Jump to content

How about a "modernistic" '58 V ?


Recommended Posts

For slotting I use another jig that I believe I have already shown here. The fret spacing pattern is the (in-)correct rule of 18 based on a 24.75" scale.

LPBG_112.jpg

IMG_4856_zpsba886172.jpg

Markers on the originals were simple 1/4" perloid dots. I decided to keep the simplicity but use the Blackdog dot arrangement.

In a Blackdog design I would use offset dots and inlay the feather design as a 12th fret marker, like this:

IMG_3233_zps7377c443.jpg

For this one I chose to move the feathers to the headstock that would otherwise look too empty, and do the double-dot for the 12th fret.

IMG_4857_zps6a20779e.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice inlay idea. Practical and individual. You don't see many simple dot arrangements that are unique these days. Do they run parallel to the centreline or are they calculated to be in line with the string paths?

Thanks, they fall consistently between strings, i.e. they follow the string path.

IMG_3739_zpsdab5db9d.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you not tempted to get your wife to ping some more inlay in there? ;-)

How come your work manages to be so clean and professional? I presume that you have additional experience outside of luthiery, whether that be general "making" or actual woodwork? I'd love to see a more detailed "how to" from your hands. I think people would have a lot to learn from you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you not tempted to get your wife to ping some more inlay in there? ;-)

How come your work manages to be so clean and professional? I presume that you have additional experience outside of luthiery, whether that be general "making" or actual woodwork? I'd love to see a more detailed "how to" from your hands. I think people would have a lot to learn from you.

No, not really tempted. I don't think an artistic inlay goes well with this type of guitar. There wasn't anything "artistic" about them to begin with. Lots of plastics and screws, way too "factory product". Elaborate inlays belong more in "luthier-grade" guitars: like fancy woods, elegant carves, wooden pickup rings, that sort of stuff.

You think my work looks clean ? That's because I take the pictures AFTER I cleaned the mess up !

Now seriously, you put me in a difficult position, I believe it's all about being methodic. I am an engineer in real life, so I'm used to the mental process of imagining ways to solve specific problems. I do not have any big tools, just a mid-sized band-saw, a small-ish drill press and a couple of routers (with dozens of router bits !). The rest is just a bit of ingenuity for building jigs, many times with a lot of inspiration from forums like this one.

I have found that the router is the tool that works most consistently and in the cleanest way for me, so I tend to develop jigs for using a router for different things.

These days I do not take many pictures of the processes themselves, I tend to document mostly the transformation of the pieces, for my own record.

But if there is any specific jig anybody might be interested in seeing just ask !

In any case I believe that the most important tool available in any shop is patience. As soon as you rush a job yo make a mistake. And it's not like I don't have my good share of those anyway !

Then you have to put the second most important tool to use: think of a way to fix it, and if fixing will not be at the desired quality standard, then start over, don't compromise.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Want to see more ?

With the fretboard I'm following the sequence I used for the other Gibson builds: I'm tapering and fretting the board before gluing to the neck.

WIth bound Gibson boards that's a necessity, because the binding is applied over the fret-ends it all has to be done with the loose fretboard.

On this one I could have just as easily tapered the board against the neck, but I ended up doing it the Gibby way.

Fretboard tapered and cut to lenght:

IMG_4860_zps536f65a7.jpg

If you're curious about how I taper the board the process is the following: I scribe with a sharp cutter on the back of the board the desired outside lines (full width if unbound, or adjusted if binding will be applied.

Then I attach with a thin double sided tape a ssteel straight edge following the scribed line, and run the board through a table router with a template bit following the straight edge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time to do some moree damage to the body.

Control cavities. These are pretty much the vintage correct shape and depth. Nothing new here, a simple template and appropriate router bits do the job. The jack cavity is just the result of a 1" diameter forstner, as it was on the originals.

IMG_4861_zpsab9079d3.jpg

Now about the wiring channels. The original ones had a single channel drilled with a very long 1/4" bit from the mortise, through the control cavity and all the way to the jack cavity. Not completely horizontal, but slightly tilted downwards.

I do not have such a long drill bit. I do have one in 6mm but it's shorter, so I decided to do it in two steps (close enough to vintage correctness anyway).

The initial one goes in the traditional way. In the originals it was barely visible on the floor of the neck pickup cavity, and obvioulsy as it went out of the cavity at the back. So it had to be carefully measured where exactly to start drilling in the mortise wall and the angle required to get to the cavity at the proper place. Limba is pretty soft and there's not much drill bit drifting, so it went really well.

IMG_4863_zps4f3dfc5c.jpg

IMG_4862_zps127dc6d6.jpg

The second channel was a bit trickier. Entering from the control cavity leaves a bit less space for the hand drill chuck (the body gets in the way), so the downwards angle had to be a bit steeper than I wanted, but still plenty safe. I had to deepen the jack cavity a bit to have a clean opening, but the floor of that cavity is still almost 1/4" thick.

IMG_4864_zpsecfe90b5.jpg

IMG_4865_zps0e168958.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modest tools and a good approach is always better than a fully-equipped workshop and a gung-ho one. I was curious, because my own temperament in the workshop has cooled off a hell of a lot the last two years, moreso in the last one. I'm also spending more time making *better* jigs and putting thought into my choices. Case in point is a simple shaping jig, where the thickness of the plywood I used for the bearing guide was crucial to giving better control of how much to cut on the initial pass. Also choosing how to approach jig configuration to avoid routing anywhere near unsupported grain. I question myself as to whether I could put the jig in somebody else's hands and expect them to be able to produce the same results as myself (both in terms of quality AND time) without schooling on any eccentricities, etc.

I've been a bit too spoilt the last couple of years with the workshop at the school. I'd like to dial back the thought processes down to basic tools again. A "backyard build" would be a refreshing adventure!

I've often wondered how to approach writing tutorials on jig-making beyond the simple outline template and guide bushing work. I think that at a certain point it becomes an extension of your own working style and experience as opposed to being a rigid discipline beyond the basic caveats. Certainly, I do love seeing people's own ingenuity expressed through the jigs they create, whether they be complex and well-engineered or simple and effective. Is there something wrong with people who think the process is just as important as the end product?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modest tools and a good approach is always better than a fully-equipped workshop and a gung-ho one. I was curious, because my own temperament in the workshop has cooled off a hell of a lot the last two years, moreso in the last one. I'm also spending more time making *better* jigs and putting thought into my choices. Case in point is a simple shaping jig, where the thickness of the plywood I used for the bearing guide was crucial to giving better control of how much to cut on the initial pass. Also choosing how to approach jig configuration to avoid routing anywhere near unsupported grain. I question myself as to whether I could put the jig in somebody else's hands and expect them to be able to produce the same results as myself (both in terms of quality AND time) without schooling on any eccentricities, etc.

That's a very valid point, I believe my case is similar in that I design a jig that will work for the way I want to do the task. Other people might find that other solutions suit them better.

What makes it a success is the tool AND the operator.

I could publish plans for all my jigs, but that might not be too useful for someone else. Jigs don't work on their own (that's CNC! :P ). Each one of them requires that you know what you're doing and what the jig can and can't do.

Some ideas are simple enough to just adopt. Like the neck profile jig. I saw that one used by Gil Yaron to make Les Paul necks, and it is great at what it does: achieving a consistent neck depth profile. But those are more the exception than the rule, most jigs are only obvious to use because YOU designed them.

Is there something wrong with people who think the process is just as important as the end product?

The process is the means to achieve the end product, how can it possibly be less important ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even CNCs need jigs ;-)

I was more referring to problem-solving and elegant solutions as part of the enjoyment. Whilst I am sure that the end product is a reward all of its own, the experience of cracking a tough problem or working step simply, elegantly, counter-intuitively, efficiently, cleverly, etc. is hugely appealing. At least, to me anyway. We've been to the moon many times, which is awesome. The best part is how the hell that was achieved, not that it merely was achieved. You don't get to the moon with ham-fisted blundering (cue 60s NASA comedy sitcom "doh!") and things like a crisp instrument that easily rivals a PRS in terms of appeal and clean work are just the same.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even CNCs need jigs ;-)

I was more referring to problem-solving and elegant solutions as part of the enjoyment. Whilst I am sure that the end product is a reward all of its own, the experience of cracking a tough problem or working step simply, elegantly, counter-intuitively, efficiently, cleverly, etc. is hugely appealing. At least, to me anyway. We've been to the moon many times, which is awesome. The best part is how the hell that was achieved, not that it merely was achieved. You don't get to the moon with ham-fisted blundering (cue 60s NASA comedy sitcom "doh!") and things like a crisp instrument that easily rivals a PRS in terms of appeal and clean work are just the same.

Ok, Now I see what you mean.

Designing a jig, yes, I do enjoy. Even building a jig I find enjoyable as it involves a creative process. I always enjoy that.

Now, making templates..... I don't enjoy. The topographic templates for the top carving of the Blackdog design involves 9 different templates. Designing these was fun, as it took many hours of computer drawing to achieve what I wanted. But printing the plans, gluing to the plywood, cutting and adjusting 9 templates is no fun at all. :(

I have a hollow Blackdog build in the back burner, just waiting because I have to make the topo templates for the inner carving... 7 templates... And I can't bring myself to actually do it ! :unsure:

And BTW... Are you sure we've actually been to the moon.... <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*cough*

Wait, I'm okay. No....

*COUGH COUGH COUGH COUGH SPLUTTER HACK*

Yeah, well… Sorry about that...

That last statement of mine cam out completely wrong, didn't it...

Maybe that was correct in the 50s… It was either a Gibson or some cheap pieces of wood bolted together by a technician in California...

But then the 60s happened to Gibson… And then the 70s, even some Japanese factories were doing a better job at making the same thing !! AND THE 80s !!! And Henry…. :(

Matter of fact, the likes of PRS had a chance because Gibson had dropped the ball in a big way...

So, what a gaff !!! I don't think I can blame that one on the auto-correct, can I ? :blush

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe not! It does sort of call into question what truly qualifies as "vintage correct" though. Some people chase down those lines far too much when in reality there were no strict standards to aim towards most of the time anyway! I think these "vintage correct" specifications are a useful guideline from which to derive one's own set of unique specifications rather than being an ultimate objective. In many ways I don't have too much of a problem with Gibson's reissues deviating from their own true originals. I doubt many original specifications would stand up to modern scrutiny in the marketplace. Maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe not! It does sort of call into question what truly qualifies as "vintage correct" though. Some people chase down those lines far too much when in reality there were no strict standards to aim towards most of the time anyway! I think these "vintage correct" specifications are a useful guideline from which to derive one's own set of unique specifications rather than being an ultimate objective. In many ways I don't have too much of a problem with Gibson's reissues deviating from their own true originals. I doubt many original specifications would stand up to modern scrutiny in the marketplace. Maybe.

Well, you're right.

There's vintage correct and VINTAGE CORRECT...

I mean, it depends on the customer. Some people will get silly over details like the right kind of plastic used for the pickup rings. I mean, those plastics were used because they were cheap, not better. And plastics don't sound !

These were factory products, not works of art. And specs varied all the time according to manufacturing efficiency needs.

I'm with you in that vintage correct should be about the details that actually make a difference in sound or playability. Even if these quirks could be easily improved upon, keeping them as they were makes for the "personality" of a given instrument of a given era.

But some customers won't consider a replica that doesn't say Gibson on the headstock, or the fake serial number is not stamped using the right font or ink...

That's why it's clear I don't have a future in the replica business. And I'm fine with that ! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People that make replicas build in the original faults and oddities that time otherwise evolves out the design. Glad you're going to stay in the instrument market and not the replica market....! ;-)

Nonetheless, I have found that building something trying to replicate the best I can the original building techniques and methods is very educational.

Having to make something in a way different of what you would normally do, simply because that's how it's suppose to be done, immediately forces you out of your comfort zone.

You learn new skills and might actually find a thing or two worth including permanently in your bag of tricks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh totally. That it exactly why I built my last 5-string based on a Fender design. Slab body and slab neck straight from stock material with the most basic of procedures possible. If you can't whip off a Fender style instrument, you should have a look at your basic working methods. Definitely educational. I found that I was able to "apply things backwards" simply to improve accuracy and the cleanliness of my work. Cathartic and educational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me post a few more pics of the V before I go on holiday…

This might be actually interesting to other people. This is how I glue the faceplate to the headstock.

First I had to thin down the cocobolo piece I had from 7mm to less than 2mm. I tried slicing it on the bandsaw, but the piece was fairly wide, and being it pretty hard the saw just couldn't cope.

So there was no other option than planning down on the router sled and blow 5mm of it in cocobolo dust !

There are no pictures of this reddish dust massacre, but believe me, not a beautiful sight to see…. The job itself was about 1/2H setup and 1/2H actual routing. The cleaning afterwards was pretty much the rest of the afternoon.

With the piece already thinned down I simply chose the grain orientation I liked and made a rough cut.

I then used the headstock template as a pressing caul. I mounted the faceplate to the underside of the template with a bit of a rather stiff plastic foam in between.

IMG_4872_zpsee8839ec.jpg

Applied the glue to the headstock and attached the template to it using screws and nuts through the tuner pilot holes.

Once you tighten everything up, the foam compresses squeezing the excess glue out and and ensures that the edges are conveniently pressed to avoid any glue lines.

IMG_4873_zps6db3fb2f.jpg

IMG_4874_zpse26ef569.jpg

Once dried, the headplate was trimmed to the headstock itself using a table router jig.

For the opening of the TR nut I re-used a template I have for the Les Paul headstocks, after all the opening is the same. It's a rather thick template, because the routing depth has to be pretty shallow.

I simply aligned the template properly and used a 3/8" template router bit to route away just the faceplate material, exposing the opening beneath.

IMG_4875_zps6c2fc488.jpg

You may have also noticed that I softened the corners of the headstock. After looking at several more pictures of original Vs, I noticed they were not that sharp. I adjusted the template accordingly and re-run the headstock shaping process.

Starting to look interesting...

IMG_4877_zps2cad6d79.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few more pictures, let's remove some more wood: Pickup cavities.

Like I said before, there's a little departure here from accepted Vintage-Correctness… The originals were routed on a pin router, hence the cavities are squared to the top. For this build I opted for template-driven cavities, as on Les Pauls, angled to the same 3* of the neck plane. This leaves a bit more wood on the tenon. The cavities are as shallow as possible, as they were on the originals.

Like on Les Pauls, I did it in two passes: first the humbucker legs, then the humbucker body, using separate templates. And the depth of the cavities in each case is the same, relative to the fretboard/template plane, for the neck and bridge position. As the plane is angling upwards, the rear cavity naturally ends up shallower on the top.

The pickup separation on the V is slightly wider than on the LP, but I didn't want to make new templates for this. So I just re-used the LP templates, aligning the cavities as required.

IMG_4878_zpsff2c2741.jpg

IMG_4879_zps4efbf778.jpg

IMG_4880_zps356933d7.jpg

Hello wiring channel ! ;)

IMG_4881_zps7a8dfe8a.jpg

IMG_4883_zpsfd0cf8f0.jpg

As you can see I also drilled the wiring channel for the bridge pickup.

A side view of the angled cavities

IMG_4888_zps1bc1a923.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, it's looking like a Gibby arrow now. I have a cocobolo fretboard with a very similar grain pattern, I love that stuff, it looks great and feels so silky when polished up.

And that was a relatively brilliant method of glueing up the faceplate. Did you use epoxy on the cocobolo?

SR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, it's looking like a Gibby arrow now. I have a cocobolo fretboard with a very similar grain pattern, I love that stuff, it looks great and feels so silky when polished up.

And that was a relatively brilliant method of glueing up the faceplate. Did you use epoxy on the cocobolo?

SR

Hi Scott !

No, I try to stay away from epoxy as much as possible, we don't get along well... I just degreased the gluing surface thoroughly with naphtha and used good old Titebond. After all is a completely stress free lamination.

I haven't had any problems so far with cocobolo. I like the stuff very much for fretboards, it feels more like Brazilian RW than IRW does.

The neck of my number four (see link in footer) had also a cocobolo fretboard and faceplate, glued to the limba neck in the same fashion. And that neck was knocked around the shop for five years before I picked up the build again and finished it, and the joint was as solid as the first day.

For gluing the fretboard to the neck I will use (after degreasing thoroughly, of course) hot hide glue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I approach faceplates a little differently. Last one I did was cut roughly as per yours, however I clamped the whole lot to the table, faceplate down. Cauls were applied to the rear of the headstock. I don't like adding too much padding on the glue side if one of the pieces has flex. I use cork otherwise. The advantage of glueing to the table is that squeezeout doesn't drip down the sides of the headstock. Ask me how I figured this one out. ;-)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...