck --the board I have is only 22 frets.

For the Gibson-scale neck, I could stick with the ebony boards I have--they're only 22 frets though, so I'd have to leave the space where the 23rd and 24th frets would be blank -- no way I'm going to try to cut new frets in there. I'm not sure how dopey that will look though. Maybe I should just order a 24 -fret board in that scale too?

I'm also tempted to ditch the single-pickup version for the time being and work on a different body shape for the 'Junior' guitar I want...

[j. pierce]

I wish I had pictures (my father took some on his digital, but he's yet to get me the shots) but the last guitar I built was a 25" scale (granted, a little longer than gibson scale) 24 fret, with two humbucker-sized p'ups fairly close together. The first pickup's edge being about an inch from the 24th fret (about half that distance is the last bit of overhang from the fretboard) and the second p'up starting about an inch from the first p'up. I think it looks nice, but that may just be me. I can see where it might look cluttered on a different body shape, as well.

[Mickguard]

I can see where it might look cluttered on a different body shape, as well.

Definitely depends on the shape of things, although that could look right on the longhorn --what about the sound of the neck pickup?

Actually I've been letting the pickguard I have determine the pickup placement --I can reshape that or just buy a blank and make my own. Since I have to wait for my tools and now the new fingerboard, I might as well go ahead and order the blank too.

But I have the option of going with those Memphis minis too --since they're much smaller, they'll give me more wiggle room. And I don't have a guitar with humbuckers, so I kind of need one, don't I?... hmm...

[j. pierce]

The ash neck makes me think "Louisville Slugger"

I saw a sale at some woodworking catalog on ash baseball bat blanks that I was thinking would be the perfect size for neck blanks.

Definitely depends on the shape of things, although that could look right on the longhorn --what about the sound of the neck pickup?

Neck p'up sounds good. It's kind of a "wooly" p'up on a "thick" sounding guitar, so it brightens it up some. Somewhere between the traditional neck and middle pickup sounds, but more towards the neck. Certainly at least as "neck pickup-y" as my SG's neck p'up. I can get the "neck pickup sound" that I'm looking for, a least. Although if you wanted that real jazzy neck p'up tone, it might mean playing with the tone knob, at least on the guitar. (I've had better results messing with the amp's tone, however.) So separate tone controls for the p'ups might be necessary, which I know not everyone loves. But that depends on what sound you want, I guess.

I usually play with both pickups on all the time, lets me get the best of the bite of the bridge with the overtones of the neck p'up. I usually use a blend knob to back the neck p'up a little bit out of the "mix" to keep the bassy sound from overpowering. This set up lets me get rid of another knob, by having the default 50/50 mix just where I like it, tonally. I'm down to two knobs and a switch. (Well, three are there, but I don't have to touch one. I want to build another of this guitar, and lose one knob.) Which is nice after playing with the five and a switch my SG had by the time I hung it up for the two I built.

Considering that I use a volume pedal for volume 99% of the time, I could probably get it down to a switch and knob. Heck, hard-wire my tone control where I like it, and I could probably get down to a switch. Although I'd miss the "turn one volume down and flip back and forth for wierd choppy noise" effect.

Sorry, I always ramble away from whatever the discussion at hand is.

[Mickguard]

Just bought this for the ash guitar:

I sure hope this is the board I receive (supposedly it is, but you never know( Since I bought it, I figure it's all right if I post the photo here). It's pau ferro --love them stripes, think it'll look great on top of the ash. It's 24 frets, 25.5" scale, and it has the zero fret too. I also bought a Padauk fingerboard in 24.75" scale...but that'll be for a later guitar.

While I'm waiting, I decided to push ahead with the Jr. version --I've been sitting on this Gibson P-90 for long enough, I'm dying to try it out. I also bought a Gibson-style aluminum wraptail tailpiece for it --there was a discussion a few weeks back about bridges like these...the original 50s-era Juniors didn't use the compensated bridge...I wanted an aluminum bridge, but I didn't want the Wilkinson version ...the whole idea is to keep the bridge in one piece. The Pigtail bridge was way too expensive -especially since they don't even supply the studs and inserts! The price was right on this one. Still pretty expensive for a hunk of aluminum, if you ask me. But there you go.

I decided I didn't like the compensated version--don't like that ridge. I figure if I really hate the sound of the non-compensated intonation (unlikely, since I'm a big Johnny Thunders fan ) I can try to compensate at the nut. Or I can try to mill in compensation on the bridge itself.

Speaking of inserts...this bridge comes with the normal style insert. But I'm pretty sure in the past Gibson used a threaded insert--just a piece of threaded tubing, really. That's what my Melody Maker has, at any rate. I have some brass inserts here that would work that way too--I might go for that.

As for the Junior's fretboard --I've decided to go with the ebony board I have, because this guitar just has to have an ebony fretboard. I've worked it out so that 22 frets will work fine. Spent yesterday trying to come up with a symmetrical headstock template --but failed. Never imagined how difficult that could be--this is my third try. And I've tried a bunch of different ways--just that, each time I go to cut the MDF, I end up being off by a millimeter, or even less. And that's enough to throw off the look completely.

So I'm giving up and going with the six-in-line dolphin headstock...that has really grown on me, and now I can't really conceive of this guitar with a 3x3 headstock anyway.

Got to get to work, pay for all this crap I'm buying...

[Mattia]

Uh, isn't that just a wraparound talipiece? As in, meant to be used in combination with a bridge, just that the strings are loaded differently?

Anyway, quick word of warning on Pau Ferro: it's a notorious allergen. Use good protection and watch the dust. It is gorgeous stuff, though.

Tip for symmetrical headstocks: make a paper template, draw out the shape, pick the headstock half you like best, fold down centerline, and cut out the final shape. Stick to a piece of thin MDF, and try freehand shaping down to the line (drum sander is a boon for this.) If you get it symmetrical, great, but you likely won't, so: drill two ACCURATE holes dead-on the centerline, big enough for small countersunk screws. Line up template on a new piece of MDF (with centerline drawn.), bit of doublestick, and screw the template down firmly. Cut and template route the half that came out best. Leave the crown area alone around the centerline. Unscrew template, flip it over, check alignement, repeat template routing. Last bit, fix the top of the headstock by hand. Voila, symmetrical template. It's a bit fiddly, but only really relies on drilling two holes accurately. So take your time there, and you're golden.

[Mickguard]

Uh, isn't that just a wraparound talipiece? As in, meant to be used in combination with a bridge, just that the strings are loaded differently?

Nope, it has set screws... I was surprised to see it too, since I didn't find this while hunting around a few weeks ago --maybe it's new? At any rate, I had the seller confirm to me that it'll do what I want it to do, i.e., the bridge is intonatable (even though he points this out in his ad).

Of course, there's no difference between this bridge and an ordinary stoptail otherwise--that's the whole secret of the original Gibson bridge. I thought about tapping the screws myself, but by the time I'd be done buying the tools and the bridge to modify (or bridges, because no doubt I'd screw up my first try), it cost me less to buy this one. I'm still planning to make my own, but got too much else to do for the time being.

Anyway, quick word of warning on Pau Ferro: it's a notorious allergen. Use good protection and watch the dust. It is gorgeous stuff, though.

Ah, that's why I didn't go for cocobola --I hadn't seen the Pau Ferro could be a problem too. I always wear a mask though. Guess I'll just have to add a pair of gloves.

Tip for symmetrical headstocks:

I was doing close to that, but didn't think about screwing it down, good idea. But I'm going with the six-in-line after all--for one thing, I like the idea of both guitars having the same headstock. And I'm making both drop down--and the 3x3 doesn't look right with the drop down style, I think.

But what I'd really like to achieve would be my idea for side-mounted tuners. The tuner posts would be horizontal to the fretboard, so the strings would angle down toward them. I'm thinking of an open headstock design, sort of like the classical headstock. Or something like the Parker Fly headstock, which would work really well with this guitar too.

Using a 6-in-line headstock makes the idea more possible, I think --it'll be easier to arrange the tuners to keep them out of each other's way. Couldn't figure that part out for the 3x3 design.

And I'd be able to keep the full thickness of the neck blank this way, sort of like what Zacchary does, but without resorting to string trees. I like the idea of a thick (or thicker) headstock, it just makes sense to me.

One problem I'm having is that if I use the usual angle for the tuners (as on a tele or strat headstock), the strings will come at the tuner holes at an angle --I have to assume that's going to cause problems, like string breakage. So I'd have to stagger the tuners somehow--build 'beds' for them into the line. Don't know if I can pull that off though! Alternatively, I could buy a set of staggered height tuners...but I'm getting weary of throwing money at my projects (so's the wife!)

I could still taper the headstock --apparently making the headstock thinner toward the end acts as a shock absorber.

I should probably save the idea for the bolt on neck though

[Setch]

The item description says the bridge has the intonation inserts, so it's intended as an old school wraparound bridge, not a stop tail. Intonation is a compromise, but it's 'close enough for Rock'n'Roll'.

AFAIK Gibson have only ever used the inserts included with the bridge - though they sometimes use a simple threaded bar to mount a tune-a-matic with thumbwheels, like so:

http://www.lmii.com/CartTwo/thirdproducts....+and+Tailpieces

(first image, bridge nearest the camera).

Spent yesterday trying to come up with a symmetrical headstock template --but failed. Never imagined how difficult that could be--this is my third try. And I've tried a bunch of different ways--just that, each time I go to cut the MDF, I end up being off by a millimeter, or even less. And that's enough to throw off the look completely.

Draw it out, cut out half of it. Attach this half template to another piece of MDF with doublesided tape, and use a template bit to transfer the shape. Untaped it, flip it over, and route the other half - voila, symetrical.

Lateral t'inkin' Idch

[Mickguard]

Lateral t'inkin' Idch

Not exactly my style... I'm more the "throw it up in the air, shoot at it, look at all the pretty pieces as they float back down to earth" type...

I'll take a photo of my Gibson the next time I change strings ---the inserts are below the surface of the body, I swear they look just like the adaptor inserts they use to attach the legs to bed frames here. And I've tried those out--they fit all of the bridge studs I have.

[Setch]

They're exactly like the studs you normally see, but without the flange at the top. I've got some which I can take a photo of next to a more conventional design.

I think Gibson dispensed with the flange so that they didn't have to be so **** about the top carve - if you have flanged inserts and you extend the carve a bit to close to the centre you get gaps under the edges which look crappy. I prefer the lack of flange, though it would allow an overenthuisiastic tweaker to grind the bottom of his tailpiece studs into the top of his guitar.

[Mickguard]

They're exactly like the studs you normally see, but without the flange at the top. I've got some which I can take a photo of next to a more conventional design.

I think Gibson dispensed with the flange so that they didn't have to be so **** about the top carve - if you have flanged inserts and you extend the carve a bit to close to the centre you get gaps under the edges which look crappy. I prefer the lack of flange, though it would allow an overenthuisiastic tweaker to grind the bottom of his tailpiece studs into the top of his guitar.

It's also possible that the inserts on mine were replaced by whoever put the Badass that was on there when I bought it (the same guy changed the tuners too --and arranged them in a slant in what I like to call 'rocket' style). There's a depressed ring that could easily have been made to accommodate flanged inserts originally.

But yeah, after seeing Gibson's version of a tenon, I don't think anyone can consider them perfectionists...

Anyway, if I manage to get my work done early enough, I'll give the symmetrical thing another go...I don't like to give up.

Been looking at my horizontal tuner idea too (which is why I'm not done working yet)...since I like to use Grover locking tuners, it'd be even more difficult --the tuner posts are really long on those...

[Mickguard]

(oops)

[Mickguard]

This is for the Junior version:

I'm pleased because I managed to do this without any tearout or major burns...there's a bobble on the back curve of the headstock where there was a hole in the wood--that will probably disappear once the headstock has been fully shaped (otherwise, I'll shave that bit a little smaller).

I'm thinking about a combining the drop-down method with a slight angle--since I have plenty of wood here to play with. I'll also have to make the heel less deep, since this blank is the same thickness as the body. But I like the idea of a nice thick heel.

The truss rod ends at where the 22nd fret will be --I'll leave some fretboard on beyond that, but not much. Since this guitar is going to be a single-pickup guitar, the pickguard will hide the tenon. The tenon is going to remain full-sized too.

Oh yeah...I used CF kite rod tubes for this one. I sanded them slightly flat on the top and the bottom, to make better contact with the wood (I haven't been able to find a rounded-bottom router bit in the right size yet--that would be my preferred method). This leaves a slight gap along the top edge, which I assume will become filled in with glue when I add the fretboard.

I'm pretty certain I'll use a 3x3 symmetrical headstock for the ash guitar, that will fit more closely with its overall design I think. I'm probably going to start on that one during the week. I'm still looking at a bolt-on for that one, but I'm getting more and more tempted to make it a set neck too.

Since I have to wait for tools --and the fret wire for these guitars-- I'll do as much as I can on both necks, then spend the time on my practice neck. I'm also planning on defretting and refretting a fretboard to get some practice doing that.

Lastly, I've been reading more about oil finishes...including going back to Zacchary's site to check out his guitars. I recognize that I'll have to give up the idea of a shiny-looking guitar, and that's kind of a shame. But using oil for a finish just makes so much more sense than rattle cans, that I can't really see myself going back. I also really like the idea that you're supposed to rub the oil in with the butt of your hand to make it work 100%.

Besides, a family of birds has made its nest inside my workshop area, I can't use toxic chemicals around the babies, can I?

Right now, I'm testing a stain I just found, a pretty rich red....It also seems as if I can dispense with the stain black/sand black method, and simply rely on the stain and the finish to darken in the pores to give me the look I want.

[Mattia]

Lastly, I've been reading more about oil finishes...including going back to Zacchary's site to check out his guitars. I recognize that I'll have to give up the idea of a shiny-looking guitar, and that's kind of a shame. But using oil for a finish just makes so much more sense than rattle cans, that I can't really see myself going back. I also really like the idea that you're supposed to rub the oil in with the butt of your hand to make it work 100%.

Besides, a family of birds has made its nest inside my workshop area, I can't use toxic chemicals around the babies, can I?

Right now, I'm testing a stain I just found, a pretty rich red....It also seems as if I can dispense with the stain black/sand black method, and simply rely on the stain and the finish to darken in the pores to give me the look I want.

Erm, hand? Old T-shirt, and I wear latex gloves, thanks. I want the oil varnish on my instrument, not my hand oils, which aren't exactly formulated as a finish, y'know?

Also, you very much can do a high-gloss finish with Tru-Oil and similar (say, liberon Finishing Oil). You just need to make sure you fill the pores, and actually level-sand between every few coats (Get it FLAT). And then buff it out. It's more work, and I like the satin/matte/unfilled pores look of the oil/wax regime I've used on past guitars, but I've seen pretty glossy Tru-Oiled instruments. There's a discussion on this very topic currently happening at the MIMF.

[Mickguard]

Erm, hand?

According to one of the sites I was reading this morning, yep. Although they're talking about finishing furniture, not guitars.

Still the prinicple is the same--the heat from rubbing allows the oils to penetrate the wood. You think that that my hand can put down enough oil to affect the composition of the tung oil?

But in case you're wondering, I just picked up a box of 50 pairs of latex gloves...

I'm planning on doing the sanding back method, I didn't realize that you could build up a gloss with that, so much for the better!

[Mattia]

Make sure your 'oil' isn't a pure oil finish, but a polymerized one (really a varnish). Also, I personally don't want the oil penetrating the wood more than it's going to anyway; goes in deep enough as it is. Heck, there are folks who seal with shellac and then oil to prevent it from soaking in.

Seriously, oil's a lovely, user-friendly finish. Test it out to see how you like the various looks achieved. And don't leave your oily rags bundled up and enclosed, but let them air.

[Mickguard]

Make sure your 'oil' isn't a pure oil finish, but a polymerized one (really a varnish). Also, I personally don't want the oil penetrating the wood more than it's going to anyway; goes in deep enough as it is. Heck, there are folks who seal with shellac and then oil to prevent it from soaking in.

Seriously, oil's a lovely, user-friendly finish. Test it out to see how you like the various looks achieved. And don't leave your oily rags bundled up and enclosed, but let them air.

What I have so far is a polymerized blend --has linseed oil in there too. I'm looking around for polymerized oil with just tung oil. Don't know if it's available here though. This oil does cure very hard and dry.

On one of my test pieces I plan to try a pore filler first, then the oil, just to see what happens. I've got plenty of time before I'll be ready to finish the guitar itself, given the turtle's pace with which I work.

But I wonder how deep tung oil really penetrates? Seems to me that were talking millimeters--which would be a big issue on an acoustic, but on a solidbody, I don't really see it. Besides, one of the features of tung oil is that it forms its own mesh of hard fibers --might even turn out to be a good influence?

[Mattia]

Don't bother looking for tung; Tru-Oil is polymerized linseed, mostly, works fine and dries 'hard'. Oil finishes aren't hard, and that's pretty much normal, but they should dry out completely although it does take at least a day, if not more. I've used Liberon's Finishing Oil successfully, and I know plenty of folks have used Rustin's Danish Oil with good results.

Edited May 27, 2006 by Mattia

[Mickguard]

It's an extraordinary feeling...

http://www.projectguitar.com/uploads/emoticons/default_biggrin.png' alt=':D'>

I used a surform and a half-round rasp (just for the transitions) to rough shape it, then used a cabinet scraper to fine tune. The scraper's a great tool, I really enjoyed the feeling of control it gives.

Still need to finish sanding it --you can see the toolmarks from the scraper (but you can't feel them).

If you look closely, you'll see a gap between the fingerboard and the neck near the nut--don't know what happened there, possibly the fingerboard got warped when I steamed it off its old neck, or maybe there was a shaving I didn't see. It's quite slight though, and I should be able to fill it so it'll be more or less invisible. There's also a bit of worm hole along the heel, I'll have to fill those too.

Who'd ever thought I could do something like this? I'm going to try it out on the Bocaster --although because it's a very narrow neck (only 40 mm at the nut), I'm not sure it'll work with the Bo's bridge. I might have to renotch the saddles. And I'll definitely have to shape my own nut for this one. But there's time for that--I'm thinking of making a new iteration of the Bocaster anyway, correct some of the problems with the original design.

With this, I'm ready to proceed on the longhorn necks --at the same time, I'm going to make another practice neck, with another old fingerboard--but this time I'm going to defret it than practice refretting it.

I'm really glad I chose to make a practice neck first though -- I definitely recommend that to anyone who's nervous about making the neck. Shaping the neck was a blast!