SawDust_Junkie

Thanks for your reply setch. I have read through your thread on building a Les Paul, and I saw the pics your link went to. What I still don't quite understand is, is the angled portion of the body between the end of the fret board and the bridge at a different angle than that of the body/neck joint ? Or, do you simply continue the same angle back to the bridge ? In the picture you posted in this thread, is that Hipshot type bridge ? I didn't think the height on those were such that they required an angled neck to compensate for. I thought that the neck angle was to compensate for a TOM type bridge, which seems to set alot higher than the one in your picture. By the way, that is a beautiful guitar you posted ! I have also seen a thread here at PG that shows angling the back portion of the body, from the rear of the bridge to the rear of the body. Do you do yours this way ? If that's the case, it seems to me that the area directly under the bridge is the only part of the body that is at the original plane of the wood and not tapered as part of the carve. I am wrong ?

Thanks kaj ! Igot the second e-mail, but for some reason I can't open the files. I have VoloView express, which is supposed to support .dwg files, but it keeps telling me these files are in an unsupported format. Are the .dwg files the only thing you have?

Welcome Maris ! Jump right in, and since you have been lurking for awhile, you know "WE WANT PICTURES !" So get that camera out !

I may be wrong about this wes ( I'm batting .000 in this thread so far) but most of the tutorials and info I have seen on set neck guitars show that they are built with the angle routed into the mortise where the heel tenon is glued into the body. Therefore the neck tenon should be straight and and as long as the mortise is routed level, there wouldn't be a problem. (cue one of the masters to step in and tell me what a moron I am, that I don't know what I am talking about and to sit down and shut up !

You're right Bill I did mean the headstock angle, that's just not what I typed in. Sometimes my fingers have a mind of their own ! Sorry if I caused any confusion idch !

I would agree with Silvertone, and add that I think the reason for the neck angle on the Gibsons and other guitars is to provide enough downward pressure on the strings to avoid having to use a string tree like Fenders do on Strats an Teles.

Never mind guys, I went back to the Gibson web site and took another look at the doubles. After looking at them for a while, I have decided that the upper bout is indeed set a little further toward the head stock than the lower bout. The upper horn appears to be a little more pointed that the lower one also. I just never noticed this before. Since I have started this thread anyway, I might as well put it to good use. I have another question about carve top guitars in general. I know the top of the guitar has be angled to the same degree as the back angle of the neck. Does this angle continue from the heel of the neck where it joins the body, to just behind the bridge pickup ? ( this is assuming a two humbucker configuration). And then are the actual TOM bridge and tailpiece mounted on the portion of the body that is still at the original plane that the wood started with ? Like this illustration ?

Has anyone here built a Les Paul double cut-away ? Or know the dimensions for one ? Specifically the upper and lower bouts. I have a CAD drawing of a double cut-away that I got from somewhere on-line (can't remember at the moment where though), and I had a friend who has access to a CAD printer print me out a full scale copy. I noticed that the upper horn extends further toward the headstock than the lower horn by about 1/2" to 5/8". Is this standard , or is it just the preference of the person who drew up the CAD. I got to thinking that it could be in order to help balance the guitar by shifting the center of gravity, but I am not sure. It seems to me that on every double cut-away I have seen, the horns are perfectly symetrical and even. Am I wrong ? And if I am correct, and the horns should be the same, I took a standard Les Paul top I have cut out and simply drew the outline and then flipped the "template over and matched the outline to the top portion. This resulted in an outline with even, symetrical horns and looks more natural to me, but I did not know if the real LP doubles were that way ? Does anyone see a problem with my solution using the LP template ?

The quilt on that one on the right in your third pic is awesome bigd ! Nice work, very clean. It never ceases to amaze me the volume some of you guys turn out.

I was in a local woodworking shop this weekend and saw a type of wood I was not familiar with. I can't remember exactly but I think they called it Lingas or Limbas or something like that. The clerk told me it was some newer species in South America that they have found can be planted and harvested in about 15 years time. It is a nice wood. Really tight grain pattern, fairly light color, and not too heavy. Looks alot like Red Oak, but with a tighter more dense grain. Kind of like Bloodwood, but not dark red like Bloodwood. Anybody here know what this wood is ? Or ever even heard of it ? If you have, does it have guitar building applications ? Just curious, as it is nice looking wood and cheaper than some of the more exotic hardwoods like Mahogany or Bubinga.

You're right, the local wood suppliers do usually have fairly straight edge on one side on the S2S lumber. It is not nearly a clean enough edge to laminate but would probably be straight enough to get the planer to even out the other edge.

Yeah I know I could use a jointer, I just wondered if I could use one tool todo both jobs. You know how it is being on a limited tool allowance from the little lady don't ya ! I guess you could use the planer to joint 5" planks like you said to create three piec body blanks. I just did not know if the planer would actually square the board if you ran it through on edge like that or not.

I recently saw that Lowes had a Delta portable 12 1/2" planer advertised for sale. I know this would work fine to plane 7-8 inch planks before laminating two create two piece body blanks. What I was wondering is can a planer also be use to joint the edges of these planks ? Does a planer have an edge guide that would keep the plank square so the planed/jointed edge would be straight ? And if so, what is the average height that a planer can be adjusted to ? Would a planer's table adjust low enough to run a 7" plank through it in order to square the edge of the board for laminating ?

Thanks for your input frank. After thinking about it some more and looking at the Schaller roller bridges some more, I think I would rather go with a Hip Shot hard tail bridge or the Fender style hard tail bridge. These bridges both flush mount on the top of the guitatr with no posts. As for the neck pickup, I did not mean to move the neck pickup away from the end of the fret board. It would still be positioned right at the end of the neck/fretboard, it would just have to be moved a little further towards the bridge to give enough room to get a 3" heel pocket. I thought about just extending the area of the body at the heel pocket to give enough wood to bolt the neck on, but this seems like it would make the neck/body thicker where the two meet, and eliminate some of the benefit of the lower cut-away as far access to the higher frets goes.

Ok, here goes. I am in the brainstorming phase of a new project. I want to build Gibson LP Double Cut Away body style with a bolt on neck and no neck angle. I want to build this on a Gibson scale length. I still haven't figured out a couple of things with this design. 1.) I have a CAD drawing of a LP Double Cut Away that I will probably be using to make a template. On this drawing the neck position pick-up is set right at the end of the heel of the neck. Since the LP Double Cut Away is a set neck, this does not leave enough room between the neck pick-up and the end of the body to route a heel pocket for a Fender type bolt on neck (app. 3" would be req- uired) Now, I know I can simply move the neck pick-up closer to the bridge to allow enough room to accomodate my neck pocket. My question is, not knowing much about natural "tonal intervals" along the scale length, and realizing that moving the pickup closer to the bridge will produce a higher pitched tone to the pick-up, what are your feelings about how much effect this would have on the overall sound of the guitar. ( I know this is subjective, but someone may ex- perience with this and may be able to offer some advice from that experience) 2.) Since the Gibson scale length is a "compensated" scale length, I realize the TOM bridges are set at an angle to allow enough room for adjustment for in- tonation. If I were to use, for example, a Schaller roller type bridge or a Fender style, string-through, hard-tail bridge, would this type of bridge give me enough room to adjust for intonation, if the high-E saddle was set to the scale length at about 75% of its travel toward the nut ? I figured that if I use a Stewart-Mac pre-slotted fret board for the Gibson scale, since they are slotted for the true scale length of 24 9/19", if I set the high-E saddle about 3/4 of the way toward toward the nut and make this my scale length, it would allow enough travel on the bass side to adjust for intonation, without having to angle the bridge. Do you guys agree with this ? Or am I totally off base here ?

Thanks eric ! I will probably go with a pre-radiused and per-slotted Rosewood fretboard from Stewart-Mac. The one I used on my Strat copy is a compund radisu that starts at 10" at the nut and tapers down to 16" at the heel. Do you think that the Schaller bridge with the base being pre-machined would adjust that flat ?

I am thinking about another project that I want to work on. Can anyone tell me if you can use a Schaller roller bridge on a bolt on neck set up with no neck angle. Is the Schaller roller bridge too tall for this setup like a TOM would be. I looked at the Schaller bridges on the Stewart-Mac site and they don't appear to be that tall to me. I would like to do a string through body with back and top ferrules and the Schaller roller bridge. No tremolo, no vibrato, basically a "hard-tail". Just something I was kicking around. I would appreciate any input from you guys. Thanks !

Godin I would say that there is nothing to stop you. If you don't like the neck on your factory guitar, make one that you do like. Isn't that what we are all really about here ? To learn how make beautiful instruments that meet everything that we want in one ? I have an old cheapo Strat copy by Mako, that is pretty much ruined ( after I screwed it up years ago routing the body for a Floyd Rose trem and making some pretty nasty holes in the neck for the lock nut). But I have decided that I am going to fill in the body route with some scrap Maple and build new neck on something like a 24 " scale. That way my son will have a guitar that will be much easier for his smaller hands to learn on. This guitar is really useless right now, but I think I can make it a playable instrument again, and it has sentimental value as it was the first electric guitar I ever owned. So I say go for it and do like me, use this opportunity to gain experience like sirk said and hone your craft at little or no cost !

You guys are all way more knowledgeable about this than I am. But I wanted to throw in that I have also read that one concern about doing inlay on a pre-radiused fret board is that when sanding the inlay you have a slight risk of changing the radius of the fretboard if you are not careful. Anyway, I will now go back to reading all of you guys great advice !

Hey guys, I have thought about this myself (as I am afraid this site has exposed me to a lifelong addiction, so what is time to me ?). Haven't really found any suitable timber locally. I think most of the types of hardwoods used in guitar building are found in more northern climes. Although Ash would not be a stretch. Anyway, I found this site to help with identifying different tree species if anyone is interested: http://www.arborday.org/trees/treeid.cfm Check out the tree guide from the home page.

DUH ! Thanks frank. I went to Stewart-Mac and looked at the Hot Rod trusses again. I see exactly what you are talking about now. When I originally order my truss rod, I though the only difference between those two rods was the size of the hex nut. One being a 1/4" and the other being a 1/8". I see now that they are designed completely different. I will know what to use in the future now. Thanks again !

I would agree eric, that a laminate neck with the peghead angle cut out would be a better option if not for the wood waste involved. You will have to use a thicker neckblank to it that way, and the scrap after cutting it would only be usable for splicing ears on the headstock. I guess that is why alot of people do it. Especially whne looking at an extra inch or so of Mahogany. Even so, I wouldn't think it would add more than a board foot or so to you wood. So, you are probably right, that your method would be best, but a volute would probably be a good idea even with that method. on edit: After reading setch's post I rethought my post and I see now what he is saying about the amount of wood required. A laminate would require a considerably larger amount of wood. So that method could greatly increase the cost of material. (Please excuse the ignorance of a newbie)

Hey catnine. That is the one I got. My truss rod has a hex nut for the adjustment. There is no slotted head on the nut and it does not have the spoke wheel nut either. Like I said the adjustment nut is a 1/4" hex nut on the end of the rod, but the hole in the end of the nut is not a hex hole that will accept a an allen wrench. The hole is a circular drilled hole. I was befuddled when I got it and discovered this, because every guitar I own uses a similar type adjustment nut on the truss rod, but on every one of them you can insert an allen wren into the end of the adjustment nut. Not on this Hot Rod truss that I received. From your reply, I am starting to think that I did get one with a manufacturing defect. It seems that the adjustment nut shold have had a hex hole machined in the end of it instead of a round hole. But I guarantee you this one did not.

Thanks setch ! That drawing really cleared up what I was confused about. I can see how it is done now. You do have to start with the peghead thinner than the neck blank and the volute is simply more wood left at the joint than the the rest of the neck when doing the profile shaping of the back of the neck.

Falbo said : This is something that perplexed me when I received the Stewart-Mac Hot Rod double action truss rod I used when building my first Strat copy. It was not possible to use an allen wrench to adjust that rod. The hex nut at the adjustment end was a 1/4" hex nut, but the hole in the end of the nut was not a hex shaped hole it was round, as in circular. There was no way to insert an allen wrench in the end of that adjustment nut. I ended up having drill the access hole for the adjustment nut bigger in order to fit a 1/4" nut driver type tool in to do the truss rod adjustments. This was not too big of an issue as I put the access hole in the heel on this neck as it was my first one. But I am curious as to whether the truss rod I received from Stewrt-Mac was defective, or has everyone else found that same thing on their Hot rods ? And on a side note. Has anyone here used a Hot Rod for a Les Paul style neck ? Does the adjustment nut set too low in the channel to work as a peghead adjusted rod ? Or does the deeper setting nut actually make it better on an angled peghead ? I am working on a Les Paul copy as my next project, but I am using very cheap wood and such because this is a practice piece. I don't want to spend alot of money on Mahogany and good figured Maple, until I have my technique perfected ( or at least somewhat know what I am doing. ) Even though It is a practice piece, I would like to make it as viable and playable as possible. I was considering using a Hot Rod, but was not sure if it would work the way I want it to.