Mickguard

I have a humbucker that fits a normal tele plate -- I forget who makes it -- the sound is excellent. Perhaps not exactly a humbucker. Remember the bridge plate has a pretty big impact on the sound. Here's a similar pickupon Ebay UK The position of the pickup also has a big impact -- it's not going to sound the same in the middle position as in the bridge or neck. I've also done the 'hidden' pickup, with a P90. I can definitely recommend against using a metal pickguard! On the other hand, I had no issues with the pickup being too far from the strings (but a P90 has adjustable polepieces).

I'd be reluctant to use plastic wood. Doesn't that stuff shrink over time? That's a pretty big tearout for a blink of the eye, although I've never worked with purpleheart, so maybe that's what happens. When I've had tearouts, I always stop the router immediately, find the piece that came out, and glue it back on. That almost always fixes it, and is usually nearly invisible (especially under paint). One thing to watch out for is not to touch metal to the glue--it'll turn the glue line dark. If you can't find the tearout piece, then you might consider rebuilding that part with a piece of scrap -- cut and plane the tornoff bit , then glue on a new planed piece and reroute accordingly. You can probably match the grain of the new piece to the main body, and, assuming the joint is tight, the fix will be practically invisible.

I suggest you take the guitar to a luthier, have a proper job done of it. But yeah, if you dropped it, you own it. Look at it this way, once it's fixed, it'll really be YOUR guitar.

Well, tell us how this happened -- this is not 'supposed' to happen. Did you hit the neck against something? Is this a real Fender? If the guitar was new, then it had a flaw, you might have been able to take it back. Now that you've gone and glued it once, the store can probably refuse.

Well, if you're in this for the money, then I suppose the time to start selling will be when you feel you can build a reputation for quality (and innovativeness). I don't tend to keep my projects-- eventually I strip them down again. If the body turned out well enough, I put it up on ebay with a low starting price. For the moment, the most I hope from a build is to end up with a guitar I really like (well, I have one so far!). The idea of selling guitars is far far off. Frankly, I think it'd be more hassle than it's worth.

Back to the split/stereo pickup question: Suppose I took a lipstick-type pickup (because they're fairly narrow) and lined it up parallel to the bass strings? I think it would look cool, but I wonder what kind of sound that would produce, since it will be covering a longer length of the strings. Presumably I'd be able to use the height adjusters to emphasize one side of the pickup over the other. This would give me the option of installing a second lipstick in a similar fashion for the treble strings (perhaps angled to catch more strings) --I could run that through a switch into the bridge pickup's circuit, if I wanted. That way, I could use the bridge pickup for a 'normal' guitar sound. Or switch to the lipsticks for a more separated sound.

Heh, I was going to post this exact question a couple days ago. First off, I bought the headless bridge kit -- from what I can tell, the quality is just fine. I haven't put it into action yet, but it certainly looks well-made. The only potential concern I have is a bit of roughness around the holes for the end of the strings (it uses normal strings). I plan on filing them a bit, they look like the might potentially chew the strings. A bonus with this kit is that is comes with the headstock adapter -- that's where the ball end of the string goes. Now, the headstock cap is just that -- it fits at the end of the neck. So presumably there's no problem with cutting off the headstock and reshaping the neck to fit the cap. And the trussrod shouldn't really interfere with things--although you'd want to give the hole a bit of clearance, so the neck wouldn't end at the nut. I'm not so sure I'd be comfortable without the volute anyway. So the reason why I didn't end up posting the question is because looking at the headstock piece pretty much told me what I need to know. One of these days, I may actually get around to the build too! Oh yeah, I paid $35 for mine --same seller, I think.

Since you wanted the look of a binding, then yeah, it makes sense to go ahead and actually install binding. On the other hand, I like the larger rollover idea. That's what I did with this guitar (which was originally a solidbody, then I decided to hollow it and cap it): The larger rolled edge is also really comfortable. You could also look into installing a thin dark-colored strip into the gap-- it'd have the effect of pinstriping, and would look really nice as a contrast between the mahogany and the maple.

Pictures will help a lot. Sounds like this thread belongs in the finishing section (some people specialize in their interests, they might not see the thread in the general build section).

I received the Dano neck today. The neck comes with tuners -- they're clearly bored for larger strings. Since I'm not going for a Bass VI, I won't really need those -- I'll probably keep the lowest bass-side tuner, change the button to match the rest of the Grovers I'll be using, the difference will be very minor (the existing tuners have the same footprint of the Grovers, which is a bonus). Since it's a pretty thick string, I won't really need a locking tuner there anyway. That gives me the option of using .13 - .72 string set (Ernie Ball). D'addario's baritone set runs .13 - .62 -- (which might just fit the Grovers. )

I had a Stagg at one point --it had a metal badge that was inlaid into the wood. This one might have a couple of little feet that press into the wood. Can you get a razor blade under it?

Do a search for 'bolt on to setneck conversion' or similar terms and you'll find several threads that have already discussed this. The upshot (in case you're feeling lazy): Don't bother.

Well, 25.5" is 647.7 mm .

Sigh....maybe they'll reissue it. I just picked up a new Stylophone...

Yeah, I was thinking 'cool features' rather than 'innovation' Actually, what I'd really like in the guitar would be a built-in motorized hurdy-gurdy type wheel. I imagine that's been done too... I suppose a sustainer would be a similar effect.

Since I'm in a drums-guitar duo nowadays, I'm looking for ways to fill out the frequencies and increase the complexity of the overall sound. And since I'm starting a baritone build, it strikes me as a good opportunity to try out: Two separate electronic circuits --one for each pickup. It will mean having two cables (or a stereo cable) dangling off the back of the guitar --but since the guitar risks being neck-heavy that won't be a bad thing. And I have to stick close to the mike, so I don't jump around a whole lot anyway. I'd be able to treat each pickup's signal with a different effects chain, and run them to separate amps -with the neck serving as the 'bass' pickup, natch. But I'd also add a switch that would let me join the two pickups together to a single output. Taking the idea a bit further -- I've been toying with the idea of using half of a Precision-type pickup for the neck position, so I could focus that sound only on the bass strings. Not sure if it's possible to separate the two halves of the Precision pups though.

Tones at 10, volumes at 10 (I use a dual looper with a tuner set to mute as a kill switch). I'm usually way too busy/stressed on stage to fiddle with things once we get going --I'm just holding on for dear life.... Most I'll do is use the switch. That gives me most of the variation I need. And my board has two fuzzes, a distortion factory and a synth wah...I really don't think a puny lil' tone knob is going to do much against that....

Any thoughts on which type of pickup --humbuckers vs single coil -- will work better with a baritone? Is there any technical reason why one would be more appropriate than the other? I'm really looking for a thick, bassy sound, more than the surf-rock/Duane-eddy sound -- so I'd think a humbucker would be the way to go. But the humbuckers I wanted to use have the narrower Gibson spacing -- which limits the type of bridge I choose too. And it seems to me that a wider string spacing would be more comfortable with a baritone, right? I also have a tele bridge-style humbucker, maybe I ought to go with that...that would give me the best of both worlds (don't remember if it's splittable though). I wasn't really planning on a tele-style look for this guitar. But that wouldn't be a bad thing either!

That's a good idea. The neck should be here in a week or two -- I have lots of different bridges in my parts drawer, and I already have a body I've used for prototyping (i.e., it's already trashed, so it won't hurt trashing it some more). The neck comes with tuners, so presumably they're made for baritone size strings. It looks like the Grovers I usually use can handle up to .060 with some coaxing. It's also going to depend on the maximum length of the strings, although since I usually cut off a goodly piece when stringing my other guitars, I'm assuming that's not going to be a real issue. The Gretsch Electromatic Jet baritone (30" scale) has a Bigsby on it! From what I'm reading, the longer scale definitely makes for a tighter feel to the strings - so a bridge with added string length at the end might be the way to go.

I have a related question about all this. I'm starting a baritone build based on a Danelectro neck -- it's a 29.75" scale, which I'll probably tune A-to-A, and use guitar strings, and not Bass VI type strings. If only because there's a limit to what will fit through a guitar tuner holes. My question has to do with the bridge and overall string length, that is, including the string behind the bridge saddles. On a normal electric scale, the type of bridge has a big effect on how the string feels. Especially the difference between a TOM/tailpiece and a wraparound, or between a string-through and a surface mount. In both cases, I definitely prefer the feel (the give) of the longer string. But I'm wondering what this will be like on a baritone, since the overall length of the string is already much longer. Especially if I'm using guitar strings -- should I be looking at using a shorter overall string length? Or will that give the same stiffer feeling to the strings as on a normal guitar? Obviously I won't be playing the guitar exactly like a normal electric -- I need the baritone exactly because I'm doing a lot of bass-like runs lately, but I still want to be able to have access to normal guitar chord forms.

Well, I'm getting started on a baritone build with a 29.75" scale neck, so I might be facing this issue. I don't mind a slight amount of neck dive, since I kind of hold the neck downward when I'm singing anyway (helps me keep an eye on my fretting hand). Still, I'll be using Grover mini locking tuners (always do, and I have the set on hand anyway). According to Stew Mac they come it at 7.65 oz. (216.88 grams) for the set. I'll look into replacing the knobs if they turn out to be too heavy. So far on my prototype it seems okay. I have a set of aluminum buttons from an old set, they seem pretty light too. You might look into vintage style tuners -- the Gotoh Vintage Style locking tuners come in at 5.65 oz. (160.18 grams) --that's starting to make a significant difference. And Gotoh's vintage (non-locking) Keystone tuners are even lighter -- 5.22 oz. (147.99 grams) --probably because of the plastic knobs.

Not easy to find Schaller stuff, even here in Europe. Try one of the German online houses (Thomann's pretty good, but they don't seem to carry this model). I actually have an old nylon set that dates back to the 70s. They're on an acoustic now, still going strong. Is this to keep the weight of the neck down (for your baritone project)? If you look at the weight of the M6 Light compared the M6 Mini, the difference is very small -- about 12 grams for a full set. You might look into changing the metal buttons --that would help reduce the weight of any tuner set, I'd guess.

I use a capo all the time...I like the added jangle of the open strings. I'm seriously considering building a baritone too -- it'd be perfect for the band I'm in now. I'm trying to decide on the scale length -- do you think 28" is long enough to make a real difference in sound? I'm tempted to go to 30". Since I've never played a baritone, and haven't found one in the reason, it's hard to decide. I like the body shape though, the idea of extending the horn up the bass side like that.

I'm pretty guilty about wanting to test out my own weird ideas on my builds...I end up looking at the builds as prototypes (and building itself as just a fun hobby). It helps me get rid of them when the time comes. Sure, it hurts a bit, but it's for the best. So I just can't see pursuing those first two guitars. Just chalk 'em up to experience and tuck them away in the closet, or burn them or whatever you prefer. Although I could see the wedge guitar working as a short-scale travel guitar.

I just need to point out here that this isn't MY mistake. It's yours. I make plenty of my own thank you very much. I like a wood-on-wood transition, but that's not going to fit with what you wanted from the guitar, so it might end up being a disappointment for you. My suggestion is to take a few more days to think about it, figure out something that will be right. Why can't you remove this binding and use a taller binding? Wouldn't that hide the problem? Or remove the binding, find a way to add a contrasting horizontal layer to the channel (like one of those herringbone bindings, checkerboard, or just plain black) to bring it to the proper height for the binding you want to use. Anyway, more than one way to correct YOUR mistake.