soapbarstrat

Trust me, they do read everything they can find about them on the forums. And sometimes they are closer than you think.(maybe even being too obvious by only submitting post in stewmac product related threads) As far as checking before shipping. I think sometimes they have a whole batch of defective units. Then what are they supposed to do ? (Or , to be more specific, what does upper management tell them to do ?) Yes, it would be nice if when all their in-stock units don't measure up, if they would say "look, we've checked over a bunch and none are up to par. We'll either wait for the next batch to check again or give you a refund". Well, at least they do always give you the option of a refund, without much fuss. That's a good enough reason to always give them a shot before going somewhere else.

How many times do I think to myself : " Damn, when I was in my late teens/ early 20's, why didn't I resist the *urge* to do some of those mods and "repairs" on some of my guitars ? ". Or , " why did I think *that* was what was wrong with that guitar ?". Too many times to count ! Certainly right up there with those "why did I sell that guitar" regrets.

I guess it doesn't always make a guitar look ugly, but something that bugs me quite a lot , are double cutaway bodies, where the bass side cutaway is deeper than the treble side cutaway. Maybe there's a functional reason for it that's totally over my head. But I just think it's more functional to have the treble side cutaway deeper than the bass side. So, I guess there's a "functional uglyness" that stands out when you look at some guitars, and that would be the case for me with this cutaway thing.

Not sure how the paint thinner fits in here, but don't try to use regular paint thinner to clean up super-glue, or you'll just prolong how long you're stuck up crap creek without a paddle. Acetone is the stuff. Think of it as "Ace Tone", and it seems more guitar friendly. LOL (but it will still wreak havoc on most guitar finishes, although I've gotten away with being quite the dare-devil with the stuff on some finishes). Anyway, I like CA wicked along the tang from one end to the other, applied from one or both fret slot ends with a pipette (I then grab a handful of pipettes that are stuck together with super-glue and play them like bagpipes- watch for me on that 'America's got talent' TV show !). Straight-edge : Wish there was one no-nonsense answer for that. Various ones all over and who knows which one is kick-ass bang for the buck at any given moment. I often wish I would have bit the bullet for a Starrett because I like how short they are from top to bottom. Probably easy to hold along a fret-board without wanting to flop over sideways like my bigger one will do if I'm not careful. Also be careful if you try that idea of putting the tang barbs away from the old barb trails, because I've had it happen more than once, where I tried that, and somehow the fret moves itself back over , with the barbs going back to the old trails. I think when you get down in the slot, some of those trails go side to side a little (probably from an over bent fret having barbs move sideways as it seats). And so, the barbs go into those side to side trails and want to stay in the trail that was made last time fret were put in.

One of the current mods needs glasses too. I looked here a couple times during the night. Porn spam post clear to see in the off-topics section (but you could see it on the index page, since it was the latest post in the off-topics section). Next I see a mod is logged in. Next, mod leaves and same spam porn is still there. Not going to name names, since I think he does a fine job in general.

Oh my God, you're so old fashioned ! Don't you know the method of drilling screw holes so that the threads bite and hold firmly in the wood is so last century ? Screw holes should be drilled so the screw presses right down in with finger pressure. Real quick and modern ! Never mind that right after assembling your guitar, the bomb sqad has to be called in before she blows.

I only use white glue on carboard or paper. That's about as far as I trust the stuff. Also have prejudice against it, since we had to have a bottle of the stuff in our desk at school. I sometimes got in trouble on those days we were suppose to make craft stuff (stupid damn treacher trying to tell us we can't make fake guns in school !)

What are the drawbacks ? I finally saw how John Mayes bolts on the fretboard extension the other day (OLF), after having one of his videos for about a year, where he mentions it, but didn't show it (So I had thought he had concealed screw heads under dot inlays or something like that, but it's actually much better than that). I use very little yellow wood glue with the guitar work I do, and I've only been buying small bottles of the Elmers stuff. When the bottles are almost empty, the remaining glue at the bottom of the bottle begins to dry. I then pull out the semi-dry blobs of glue (with a hooked piece of stiff wire and needle-nose pliers) and keep them to compare with other blobs from other bottles. After being out for months and fully dry, there are differences between samples from different bottles. Some pieces snap apart right away when I try to break them apart or crush with a vise or pliers jaws (I prefer this, since I think a brittle glue is probably less tone dampening). Other pieces bend like hard rubber and will not snap apart easily- actually very hard, if not impossible to snap apart. They have to be twisted and stretched to come apart (the fact that they *stretch*- yikes !) I wonder if they add something to the glue to prolong it's shelf-life, and if this same additive compromises how well the glue works. Or in other words, I wonder if it's possible to have a yellow glue in a powder form, without the shelf-life prolonging additive (*If* there is any) and mixing small batches with water when you need some and having a better working glue. Those more rubbery pieces are what make me wonder about this.

If there's a couple of guys who are doing most of the reporting of the spam posts, turn them into mods, or modettes. So simple, I shouldn't have to say it.

Screw that ! I used metric one time, and the whole guitar went limp, like a big wet noodle.

No, they're still too big for that. If you want to power buff tight curves like that, you have to use one of those mini buff wheels that have a shaft for chucking into a drill. Have not done the orbital buffer thing myself. Anyone know if you can use one of those speed control boxes (typically used for routers) to slow down an orbital sander ?

I guess you got it. Has a thin knurled tightening nut on the back http://usera.imagecave.com/soapbarstrat/SMbender2071.jpg What if I told you it had a USB jack on the side and I adjusted the radius on a computer ? (haha, you're the last guy who'd buy that)

I never bought a radius block. And when I did want a set, I didn't trust the stability of "new" wood. So I got a bunch of oak from old furniture (stuffed chairs etc, where the wood frame is hidden, until you rip off all the material and stuffing). Then on a router table, I'd rough in the radius (deeper channel running down the middle, then more shallow channels as I got to the edges) (and of course, before that, I'd plane the boards flat) Then I'd put coarse sandpaper on my "radius jig" (You might have seen a drawing of my jig in Stew-Mac's "trade secrets") I'd then go to finer grits, but I can't remember how fine I went. Fairly current pic of that jig (about 15 years old, and you can see some parts are missing, like wing-nuts) : http://usera.imagecave.com/soapbarstrat/ra...jig_11_05_1.jpg Before I'd put the sandpaper on, I'd use an accurate (machined) plastic radius gauge to check the radius and I had a fairly tight tolerance. I would adjust it until nothing thicker than a .002" feeler gauge would fit between the radius gauge and the plexi top of the jig (I'm fairly sure I was able to keep this tolerance with all my blocks). Had the same tolerance lengh-wise. http://usera.imagecave.com/soapbarstrat/ra...jig_11_05_5.jpg Don't use them much these days, due to my preference for conical radii, and because it's been damn long since I made a new fret-board (have mostly been truing up already made boards). Instead, I use much shorter radius blocks that I had made even earlier, before I knew anyone else made any. I made those strictly with a router rigged as a compass. And I only use these for roughing in a conical radius, before switching to a long thin straight leveler. But these oak blocks have seemed to remain quite stable (ok, I did go nuts with putting watco on them when I first made them) http://usera.imagecave.com/soapbarstrat/ra...jig_11_05_6.jpg http://usera.imagecave.com/soapbarstrat/ra...jig_11_05_7.jpg

I've seen pros use an orbital sander with a buff pad on it. Supposedly the best way to go around F-holes on a thin top.

Ok, which one of you hot-shots is gonna move to Athens Ohio and become old MacDonald's new "Purchasing Agent" so you can influence all this QC stuff ? (happened to just see an 'Employment' link at the bottom of their web-page)

The bass player in me totally agrees that the smallest fret-wires are more ideal for a bass. The Guitar player in me wants 'em taller so I can bend, and 'cause guitar strings are so much smaller than bass strings. Put me in a situation where I'm nervous while playing (like in front of people or sometimes recording) and I'll like my guitar frets even higher to retain "grip" on 'em.

Really ??? From what you wrote above that, I would assume the exact opposite. Get yourself on a decent acoustic repair forum, where they'll steer you right. (Even if they seem mean, they're trying to steer you right). Project guitar forum = pitiful for vintage restoration work advice.

Old MacDonald had some quality control issues E-I-E-I-O And one if these issues was that they seemed to check the flatness with the blade off an old reel push mower E-I-E-I-O With a neck-jig here, a neck-jig there. Here a jig, there a jig, everywhere some freakin' jig Old MacDonald had a price increase every couple of months E-I-E-I-O

I would just buy a stock piece of O beam for them to grind, because I'm pretty sure the stewmac beams had a plating added after being ground. Once that plating is gone, it's wide open for rust. The plating is a good reason to buy one from stew-mac (assuming you end up with a good perfectly flat one)

I wonder how perfect one like this really is

Could be one of those "brain wave" things ( Oh, I don't mean I'm a true believer, but there's signs). Several times, I came up with a tool or technique from scratch, then see later someone else did pretty much the same thing, sometimes even around the same time. I've also seen devices on "neck jigs" where they have a screw pressure device at the end of the headstock to put end to end pressure on the neck, much like string pull on a perfectly straight neck. I have not tried this yet. Just hasn't seemed like it's needed much if at all. But I am a "gotta try that one of these days" type. So far, with the UTS method (UTS=Under The Strings), I've only used a 4" long aluminum L piece and it was an early '60's guitar with brass frets. I had the guitar in my set-up jig, and tilted in the playing position, and it was all easy enough to do (there was a rise at the end that really had to be knocked down). Can't find any fault with it. Just don't think I'd ever try to level fret-board wood that way, but I guess if I knew that would be minimal, it would be justified. Don MacRostie did a whole fret-job while leaving the strings on. Sounds like something they should have contests with at luthier conventions.

Mine's a stew-mac design. Works just great, otherwise I would have chucked it long ago (don't have that much $$$ invested in it). I have experimented with the "Turner method" a little. It's a good alternative (I can afford it too,haha), but I don't find it to give superior results to the neck-jig (I'm extremely fussy about being able to have low string action without buzzing. On my own 25.5" scale neck guitars, I must be able to get 1/32" and 3/64" action for the high and low E at the 12th fret, or I can't play with the "fluid" style I often like to do) I do have a 3rd dial indicator added to show any headstock twist and ways of recreating it. I also seem to have my own method of how I set all the support pins along the back of the neck (I set them while the neck is strung to pitch and in the playing position, rather than popping all the strings off and *then* setting the pins). The dial indicators seem to remain closer to zero, when I do it that way. Re-checking the fret-board surface with feeler-gauges and a straight-edge confirms that I have "frozen" the neck into the desired position quite well enough. I know it's not ultimate lazer beam accurate, but I do have a limit when it comes to dealing with a long piece of wood under 170 pounds of end to end string pull, along with how that all changes with a moderate amount of temp and humidity change. On a complete refret, after pressing in all the new frets, stringing back to pitch and letting the neck stay that way for 1 to 3 days, then putting back on the jig, freezing the neck into it's strung configuration, I can level the frets with a 19" leveling beam from end to end and start with 800 grit (as opposed to the 220 or 320 grit I see so many others start out with) Bryan Galloup started doing the "with the strings on" fret leveling way back in the early 90's. He used a T shape piece of metal .090" thick that fit under the strings. Sometimes he used this method instead of the neck-jig, sometimes not. I don't know when Rick Turner started doing almost exactly the same thing, but I'm reluctant to name it the "turner method" if Rick, in fact, got the idea from Galloup.

You wrote not to buy a straight leveler and buy a radius leveler instead. That's all I'm going by. I think I like a 10-14 myself, after years of being quite satisfied with a constant 12". And I do use a 'neck jig' but don't have one that configures the neck into a different position that what the tuned to pitch string tension does. Never heard of the kind you mentioned.

Last 2 actual fenders I worked on had .574" and .558" headstock thicknesses. Not that it helps any. My notebook was right here, so I got curious and took a peek. Actually that includes the finish. So, knock off at least .010" for a bare-wood measurement.

And say goodbye to the conical radius that I find superior as a player ?