thewongster Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 Ok so I was thinking of doing a telecaster out of alder with a flamed maple front and a flamed maple back the place I was buying my flamed maple top from says that it is 6/15" thick. Times that by 2 and that makes 12/15" of an inch thick worth of maple. and then I was planning on buying 1" thick alder. WHich makes my telecaster 27/15" which equals 1.8" thick when a body should be about 1.75" thick. Another option for me would be to get another thinner set of maple top. but I havent found any that has been in my price range. the one im getting is about 25 dollars and the fugure is fine. can someone point me to some thinner cheaper flamed maple tops? Oh and lets say I got some flamed maple that was like 3/15" thick and times that by 2 and add the 1" alder. That would make my body 1.4" thick. which is thinner then the average telecaster. Would it be hard to avoid the obvious problems of running through the wood because of pickup holes and all? Basically is it possible to make it that thin, and is it easy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postal Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 going a little thick is okay... you'll lose some sanding anyway... going thin.. the only conserations are- will the electronics fit? and is the balance goibg to be okay with a thinner body? id go with the thicker one sanded down myself. excuse the lack of caps and punctuation... but i'm eating and typing with one hand.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickguard Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 Just because it says in the books that the telecaster is supposed to be 1.75" doesn't mean it HAS to be 1.75". Since a 'real' telecaster isn't supposed to have a flamed maple front and back, why get hung up on this measurement? Besides, 1.8" (45.72 mm) is pretty damn close...and, actually may work out to your benefit, depending on how much sanding you'll have to do. Going too thin is impossible with a telecaster, if you're going to use all stock telecaster parts --the control cavity on mine is already 35 mm deep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnsilver Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 the place I was buying my flamed maple top from says that it is 6/15" thick. Before I worried about it too much, I'd double check the maple's measurement with your supplier. It may be right, but I've never heard of anyone measuring wood in 15ths before. Even if all the measurements are EXACT and each piece is perfectly dimensioned, you are talking about less that 1/16" difference between 1.8" and 1.75" thick. 1.75" thick is your final target thickness, not your starting thickness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prs man Posted January 13, 2007 Report Share Posted January 13, 2007 going a little thick is cool then you have sanding room amd you can always take it off but putting it back on is a trick. alder and maple are nice to work with and sound good together Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spazzyone Posted January 14, 2007 Report Share Posted January 14, 2007 Ok so I was thinking of doing a telecaster out of alder with a flamed maple front and a flamed maple back the place I was buying my flamed maple top from says that it is 6/15" thick. Times that by 2 and that makes 12/15" of an inch thick worth of maple. and then I was planning on buying 1" thick alder. WHich makes my telecaster 27/15" which equals 1.8" thick when a body should be about 1.75" thick. Another option for me would be to get another thinner set of maple top. but I havent found any that has been in my price range. the one im getting is about 25 dollars and the fugure is fine. can someone point me to some thinner cheaper flamed maple tops? Oh and lets say I got some flamed maple that was like 3/15" thick and times that by 2 and add the 1" alder. That would make my body 1.4" thick. which is thinner then the average telecaster. Would it be hard to avoid the obvious problems of running through the wood because of pickup holes and all? Basically is it possible to make it that thin, and is it easy? Who came up with 15th's as a measurement (are you the great Litchfeild)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted January 14, 2007 Report Share Posted January 14, 2007 Who came up with 15th's as a measurement (are you the great Litchfeild)? A fraction is a fraction, regardless of measurement. It's just easiest to measure in 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32 etc. because that is what's on our rulers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGGR Posted January 14, 2007 Report Share Posted January 14, 2007 It's just easiest to measure in 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32 etc. because that is what's on our rulers. Easy for Americans that is......for rest of the world on the metric system it's a pain in the behind to grasp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewongster Posted January 14, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2007 whoops, my mistake, it really says 5/16", so how can I join bookmatching maple tops? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USAF1989 Posted January 20, 2007 Report Share Posted January 20, 2007 Join them by running the 2 edges you want to touch on a jointer an equal number of times, then glue and clamp. 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.