LukeR

My Dingaling (Chuck Berry) Kind regards, Luke

I have been playnig for 13 years now, and I am quite attached to my SRV strangle hold on my neck... even though I want an LP...

Off the topic a bit... It seems to have a lot to do with location, in regards to finding wood. In Australia, besides Perry's, of course, I have found it difficult to locate mahogany (in usable sizes). That said, it is fairly easy to find more 'exotic' type timber here, mainly because it is local. Maybe an international co-op may be an idea- that way, we could all get good quality, decent timber at a fair price. There was a similar type setup at ampage (the pickup makers guild, or something like that, cant remeber). Basically, you paid a membership fee to cover costs, then orders could be made in bulk (much cheaper prices) Who knows if it would work with timber- I mean, I am sure that alot of the established guys have their own stash, but the prospect of an 'international union' to establish supplies must be a good idea. I mean, I find it hard to believe that manty of the luthiers here (even the professional ones) are actually COMPETING with each other for buisness- I mean, for example, you like Fender and Gibsons for their own distinct styles- the depth of the flame in the tops are icing on the cake, not its pimary focus (at least as far as I am concerned). Personally, I would imagine that I would rather have continual acess to resources, rather than an exhaustable stash. Luke

I have been lookiing for one for about 4 years now, and have pretty much given up hope. Obviously there are a million on sunbursts, but i have NEVER seen anything about customs. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news... If i am wrong though, and you find one, could you let me know? Cheers, Luke

Thanks Setch, I ll be sure to give that a try Cheers, Luke (and sorry about the glitch!)

Sorry about the multiple post of the topic guys- I was having a computer glitch Sorry! Luke

Hi guys, I am attempting to restore a $15 second hand Gibson acoustic copy. it seems to be about 20 years old or so (the binding is very yellow). Its a nice guitar to play- I did a quick set up on it- the tuners are cheap and nasty, but the neck is one piece (scarf jointed headstock AFTER the vollute, strangely). Anyway, wilst surprisingly a nice guitar to play, it is very 'dead' sounding (I had to restring with electric strings to get a tone that wasnt completely lifeless). My plan, therfore, is to replace the top on the guitar (big job, I know, but after all, it was only $15, and it will be a good learning experience even if I ruin it) The binging is 5 ply black/white; the white of which has aged to a nice, almost TV Yellow. My question is, it it possible to remove the top from the guitar AND salvage the binding? (the top is a VERY dead and lifeless sounding plywood, so I am not too woried about breaking that. I have found that a solid top generally seems to sound MUCH better than ply, even if the body is ply, so I figuer there is little point in attempting to build an acoustic COMPLETELY from scratch) Thanks guys, Luke

Hi guys, I am attempting to restore a $15 second hand Gibson acoustic copy. it seems to be about 20 years old or so (the binding is very yellow). Its a nice guitar to play- I did a quick set up on it- the tuners are cheap and nasty, but the neck is one piece (scarf jointed headstock AFTER the vollute, strangely). Anyway, wilst surprisingly a nice guitar to play, it is very 'dead' sounding (I had to restring with electric strings to get a tone that wasnt completely lifeless). My plan, therfore, is to replace the top on the guitar (big job, I know, but after all, it was only $15, and it will be a good learning experience even if I ruin it) The binging is 5 ply black/white; the white of which has aged to a nice, almost TV Yellow. My question is, it it possible to remove the top from the guitar AND salvage the binding? (the top is a VERY dead and lifeless sounding plywood, so I am not too woried about breaking that. I have found that a solid top generally seems to sound MUCH better than ply, even if the body is ply, so I figuer there is little point in attempting to build an acoustic COMPLETELY from scratch) Thanks guys, Luke

Hi guys, I am attempting to restore a $15 second hand Gibson acoustic copy. it seems to be about 20 years old or so (the binding is very yellow). Its a nice guitar to play- I did a quick set up on it- the tuners are cheap and nasty, but the neck is one piece (scarf jointed headstock AFTER the vollute, strangely). Anyway, wilst surprisingly a nice guitar to play, it is very 'dead' sounding (I had to restring with electric strings to get a tone that wasnt completely lifeless). My plan, therfore, is to replace the top on the guitar (big job, I know, but after all, it was only $15, and it will be a good learning experience even if I ruin it) The binging is 5 ply black/white; the white of which has aged to a nice, almost TV Yellow. My question is, it it possible to remove the top from the guitar AND salvage the binding? (the top is a VERY dead and lifeless sounding plywood, so I am not too woried about breaking that. I have found that a solid top generally seems to sound MUCH better than ply, even if the body is ply, so I figuer there is little point in attempting to build an acoustic COMPLETELY from scratch) Thanks guys, Luke

The guitar sounds great... and youre a great player too.I like what you did with the SRV thing at the end of your clip- I thought it was classy. So many players these days just play without making it there own- I thing you took it, and made it unique. For what its worth, I thought it was very impressive- in regards to the sound of your guitar, and your playing. Its so nice to hear a clip where someone has built and instrument AND can play it well (Other forums have examples of good tone, with amateur playing- I m NOT talking about tracks placed on this site- more FX sites) Anyway, thanks for that- I truely appreciated it. Cheers, Luke

Hi Setch, as per always, congratulations on your fine work Luke

Another point is the international nature of the internet. Now, I am almost finished my 3rd year of Law school in Brisbane, Australia, and I chose the elective 'Internet Law' last semester. Its all fairly complicated- its not hard to know WHAT the law is in regard to actions on the internet, but rather WHAT law is actually relevant. (eg, you may be in the US, your site may exist on a server in Poland, and you defame someone in Australia). Which law is applcable? Well, the Australian perspective is that publication occurs where and when it is downloaded (so if I [in the US] defamed you on this forum, and you download and read it on your computer in Brisbane, Australia, then publication occured in Australia. Therefore, you could sue me. However, in order for you to sue me (its a civil area of law), I would have to come to australia- its a civil order, so there is no deportation, etc. Even if I sent legal reperesentatives to Australia to fight the case for me and stayed at home, you could not enforce the courts desision- I am not subect (in a practical sence) to Australian law (theoretically yes, but in real life...) Of course, you could lodge an application for a US court to enforce the desision that the Australian court has made (there are various international treaties on the subject), however, due to the 'freedom of speach' thing you have in the states, defamation is ALOT harder to get relief for. So basically, you wouldnt have any chance of actually getting the remedy you sought. So you spend a hellva lot of money in court, win the case, cant enforce the judgement, and then are left with a HUGE debt. Also, copyright is different in different places. In the US, dont you have to register copyright? In Australia, you are automatically granted copyright in any material work(s) you make (you dont have to put the © symbol at the end- that goes to assesing quantum of damages). So that is different Another big problem is databases. In the US, you dont have copyright in databases of compiled facts (like the yellow pages). In Australia, we do- so there is another issue. Interesting things (or at least I thinks so) Kind regards, Luke

Im sure you will get it all ironed out, Setch. Hope its all smooth going for you from now on though! Luke

I have had alot of trouble with Gibson strings. 3 times I fell for their advertising hype, and each time, I was left with very 'dead' sounding strings (to my ears, at least). I use 10s now, after 3 years of 11s and 12s (flatwound). for the many years before that, I just used 9s. For an ideal guage, I'd preffer 10.5s (although i have never seen them; I dont think they exist). 11s have a very strong tone (to my ears) and 9s have a slinky sound. I like the sound of both, and 10s are pretty good middle ground, but I think I would rather a touch more closer to 11s. That said, doesnt Billy Gibbons use 8s?

Hi Even with a zero fret, you will never actually get perfect intonation. Alot of this (assuming the guitar is set up correctly) is due to the pressure placed on the strings when you fret a note. (When you fret a note, the string is ever so slighly 'streched', hghtening the pitch [albeit a miniscul amount]). this makes the guitar sound slightly 'out of tune'. Therfore, even with a zero fret, you can never perfect intonation. Luke

Personly, I hate the look of BC Rich so much that I have never played one. I have to stiffle a snicker whenever I see one. I think they are a bit too homoerotic for my tastes.

For what its worth, I concur I wouldnt make a guitar like that. Thanks for the suggestion, Litch, but its just too much work. The neck was broken at the heel, although the body is in perfect shape. (only the neck was damaged). However, the Neck humbucker is close to the neck, making the joint weak. So really, both the body AND neck have issues- I have fixed it ALOT (I guess 'whammy bar' is a strong euphorism), so I dont plan to do anything more on it. Thanks for the advice, though Luke

For me, woodworking. In particular, little 'tricks' and DIY jigs that stops the need for expenisive equiptment. Not because i am cheap, I just like the idea of fashioning a guitar using readily availible/common tools and ad ons. I guess like how Stradivarius honed viloins using tools 'primitave' in today's highly mechanised world.

I too have heard alot of nasty things about Larry Dimazio- apparently, the virtuial vintage tm series of pickups are an exact ripoff of Chris Kinman's patent. I dont think Chris can afford to challange it, however. (And he charges about $5 Australian for a 10c capacitor!) Luke

HI, Yeah, the book says that these are not good guitars- it is an example of pretty much what NOT to do when designing a guitar. Correct, Litch, my SG has had its neck broken off at the body join- it has been well repaired, but it still has a bit of a 'whammy bar' effect. I have done SO much repair and structual reinforcement on that guitar that I realised that I have most of the skuills to actually build a guitar from scratch (I was actually advised that it would be far easier to build a new guitar than repair it). Hundreds and hundreds of hours working on it- that said, it is the best sounding guitar (in my opinion) that I have ever played or heard. I could do more to fix it even more, but it would involve taking off the fret board, and the neck, then attaching carbon rods into the neck/fingerboard cavity that extends deep into the body. Too much work, and because the guitar sounds great, i would hate to ruin it (which would seem VERY easy to do) Anyway, cheers, Luke

Well, I actually own a 71 Gibson SG, without the neck angle. I would NEVER make a guitar like that- it has great tone, but I have had to spend HEAPS of time strengthening the neck joint. The strings are a fair way off the body, but it doesnt seem to make much difference. feel free to ack me any questions, but sadly, I dont have a digital camera. Luke

Yes, precisely. Thats why it seems so unfair. It was because Dimarzio made a choice to have exposed cream bobbins, and Gibsons could be either black, creme or zebra and they were covered. It was because of Dimarzio's intention to market double cream humbuckers. regards, luke

No- its not a patent- (a patent protects a 'method of manufacture' [a legal expression, not literal expression- it would take too long for me to explain the ins and out of Intellectual Property Law here, so dont get too concerned]) However, Dimarzio has Trademarked the double cream look humbucker (eg of a trademark- the McDonald Golden Arches). Dimarzio managed to be granted a trademark for the double cream humbucker because they were (apparently) the first to issue double cream humbuckers as a replaceble retrofit for PAFs (evidence was submitted that Gibson, nor any other manufacture, had sold double cream humbuckers BEFORE Dimarzio did) (this is obviosly 'questionalble' to say the least) Anyway, Seymour Duncan challenged the issuing of the trademark, and the matter was settled 'withoiut predjudice' (another legal expression, basically meaning confidential) outside court. As it stands, however 'correct', Dimarzio DOES have a trademark on the double cream humbuckers.

Option 2. Definately.

Hi all, what do YOU use to cut the string slots on your nut; in particular, the B and high E string slots? I have heard a few different methods; just wondering what the general consensus was. take care, Luke