perhellion

Made the tuners? I'd definately like to see pics of those. R-trem -- easy to find on ebay (and pretty cheap, since everyone wants the trans trem), but in Poland, I have no idea.

So, what is the brand of the tuners?

Hi, I'd like to see more close-up pics of the headstock and the bridge/tuner area. Or, if you don't have pics, what is the hardware you used? I see how the actual bridge is a regular Schaller tune-o-matic, but I can't tell too much about the headstock or the tuners.

What I meant was, given an unknown cap, how do you tell what it is? I understand there is a meter to check capacitance, but an old cap may not correspond to color codes or may not have legible markings on it. Combine this with the possibility of the old cap no longer performing up to snuff, and I don't see how one tells what the value of the old cap is. Put another way, if you are given an old cap with no writing or colors that you can determine anything by, how do you find its original value?

Good question, though. If it is an unknown cap, what do you do? I know all the colors and stripes can be "decoded", but what if it is in something from another era and say the Ukraine, and the colors are all different. And, of course, no scematic available.

I've seen so many discussions of pine bodies, I just had to jump in. It is soft and will dent. A new pine board is much softer and less dense than an old one. Also, with the more tightly spaced growth rings, the old board looks much nicer. From some of the old boards (over 100 years), I'd guess they are at least as hard and dense as basswood. Granted, pine is not a common body wood, so everyone assumes it would sound bad. But check harmony central and the guitar reviews under Zachary Guitars (or search out Zachary Guitars) and there is a guitar made from a pine board from a Home Depot dumpster. The reviewer likes the sound. Also, some early Telecasters (could be Broadcasters) were pine, and I think the pine was abandoned not for sound but for it not taking a finish well.

I thought it was this very site where I had seen it http://www.projectguitar.com/gal/1s.htm Thought maybe this builder would chime in.

I've always thought this was a cool look, and I've seen lots of references on how it is achieved with masking, not routing. BUT ... have any of you considered routing. Like to an already finished body, use a router to cut the edge down to bare wood. I've seen pictures of Hendrix with a sunburst Strat with faux binding. Obviously, he just scraped the edge, and it looks sorta rough but still cool. It seems like it might be possible for a body with a thick finish and a small edge radius.

This thread has so many different points 1)I'd look at copies. The Agile copies from http://www.rondomusic.net/electricguitar.html are highly regarded and sometimes have a hollow Les Paul (their selection changes all the time, so you may have to check back). There was another company that I can't remember right now making a copy with a hollow body, but you could probably Google it. 2)If you are not comfortable with the whole build but want the set neck, you could always buy a neck off of ebay or remove the Epiphone neck and build a new body. 3)That sandwich method of holding the body is going to be harder with the neck attached. 4)If you can do this, please post pictures. I don't want to argue about if it is possible, I just know I could not do that neatly or safely.

Since you wondered specifically what in your plans seemed really hard to do, the use of the "band mill" type of saw (I assume this is like a band saw) to slice off the entire back of the guitar. Feeding a Les Paul through a band saw to take of a slice would be really hard to do a) neatly and safely. I can see removing some of the back with a router or maybe a planer to drill (or route cavities) holes from the back or (harder) removing and then regluing the maple cap, drilling holes from the front. PS: The Carvins that look like Les Pauls are probably thirty years old and are set neck, as opposed to newer models which are neck through but not LP shaped.

Hi, I've seen this discussed somewhere before, and the easiest way to do what you're talking about seemed to be: drill large holes to lighten the body from the rear with a forstner bit. Stay away from "structural" areas like where the bridge mounts and the neck joint. Cap the back with a approx. 1/4" piece of wood of your choice. I suppose you could plane 1/4" off the back and use 1/4" mahogany and make it work out well enough to stain it, but wherever I read this before, the consensus was to bind your new back, Les Paul Custom style. Certainly sounds easier to go with the binding and paint the back. I also agree with the other posts that buying a body that is already hollowed would be much easier (or for more $, those Cloud 9 Les Pauls that are already "swiss cheesed" inside)

"The strings are a little over an 1/8th inch from the body. On my 3 pickup Les paul, I have them closer than that" How do you do that on a Les Paul? The strings are usually much farther from the body than that. I guess you could reset the neck, recess the hardware, etc., but it seems pretty involved. I think the Les Paul would be more comfortable with the strings closer to the body, so I'd like to know how you did it -- maybe some pics? I also wondered why you made the body that thin (other than, "I wanted it that thin"). Just wondering if thin had any sonic/playability advantages. Overall, I really like it. One tiny negative -- pretty lacewood only on the back?

The 1/8" difference between 1 5/8" and 1 3/4" doesn't seem like much (and it isn't, it's only 1/8"), but the difference in string spacing is huge. To me, having the strings all cramped up at the nut is one of the most uncomfortable things a neck can have.

"Hands" are great if you've done plenty of fretwork, but I asked about the tool just for avoiding beginner mistakes ("Hands" can change angles without warning.)

I agree, an overhanging fretboard would likely be uncomfortable. But that's not what I meant. I wish I knew how to do the CAD drawings, but I don't. I meant taper the fretboard. Imagine looking at the nut end of a typical fretboard. This is a rectangle, 1 5/8" by 1/4". Now imagine same view, but looking at a parallellogram, with 1 5/8" base, slightly more than 1/4" sides (due to angle), and a 1 3/4" top. Of course, you really couldn't view it like this, as the angle would have to be cut after the board was glued down.

In Brian's fretting tutorial, he make a tool that holds a file that allows him to remove the excess length and the file in the bevel on the fret ends. My question is: what holds the file in the tool? Thanks

If you have a neck you really like except it is too small at the nut (like 1 5/8"), could you remove the fretboard and replace, with say a 1 and 3/4" one? I realize this would create 1/16" overhang on each side of the nut, but is there any harm in sanding this on an angle? Fretboards are generally square in this respect, ie: a 1 3/4" fretboard is 1 3/4" at the top and bottom, in this case, it would be 1 5/8" at the bottom and 1 3/4" at the top. Thanks

I've seen home improvements shows with a guy that uses different chemical mixtures to make the oxidation occur faster (still takes a couple of weeks) and to make more color variation (kinda like if you could do a Vai dip/swirl finish, but with oxidation colors). He then waxed the surface to make it more stable, but I don't know how this would hold up to a picking arm. I think the wear would look cool, but your arm would get dirty. I'll see if I can find it. Found it -- http://www.diynet.com/diy/ww_chairs_stools...2276538,00.html -- and it really was more blue than green, don't know why.

Once upon a time, Ty Tabor from King's X swore by active pickups from Fender Elites (I think he played both Elites and Strats with Elite pickups). Later on, he had various signature models and moved away from the Elite pickups. I read somewhere during the "endorsement years" that his current guitar did not use active pickups, but he had a set of the Elite pickups in his rack. It seems simple to run the guitar signal through another pickup that is in a rack or a floor pedal, but what does this do to the sound? I have no idea what Elite pickups sound like, so what if you used this same idea for EMG actives? or a passive for that matter? Thanks

Brown wood on back of late-model Wizard necks is bubinga. Done for strength, although it looks good too.

By all means, check out USA Custom Guitars. Tommy used to work for Warmoth. He does great work (I can't speak for bodies, but necks are great), but the thing I really like best about his company is the word "custom". Warmoth seems to not want to do anything "different". I had some "different" ideas for a neck, and Warmoth said no, they wouldn't do it AND it wouldn't work. Tommy, on the other hand, said he'd never done it and therefore it MIGHT not work, but he'd try it anyway. I think if you pay, Tommy will cut it however you want (not violating trademarks, of course). Also, you'll notice the USA Custom necks are a little more expensive than Warmoths, but they don't have those Warmoth "back charges". Also, the lower end Wizard II's don't have the AANJ. They aren't exactly "Fenderish" though.

I re-read Starscream's last post about Warmoth building an RG shaped body that would fit a Warmoth neck. In the beginning, the RG body (original) was okay, so Starscream's not looking for an upgrade in wood or pickup routing or different bridge, etc. What do you want the Warmoth parts to do that the factory RG doesn't? If it is just an objection to the too thin Wizard neck, the cheapest way around this is to get one of the lower-ended RG's (which have a Wizard II neck, which is a little thicker but not too thick) and swap all of the "better" parts from the 550 on to it -- like the electronics and the bridge. These lower end RG's go cheap on ebay -- cheaper than a Warmoth body and neck.

Actually, the join the body at the 16 th or 17 th fret has nothing to do with the neck fitting and intonating properly, that is just how long the neck pocket is. You could build an exact duplicate of the Strat body, except for an extra-long pocket, and the neck would join the body at whatever fret the pocket ended at. The square vs round heel is relatively easy to get one to fit the other, but it is really a non-issue since Warmoth builds both. The post that said all Strat necks are 21 fret necks, some with 22 fret fretboards is a good way to put it. My previous post on the 550M neck would therefore be - it is a 21 fret neck with a 24 fret fretboard.

All depends on what "old" means in old RG. I know for a fact (I have one of these necks -- I think it is a 550M, maple fretboard)) that some RG's were short heeled with a long fretboard. Like if you look at a regular 22 fret Strat neck, the heel comes almost to the end, only the 22 nd fret is hanging over the heel, with only the fretboard supporting it. Now the RG neck that I have was made in the same way regarding heel length, with a longer fretboard overhang, so there is nothing below the 22, 23, and 24 th fret except fretboard. This is how (I think) Warmoth makes 24 fret necks - simply a longer fretboard. Therefore, my neck and a Strat neck would be "swappable". I do not know if this is true with your neck. Many 24-fret necks (new RG's don't know, many Kramers, some BC Rich's) are made like Warmoth and others here have said, with a longer heel and just the 24 th fret hanging over the end of the heel. Of course, most any neck will fit any pocket and intonate properly given enough tools and skill in using them.

Just wondering, what does the Nightswan-ish middle humbucker accomplish? Vivian also had a Strat with an added mid-humbucker mounted really low (far from strings)