1959 LP Burst build...

[MiKro]

@mistermikev, Another option for inlay material is to use pearl powder or flakes, like they use for automotive work in paints. Mix it heavy in pearl with a bartop clear epoxy. Make sure the DOC is not to deep as the pearl flakes will settle in the epoxy. Also use a thin base coat of either Gold, Silver or White in the area depending on the pearl and color before., this will enhance it's ability to reflect properly. 

Once sanded or skimmed with the cnc and sanded, it will polish right up.

Just some outside  knowledge I have had luck with. I have used pearl from here. Pearl Link

mk

[mistermikev]

1 hour ago, MiKro said:

@mistermikev, Another option for inlay material is to use pearl powder or flakes, like they use for automotive work in paints. Mix it heavy in pearl with a bartop clear epoxy. Make sure the DOC is not to deep as the pearl flakes will settle in the epoxy. Also use a thin base coat of either Gold, Silver or White in the area depending on the pearl and color before., this will enhance it's ability to reflect properly. 

Once sanded or skimmed with the cnc and sanded, it will polish right up.

Just some outside  knowledge I have had luck with. I have used pearl from here. Pearl Link

mk

right on I had looked around at pearl dust but hadn't settled on one so I'm glad to get that link.  they def have some interesting dust over there.

[Crusader]

8 hours ago, mistermikev said:

some great info there.  I've read much the sm.   you see threads out there - guys arguing about 24 5/8 vs 24 9/16 vs 24.562... and ironically the kind of precision that was available back then would make it highly unlikely that you couldn't start from any of those three and end up at any other.  Even today... with cnc... getting precision to 5/1000 is only possible if you happen to have calibrated your machine that day using a brand new bit!  Further that actual difference any one of those scale lengths would make is pretty small.  I can def hear the dif between 25.5 and 24.75... but 24.75 vs 24.5625?  zero chances I could pick that out.  that said... it is a fun exercise to try to do it as close as possible to the original.

Yes it is a fun exercise and its a shame it causes arguments. I've been worried all night that you might think I'm trying to prove you wrong but I was just showing where I got my information from. I thought the video would just show as a line of blue writing

Another thing that occurs to me is whatever Gibson had on their spec sheet for the Les Pauls, they might have outsourced fretboards or employed luthiers at times to keep up with supply, and therefore results in a number of different scale lengths

[mistermikev]

28 minutes ago, Crusader said:

Yes it is a fun exercise and its a shame it causes arguments. I've been worried all night that you might think I'm trying to prove you wrong but I was just showing where I got my information from. I thought the video would just show as a line of blue writing

Another thing that occurs to me is whatever Gibson had on their spec sheet for the Les Pauls, they might have outsourced fretboards or employed luthiers at times to keep up with supply, and therefore results in a number of different scale lengths

funny, I worried myself that you might think I was doing anything other than the sm.  I tend to spit things out like I am contesting something but really just seeing if anyone else can see any flaws i missed.  it's all good.

I found the video pretty interesting.  Certainly some elements of history I wasn't aware of.  

gibson luthiers... well they started using a flawed "rule of 18" vs the 17.82... so the errors compound and depending on how far you carry out the math... well it just goes all over the place.  now-a-days... calculators and precision machining... well we're just spoiled.  again... it's all good!

very much appreciate your input to the thread!

[MiKro]

There were also some made with 24 5/8" or 24.625" I do not remember how many and what years though? I am sure it was 60s or earlier.? So Gibson has made them at 24. 9/16" - 24.5625  , 24 5/8" 24.625 and also 24 3/4" -24.75 I think that was all they did for the LP? Some of the other shapes they had I am not sure of.

MK

[mistermikev]

16 minutes ago, MiKro said:

There were also some made with 24 5/8" or 24.625" I do not remember how many and what years though? I am sure it was 60s or earlier.? So Gibson has made them at 24. 9/16" - 24.5625  , 24 5/8" 24.625 and also 24 3/4" -24.75 I think that was all they did for the LP? Some of the other shapes they had I am not sure of.

MK

well technically we could open up the byrdland and throw in a whole range of actuals around the 23.5 mark lol!  The most surprising thing I think I've learned over all this search into scale length... is that they only did actual 24.75 prior to 53/54... which means it is the LEAST accurate number they could have picked for their advertisement lolz... but like they say if you start in w the INTENTION of a 24.75 and apply the rule of 18 (ie the rule of compound errors) instead of rule of 17.8123234534523234523452345ELEVENTY then you end up near 24.5625 at the 12 so who can blame them!?

[mistermikev]

toying with the idea of weight relieving the back of my top on the marlin version here... design paralysis! 

So... the way that I'm mis-using my design software is to keep everything in one file... the top, the initial body thickness, and the full thickness... rethickness back to .625 and manipulate the 3D for the top by creating an inverse.  Due to the constraints of how i setup my material... the max thickness I can do w/o severe reconstruction is .2".  iow... I leave .2" of top after carving the back (it's complicated).  Is that enough?  well w the modern style weight relief it'd be no problem because essentially there would be 'struts' stengthening the top.  With the full hollowbody version I'm not so confident.  is there enough there at the studs to prevent disaster?  also not confident.  

On the fish on bass... the purpleheart version... I used the sm studs I'm going to use and they are half inch od... and I believe I went to a 1" surround and my buthole was tightly clenched when I pounded that thing in!

Here we have 1.25" surrounding the tailpiece studs... well if you want to build something experimental you are going to have to endure some risk!  

Further, as currently drawn... there is .9" between the end of the backside top carve and the "lp custom style" 7 layer binding.  (hangs head) that is probably cutting it a bit too close!  so... back to the drawing board!  Mostly just thinking out loud here... helps me organize my thoughts... but would welcome any input.

 

[Stu.]

Les Pauls are so mythically inconsistent. It’s amazing really.

Wasn’t part of the scale length issue related to how Gibson cut the fret slots using an arbor saw? Saw blades were spaced along an arbor to match fret locations, but bushings didn’t quite match the fret spacing or wandered over time, giving 24.75” ish.

[mistermikev]

31 minutes ago, Stu. said:

Les Pauls are so mythically inconsistent. It’s amazing really.

Wasn’t part of the scale length issue related to how Gibson cut the fret slots using an arbor saw? Saw blades were spaced along an arbor to match fret locations, but bushings didn’t quite match the fret spacing or wandered over time, giving 24.75” ish.

along with there inconsistency is a lot of urban legend!  I've heard that story, but only heard it ascribed to their issues with frets being 'off' not a dif scale.  I've read that the issue was that the blades (similar to chop saw but super thin and only like 6") would warp as they got hot over time... and this would lead to some inconsistent frets.  

I've read many things about the 24.75 being advertised and then gibson "compensating" on the actual to match the advertised figuring that 24.75 was at the string... not the base plane... idk if that's truth or myth.  I know that it is widely accepted that b4 1953 they did actually use actual 24.75 on a lot of their acoustics and the early lesters.  I am not aware of any common knowledge as to why they would change from 24.75 to 24.625 or 24.5625... seems a silly small change.  

 

[Stu.]

I like to think we’re all contributing to that confusing mythology just a little bit!

[mistermikev]

49 minutes ago, Stu. said:

I like to think we’re all contributing to that confusing mythology just a little bit!

hehe, for sure... the legend is alive here at projgtr!

[mistermikev]

welp... some days you're the winshield and today I'm the bug.  so started to cut some lovely indian ebony for a fretboard... and things were going along just great... then it all went to hell.  was watching from my phone as it cut the fret slots... and a couple slots in it just went to shit.  the z axis... just started following down commands but not up commands.  well... took a look at it and sure enough it is slipping on the screw.  Hopefully this is just a broken coupler.  is def a mechanical issue as even with the machine off and working the thumbscrew she slips downward.  Unfortunately I have to take all sorts of things off to get at the coupler.  pretty tired today... so I'm gonna give up and live to fight tomorrow.

 

on the bright side... so I've had this idea in my head for a while and I've mentioned it b4... a dual compound radius.  I've decided I'm going to bring it to life and have encorporated it into my latest fretboard design for the marlin version.

so... if you think about a radius and the centerpoint/apex of that curve.  no reason one can't decide to not only do a compound radius... but to do one compound radius on the high strings... and another completely dif compound radius for the low strings.  Was thinking that I'd go with an 18" to 24" compound radius on the e/a/d and a 10" to 16" on the b/g/e.  The idea is that I'll essentially raise the low e side of the fretboard a bit and lower the high e side a bit and this should make things a bit more ergonomic.  not a huge amount of dif...  but I know the hand can feel very small differences so... I'm hopeful this will be cool at the least and comfy at the most.

anywho... 

[MiKro]

1 hour ago, mistermikev said:

>snip<  the z axis... just started following down commands but not up commands.  well... took a look at it and sure enough it is slipping on the screw.  Hopefully this is just a broken coupler.  is def a mechanical issue as even with the machine off and working the thumbscrew she slips downward.  Unfortunately I have to take all sorts of things off to get at the coupler.  pretty tired today... so I'm gonna give up and live to fight tomorrow.  >snip<

As far as couplers go I quit using the ones that have the Spriral cut as well as the Buna-N type. I only use these type now and have never had a failure. I did modify them though to add a set screw to go against the flat of the shafts. MK

Link To Couplers

[mistermikev]

1 hour ago, MiKro said:

As far as couplers go I quit using the ones that have the Spriral cut as well as the Buna-N type. I only use these type now and have never had a failure. I did modify them though to add a set screw to go against the flat of the shafts. MK

Link To Couplers

thanks @MiKro very much appreciate the input.  I have replaced my x w that sm coupler when it had some issues... they were all the spiral type.  this one has been rock solid.  I wondered about the set screw too but just left it as is.  I'm glad you chimed in, I will take this advice to heart.  Was planning on buying replacements for all... as soon as I get them off and figure out the size.  have a tap and die set so will do the sm.  very much appreciate it!!

[MiKro]

11 minutes ago, mistermikev said:

thanks @MiKro very much appreciate the input.  I have replaced my x w that sm coupler when it had some issues... they were all the spiral type.  this one has been rock solid.  I wondered about the set screw too but just left it as is.  I'm glad you chimed in, I will take this advice to heart.  Was planning on buying replacements for all... as soon as I get them off and figure out the size.  have a tap and die set so will do the sm.  very much appreciate it!!

As far as taps, use the newer spiral flute type, they work so much better than standard taps.

Depending on the size you need, an 8-32 or 10-32 should do fine for the couplers

Tap link

[mistermikev]

11 minutes ago, MiKro said:

As far as taps, use the newer spiral flute type, they work so much better than standard taps.

Depending on the size you need, an 8-32 or 10-32 should do fine for the couplers

Tap link

my z axis is 6.35 to 8mm.  I just ordered the one and when I get a chance to look at the others I'll by replacements too.  turns out the coupler was just loose... but it aslo is NOT the type with a set screw!  will have to find the equiv m4 tap

[Crusader]

I thought I would share this with you I hope you find it interesting. I've compared my 59 Reissue LP fretboard with the Stewmac slotted fingerboard for Gibson. Although they are quite different there would be no issue, you could put the Stewmac board on the LP and have no problem getting it to intonate. I've got two of these Stewmac boards so I've got no qualms about them

The Gibson frets start off being short then gradually match up then become longer, this is the Rule of 18th. And by the way where the Gibson frets fall short, it is reflected in the intonation as well but its only 3 or 4 cents and I don't notice it. In any case the Stewmac board will yield more accurate intonation. My experience is the Rule of 18th works better with thicker gauge strings (except wound strings where the core wire is thin)

 

[Crusader]

For the record, I was told in the 1970's that Gibson's fret spacing is different and I got around to looking into it in 1997 with my '61 Reissue. How I came to the conclusion is I measured the frets then rearranged the mathematical formula, and the number I came up with was 18.3 then after a while I realised it must be 18. And then I eventually read in a few places that Gibson use the rule of 18. But I'm not trying to prove anybody wrong when they say some of the bursts back in the 50's were 24 9/16", 24 5/8" because I can't get my hands on the particular guitars they measured

[mistermikev]

11 hours ago, Crusader said:

For the record, I was told in the 1970's that Gibson's fret spacing is different and I got around to looking into it in 1997 with my '61 Reissue. How I came to the conclusion is I measured the frets then rearranged the mathematical formula, and the number I came up with was 18.3 then after a while I realised it must be 18. And then I eventually read in a few places that Gibson use the rule of 18. But I'm not trying to prove anybody wrong when they say some of the bursts back in the 50's were 24 9/16", 24 5/8" because I can't get my hands on the particular guitars they measured

well... the rule of 18 is "the rule of compound errors".  iow, the actual number is 17.817... but back in the day they rounded off because no one could cut with that sort of precision anyway... so essentially at your 12th fret you get enough rounding error to end at 24 9/16 starting from 24.75.  I was sort of alluding to that in my earlier post but perhaps did not come across direct w it.  As with many things on this build... I'll stop short of copying mistakes - nothing magical about those!  

 

 

 

 

 

btw and for the record... ordered the coupler @Mikro suggested and got it... but it's 36mm around.  These things are SUBSTANCIAL - I like it.  Unfortunately the opening in the aluminum is 27mm so... went and found a single diaphragm version that is 26mm od... gonna be close, but I think it should work ok so ordered one.  for now, the coupler that was on there was ok, just loose.  I think I'll drill it for set screws and file a flat spot in my ball screw end and put it back together while I wait.  thanks again for the suggestion!  Hoping to cut a 'quad-compound' fretboard this weekend!

[Crusader]

11 hours ago, mistermikev said:

well... the rule of 18 is "the rule of compound errors".  iow, the actual number is 17.817... but back in the day they rounded off because no one could cut with that sort of precision anyway... so essentially at your 12th fret you get enough rounding error to end at 24 9/16 starting from 24.75.  I was sort of alluding to that in my earlier post but perhaps did not come across direct w it.  As with many things on this build... I'll stop short of copying mistakes - nothing magical about those!

Yes, not trying to coerce you, I just had a bee in my bonnet

[mistermikev]

18 minutes ago, Crusader said:

Yes, not trying to coerce you, I just had a bee in my bonnet

Right, no, I get it... didn't feel like you were and didn't mean to imply that!  I knew at the start of this project that that(scale length and rule of 18) is one of those details that folks care about... so I researched it just thinking "well, maybe there is something to it".   Thru that process it just seemed to me that it would make more sense to copy the scale length, but do it using modern accuracy.  

When building any sort of guitar that is based on another guitar, we all make our own choices about what we'll duplicate and what we'll throw out.  Most of my guitars to this point have used a two way truss rod with access thru a fret, for example, and I feel that is a superior setup in many respects (would strengthen the achilles heal of the les paul model - the headstock)... but in the interest of "studying the masters" I felt the single action compression truss rod setup was a foundational aspect that I could learn a lot from - so that was one of those choices I went the other direction on.  Not right or wrong to do it either way (truss rod OR rule of 18)... those were just the choices that made the most sense to me.  It's all good I very much appreciate your thoughtful comments.

[Crusader]

10 hours ago, mistermikev said:

Right, no, I get it... didn't feel like you were and didn't mean to imply that!........

All good then, well its more like I felt like I was LOL And regarding what to duplicate, one of the LP's I made has a 25 inch board I bought from Perry Ormsby years ago, and the Strat and Tele I'm currently making has a few personal touches ie. 12 inch radius fretboard. Apart from that I try to make them as identical as possible

[mistermikev]

25 minutes ago, Crusader said:

All good then, well its more like I felt like I was LOL And regarding what to duplicate, one of the LP's I made has a 25 inch board I bought from Perry Ormsby years ago, and the Strat and Tele I'm currently making has a few personal touches ie. 12 inch radius fretboard. Apart from that I try to make them as identical as possible

right on.  not sure I set out for this... but I like to think that most of my builds so far I've tried to make them as different as possible from the orig but still staying within the format.  this 59 burst will really be the first time I've ever tried to make something as identical as possible.  Just trying to build out my skill set!

[Crusader]

2 hours ago, mistermikev said:

right on.  not sure I set out for this...

The hard part with a Les Paul is the set neck. The tenon, getting the fretboard to sit flat on the top and so forth

[mistermikev]

4 minutes ago, Crusader said:

The hard part with a Les Paul is the set neck. The tenon, getting the fretboard to sit flat on the top and so forth

so a while back I did the below and it was my first experience with doing a set neck "the les paul way".  this was all done pre-cnc and what I found to be the most difficult was just getting a good join at the typical lp overhang.  I used the typical "put a piece of sandpaper in there, close the gap, and pull it through" and I got a pretty good looking join, but it was an awful lot of detail work.  this part won't be any easier w cnc because of the nature of it... you'd have to mount the neck in a 4d jig and spin it to do with cnc... which would be an awful lot of work... but in my first post I have included the jist of a jig I plan to build to hopefully make it a 'no brainer'... emphasis on the hopefully!