Best/easiest way to determine circle size used to make portion of a guitars body ?

[Bjorn.LaSanche]

I am trying to use the body curves on my V to draw up a set of good plans for a ‘67 style  Flying V as there are none online and the ones online are all different and most have glaring mistakes.  The only one I have not seen is Crimson’s version, but postage between the UK sand USA can suck it.  Postage is more than the $27 set of plans.  
 

I picked up a set from Gen One Luthier Supply. I’ll be very polite and say they are nice line drawings.  1:1 print results in a top down increase the the body and neck of 5% for the body and 7% increase in size of the neck. I won’t go into the measurements as they are not correct on 1:1 print to the drawing on the paper let alone comparing measurement to measurement with the actual instrument.  The headstock curves are correct. Straight lines are not. Mainly being either the states length is one length while the actual drawing is smaller with the real headstock being somewhere in between.  The Shoulder body curves are correct as are the wing tips.  The crotch he has as a .75” radius circle. Not remotely a correct size as that is the one thing on the guys plans that throws the whole body plan off. The ‘58 crotch size isn’t right either.  I don’t have a circle template large enough to  put it up against my guitars body to determine what size it is.  I also suck at backward engineering tangents. 
 

so I am asking you guys if any of you know? Possibly written down somewhere?

Another question I have is, would it be unethical to correct measurements discrepancies by using paper measurements as well as measurements based off my actual guitar?

 

I would then like to notate them on the digital copies of the plans I bought and email a corrected set back to the guy at Gen One?  I don’t want to insult the man nor burn a bridge, but there are a lot, I mean a LOT of measurements that aren’t even correct using his drawing to verify the measurement he has on paper.  I wanted to correct the ones that are incorrect on the drawing then under his paper measurements include the one off my instrument. 
I am asking what you guys think because the difference in size like the difference between a Jackson Double Rhoads/ original King V and a modern Jackson King V.  His measurements make the resulting guitar body larger than a ‘58 in comparison to a ‘67/modern V.  

[curtisa]

6 minutes ago, Bjorn.LaSanche said:

1:1 print results in a top down increase the the body and neck of 5% for the body and 7% increase in size of the neck

Any possibility your printer is printing them out a scale other than 1:1? Could errors in the print be skewing the way the actual printed drawing is appearing?

 

10 minutes ago, Bjorn.LaSanche said:

The headstock curves are correct. Straight lines are not. Mainly being either the states length is one length while the actual drawing is smaller with the real headstock being somewhere in between.  The Shoulder body curves are correct as are the wing tips.  The crotch he has as a .75” radius circle. Not remotely a correct size as that is the one thing on the guys plans that throws the whole body plan off. The ‘58 crotch size isn’t right either.

In his defence, I don't hink he is offering a definitve plan service that will yield a perfectly accurate design for a specific guitar. The wording on the Guitar Plan Reference page at his wesite states (emphasis mine):

Quote

...This page is a reference to help you locate a particular guitar plan that our guitar plans most closely resemble...

Does the Flying V plan even indicate it's based on a particular model from a specfic year? Even the original makers of instruments were known to change specs and measurements at their leisure, so offering a plan that satisfies one particular version of an instrument might not be practical, where the possibility of differences between the drawing and several production models from the same era might exist anyway.

 

17 minutes ago, Bjorn.LaSanche said:

Another question I have is, would it be unethical to correct measurements discrepancies by using paper measurements as well as measurements based off my actual guitar?

Probably unnecessary to get involved in that level of feedback with him. Not so much from an ethicality point of view, but moreso because I suspect he'll just respond that his plans are offered as a way to get you a Flying V-looking instrument that doesn't raise the hackles of the original copyright and/or trademark holder, or that he cannot offer plans that cater for any and every available iteration of the original design.

[mistermikev]

having recently studied a number of threads on the 59 burst... would agree with @curtisa that the variation in instruments makes it such that comparing an exact trace of one instrument to another from the same year would yield surprising variation.  even if you cut those two instruments on cnc... they would get sanded by hand... and one guy sands this way and another that way.  back then the variances would be wildly greater.  even patterns get worn down to a nub and introduce more variance.  

I would say... you are setup to make the most exacting copy of your guitar by having it there.  trace it and make templates.  My experience with plans is that they are merely a guide.  Even the best I've seen are going to require some 'off roading'.  

[Bjorn.LaSanche]

9 hours ago, curtisa said:

Any possibility your printer is printing them out a scale other than 1:1? Could errors in the print be skewing the way the actual printed drawing is appearing?

 

In his defence, I don't hink he is offering a definitve plan service that will yield a perfectly accurate design for a specific guitar. The wording on the Guitar Plan Reference page at his wesite states (emphasis mine):

Does the Flying V plan even indicate it's based on a particular model from a specfic year? Even the original makers of instruments were known to change specs and measurements at their leisure, so offering a plan that satisfies one particular version of an instrument might not be practical, where the possibility of differences between the drawing and several production models from the same era might exist anyway.

 

Probably unnecessary to get involved in that level of feedback with him. Not so much from an ethicality point of view, but moreso because I suspect he'll just respond that his plans are offered as a way to get you a Flying V-looking instrument that doesn't raise the hackles of the original copyright and/or trademark holder, or that he cannot offer plans that cater for any and every available iteration of the original design.

Thanks Curtis, I am feeling fairly similar to what you mentioned regarding feedback with the guy.  The discrepancies I’m getting on the plans alone were my main reason for wanting to touch base with him. 
 

The plan set I purchased is a set of three pages showing various profiles of the same guitar depending what you are wanting to focus on.  Me thing I do like about them is that the headstock looks and measured on paper sized different depending on which way you’re looking at it so at least that aspect follows ones perspective on how a headstock measures out.  It looks shorter if looking at it head on, but once you flip the instrument 90 degrees to check its profile, the headstock length sorts itself out.  (These aren’t the discrepancies I was concerned about though.  

6 minutes ago, mistermikev said:

having recently studied a number of threads on the 59 burst... would agree with @curtisa that the variation in instruments makes it such that comparing an exact trace of one instrument to another from the same year would yield surprising variation.  even if you cut those two instruments on cnc... they would get sanded by hand... and one guy sands this way and another that way.  back then the variances would be wildly greater.  even patterns get worn down to a nub and introduce more variance.  

I would say... you are setup to make the most exacting copy of your guitar by having it there.  trace it and make templates.  My experience with plans is that they are merely a guide.  Even the best I've seen are going to require some 'off roading'.  

Yeah I’m reading one now on the Telecaster site where there is actually a photo of a V with lopsided shoulders.  
 

you guys do know that the original model and the modern variant are actually very distinct from each other. Enough difference that altogether could be compared to a Gibson and a Jackson V.  As I wrote earlier and it got disappeared, the 58 and Epiphone model reminds me of a guy in drag trying to look like a sexy woman of the late 1950s. Thing J Edgar Hoover. The 67 and modern version reminds my of just on the scene Debbie Harry back in 76. 
 

and my dumbass is using my guitar as main model a 67 body and headstock with 58 contools. Im such a glutton for punishment. 

[mistermikev]

2 minutes ago, Bjorn.LaSanche said:

Thanks Curtis, I am feeling fairly similar to what you mentioned regarding feedback with the guy.  The discrepancies I’m getting on the plans alone were my main reason for wanting to touch base with him. 
 

The plan set I purchased is a set of three pages showing various profiles of the same guitar depending what you are wanting to focus on.  Me thing I do like about them is that the headstock looks and measured on paper sized different depending on which way you’re looking at it so at least that aspect follows ones perspective on how a headstock measures out.  It looks shorter if looking at it head on, but once you flip the instrument 90 degrees to check its profile, the headstock length sorts itself out.  (These aren’t the discrepancies I was concerned about though.  

Yeah I’m reading one now on the Telecaster site where there is actually a photo of a V with lopsided shoulders.  
 

you guys do know that the original model and the modern variant are actually very distinct from each other. Enough difference that altogether could be compared to a Gibson and a Jackson V.  As I wrote earlier and it got disappeared, the 58 and Epiphone model reminds me of a guy in drag trying to look like a sexy woman of the late 1950s. Thing J Edgar Hoover. The 67 and modern version reminds my of just on the scene Debbie Harry back in 76. 
 

and my dumbass is using my guitar as main model a 67 body and headstock with 58 contools. Im such a glutton for punishment. 

what I didn't know is that the guitar you referred to as having was not an actual 67.  that explains a lot.  further, there you go - the people who have all the access in the world to the shape of multiple real 67s, plus archives of blueprints used to make actual 67s.... well they came up with your actual reissue.  It may not be accurate to other 67s but my guess is there is an actual 67 somewhere that they picked to clone, that it adheres to quite well.

[Bjorn.LaSanche]

It’s also fairly odd that you guys are I forming me that plans for guitars are essentially loose guides than using them as blueprints.  I will take your suggestion under advisement. 

[Bjorn.LaSanche]

7 minutes ago, mistermikev said:

what I didn't know is that the guitar you referred to as having was not an actual 67.  that explains a lot.  further, there you go - the people who have all the access in the world to the shape of multiple real 67s, plus archives of blueprints used to make actual 67s.... well they came up with your actual reissue.  It may not be accurate to other 67s but my guess is there is an actual 67 somewhere that they picked to clone, that it adheres to quite well.

It is not an actual 67 but I do have access to one and my own guitar and the 67 have the same lines albeit it is actually a bit less refined than mine.  Made by hand vs machine made but all dimensions are close enough  to justify calling mine a 67 body/headstock model as all modern flying Vs are as they are all based of that Flying V model revision and only the 58 by shape. If you get me. 

[mistermikev]

there's a guy named bartlett who does plans for 59 bursts... he does plans that are actual copies of 59 bursts - note for note, and then plans that are an 'average' of several 59 bursts.  He made these plans with access to multiple real 59 bursts.  I tell you this to illustrate that... there is enough variance there that if you compared one reproduction that was made from guitar x... and compared it to actual 59 burst y... you'd probably think "this thing is inaccurate as all get out".  folks debate the accuracy of gibsons historic guitars with great scrutiny on some of the les paul sites... but I think it's a bit unfair to gibson.  I've looked at enough pictures of real vintage sgs, and specifically the shape of the horns, to think that "anything goes" afa making an exact copy!!  add to that... that you would be making a copy of a guitar based on a guitar that already has finish on it, and has been finish sanded.  to me... worrying about the placement of the wire channel and how exact it is is futile!!  using honduran mahog and brazillian rosewood is admirable... but at the end of the day it's much more important that the guitar is built well, and plays well regardless of how accurate it is!

in answer to your orig question... take a straight on picture of your guitar... open it in photoshop or similar... make a known scale fretboard using fret2dfind, scale the picture up to match the fretboard, then take the circle tool in photoshop and expand/contract the circle until it matches.  that would tell you the exact radius of that guitar.  if you really want to be accurate, print it out at that point and compare it to the guitar and adjust accordingly.  sorry for the book.

 

[curtisa]

8 hours ago, Bjorn.LaSanche said:

you guys do know that the original model and the modern variant are actually very distinct from each other.

I was aware there were differences, but I'm also aware that there are the occasional oddballs that don't quite fit the template. The Korina V near the bottom of this page makes an interesting example (assuming it isn't a forgery), as it has the short shoulders of the 58 but the narrow crotch as displayed in your plans.

Again, I don't think there's anything particularly untoward in Gen One's plan service, other than the drawings offered are mostly similar enough that you can construct something that looks like a V. Maybe for a purist the slightly loose interpretation of some of the distinctive features of the V are enough of a problem to make them stick out, but I don't think purists are Gen One's primary market with their service. For all we know he's not doing them from measuring an actual Flying V, or even a physical instrument at all, but is 'vectorising' photos of guitars and filling in the details based off knowledge gleaned elsewhere on the web, such as the body thickness or the shape of the control cavity underneath the pickguard.

[Bjorn.LaSanche]

15 hours ago, mistermikev said:

there's a guy named bartlett who does plans for 59 bursts... he does plans that are actual copies of 59 bursts - note for note, and then plans that are an 'average' of several 59 bursts.  He made these plans with access to multiple real 59 bursts.  I tell you this to illustrate that... there is enough variance there that if you compared one reproduction that was made from guitar x... and compared it to actual 59 burst y... you'd probably think "this thing is inaccurate as all get out".  folks debate the accuracy of gibsons historic guitars with great scrutiny on some of the les paul sites... but I think it's a bit unfair to gibson.  I've looked at enough pictures of real vintage sgs, and specifically the shape of the horns, to think that "anything goes" afa making an exact copy!!  add to that... that you would be making a copy of a guitar based on a guitar that already has finish on it, and has been finish sanded.  to me... worrying about the placement of the wire channel and how exact it is is futile!!  using honduran mahog and brazillian rosewood is admirable... but at the end of the day it's much more important that the guitar is built well, and plays well regardless of how accurate it is!

in answer to your orig question... take a straight on picture of your guitar... open it in photoshop or similar... make a known scale fretboard using fret2dfind, scale the picture up to match the fretboard, then take the circle tool in photoshop and expand/contract the circle until it matches.  that would tell you the exact radius of that guitar.  if you really want to be accurate, print it out at that point and compare it to the guitar and adjust accordingly.  sorry for the book.

 

I am coming to the same conclusion. That is why I am making a set myself that will be based off one 67, two mid 70’s models(to include the 70s headstock average from between both, my 2001 model and a 2011.  I will use an average in the technical drawing as well as a separate page that will give alternate measurements if any are wildly off or significant (ex. The 1970s rounded headstocks, if any of the round edges are different or wing angles greatly differ).  I’m not doing this for any form of cloning except two I am making for my own personal use.  As stated elsewhere one will be all Texas native wood, the other Bloodwood and Ebony.  If I did a V build for anyone else I already have personal sketches I’ve made that I think are updates on the body style.  Looking at some of the build threads on other sites, the replica obsession runs way too deep for comfort. Example is the neck and headstock construction. I’m a firm believer in laminate neck/headstock structural construction   A Gibson way to me is asking for trouble if the instrument ever falls. 
 

the guitar I’m planning for the Bloodwood build I am hoping to get creative and use something that is close to white as possible for the pickguard and have it inset into the body. I was thinking something along the lines of pink ivory, or enough white sections of an Ebony to construct one and have the entire piece being able to lift away from the guitar and any connecting wire that stays in the guitar use the same type of connectors that EMG use in their solderless stuff for those wires only.  
 

As for the easy way to determine a circle, I am probably the worlds worst photoshop user. Same thing for any cad type software. I picked up this thing today that is like a cross between a ruler and a compass. This art place in town sells them. Starting at 2” circles. You loosen two set screws and the circle expands up to a 2” larger size. The drawback is that there are no measurement notations on it. You still have to use something to figure that out.  A digital micrometer worked well.  (My guitar has a circle radius of R38.46mm/1.51” for the crotch curve.  Assuming the spec is around 1.5”.  
 

oh no worries about the book. I have tendency to be wordy in discussions like this myself because I don’t want to let anyone have to assume what I am talking about. I would rather take the time to fully explain my thoughts as well as read others thoughts in a discussion.  It’s a benefit to all who read and wanting to gain knowledge.  
 

[Bjorn.LaSanche]

Adjustable circle marker tool

this is similar to what I picked up except there is no center section that opens and closes with mine. The whole thing expands and contracts. So you can use the inside or outside of it to be the circle. Mine uses the inside of the circle to determine the size. Mine is 2”-4”. It ran me $21 pls tax.  No name brand on it.  They had a bunch at the store.  I’ll get a name next time I’m there and post that in case anyone wants to pick one up.  I’m one of those that likes to manually do drawings when I know there are tools that make life easier(photoshop, vector art software, and cad).  A little bit about my mastery of photoshop.  The instructions to scale an image of a guitar that were on this site years back were step by step and moron proof. Well guess who disproved that?   There was one step. That I just could not figure out how to make it work.  I got so frustrated over it I stopped trying, printed out images, and took image measurements and scaled them up and redrew the instrument. To my mind it was easier to scale up measurements on a calculator and redraw the thing on paper.   Then again I repeatedly will take a harder route to get where I need to. Especially with construction.  But when I’m done, whatever I built will not break, come out of shape, and will last until the materials it’s made from disintegrates.  

[mistermikev]

love the idea of native texas wood.  have been kicking around an idea of doing that myself with native az wood.  

looking fwd to build pics.

[Bizman62]

10 hours ago, Bjorn.LaSanche said:

I have tendency to be wordy in discussions like this myself because I don’t want to let anyone have to assume what I am talking about. I would rather take the time to fully explain my thoughts as well as read others thoughts in a discussion.  It’s a benefit to all who read and wanting to gain knowledge.  

For your merit your way of using relatively short sentences and paragraphs helps reading a lot.