Mickguard

"Production guitar" means factory produced guitar. It's pretty unlikely the OP is referring to a hand-built, luthier-grade guitar. And there's no way a true luthier can or will make a guitar for $400. Let alone for $50.

I'm guessing you haven't seen many production guitars lately. Can't remember ever finding a factory guitar with a snug-fitting bolt on neck. And once you strip the finish off -- you have to get past the sealer, otherwise the glue won't bond with the wood--you're even less likely to have a snug fit. The only way to achieve this is by filling the existing neck pocket with a block of wood, then routing a new neck pocket to match the modified heel. It's possible, sure. Food for thought: I used to think I only liked Gibson-scale setneck guitars. Then I realized I actually like the sound of a bolt on and the feel of the longer Fender scale. Although my current favorite guitar is a set neck. But at least it has the 25.5" scale that I prefer nowadays. Point being, you might find your own preferences evolving and revolving, so this mod might not be necessary in the long run.

Lemme guess...guitarfetish? Anyway, I put a roller bridge (guitarfetish) on one of my guitar (because I also installed a Bigsby) but hated the bridge because of the way the rollers rattled. Yours might not be so loose though. And really, anytime someone's trying to sell you a guitar part, you'll find that said part will always 'increase sustain', "enhance tone", make you a better player and otherwise create world peace.

I'm still not following you. From the specs I've seen, the guitar didn't have a Tonepros bridge on it -- that would cost more than the rest of the guitar -- but was outfitted with a tuneamatic style bridge. So you're replacing that with a roller bridge, I'm guessing. At any rate, "Dean" didn't mess anything up, it's the sweatshop in China that built the that might have messed up. And anyway, not all bridges are the exact same size. But you're saying you were able to mount the new bridge, right?

Well, here's a thought...what are you asking? Are you saying there was a Tone Pro$ bridge on there that you're replacing with a TOM-style roller bridge? (Seems unlikely). Or are you saying you're putting a Tone Pro$ bridge on an $80 guitar? Regardless, didn't the new bridge come with it's own inserts? Why not use those? Then you won't have an issues with the threads.

I realize accidents do happen. But who the hell walks on their guitars (and expects to play them after)? I still prefer a one-piece neck, no matter if it is more fragile. Just hate the look of a scarf joint. Unless it's a painted neck, in which case...

Not sure what 'needs a real good cleaning' means. If it was stored properly, then you're only looking at a bit of dust. Maybe some gunk on the fretboard. If it wasn't stored properly, then whatever grime it might have will be the least of its problems. You'll have to give more details, and possibly pics.

I believe there's a long thread somewhere discussing this very issue.

I've used that too, and he's right, I've had no issues with tearup. I like the "trace the cardboard template" idea too, although it's kind of like doing the same work twice. Then again, getting your templates right is THE most important step in your build.

I've used carbon paper -- just carefully trace the lines.

I have a Hofner Verythin, excellent lightweight guitar. And it's...uh...very thin...

The role of the truss rod is to counteract the pull of the strings on the neck. Since the heel is bolted (or glued) into the neck pocket, it's not receiving the same type of force. So the shorter rod shouldn't be an issue. The truss rod allows you to determine how much or how little of the strings' pull you want on the neck, that is, it lets you set the relief of the neck so that the strings don't rattle against all the frets. They can fix a bent neck, sure, but that's not their primary purpose.

Well, I haven't had an issue with chipping the plating, but you're right, it's a risk -- although a bit of masking tape would prevent that. By using the block of wood, the clawhammer's movement essentially becomes vertical, so I haven't had a problem with stretching the hole either. But again, it's true, that's a potential risk.

Some time ago I picked up an old Norman B30 (1970s Canadian dreadnought, spruce top, laminated maple back and sides, bolt-on maple neck) at a yard sale for 10 euros. There are a couple of questions buried in the description below, so bear with me... The guitar had massive issues -- much of which were caused by someone's attempt to "fix" the guitar before. Which involved flattening all of the frets way beyond the playable range. Lots of other mistakes were made. They'd stripped the bolt on the truss rod too, so that was jammed and unusable. The biggest problem with the guitar though was that the neck was warped -- at first, I thought it was twisted, but that turned out to be mostly because of a bad shim job under the neck (and it's the table that's warped). But the main problem with the neck was that it had a weird bow to it -- you could see clearly a dip from the the nut end of the fretboard to about the fifth fret. I'm assuming the thing was leaned up against a wall (probably in a closet) supported by its headstock for many years.... But I need a beater guitar to bring around, and I have a case that fits this one (my other guitar is a too-nice-to-leave-the-house Takamine jumbo and I don't have a case for it) . So first I defretted the neck. Then I used a dremel to cut slots for a flathead screwdriver in the truss rod bolt. Then I clamped the fretboard to a square steel beam. That flattened the neck enough to allow me to free up the truss rod. I left the neck clamped like that for a couple of days. I then cleaned up the fretslots a bit, adding indents. And I polished the fretboard with micromesh pads -- I really like a mirrored fretboard. The dip in the neck was still there, but the clamping and the workable truss rod did help a bit -- I had planned on using normal acoustic fretwire, but I happened to have enough jumbo wire on hand. Since the tang was wider than the original frets, the idea was that the compression of the new frets would lift the dip in the neck (picked this up from a recent discussion about that elsewhere in the forum). And that worked, between that and having a working truss rod again, the neck is much straighter than before...although it's still not possible to get it perfectly flat. In the meantime, I cut a new bone saddle for the guitar, replaced the tuners, added a new nut. I spent the last week or so working on the adjustment of all the different components -- in the end, I developed a new shim for the neck that lifts the bass side (by about 0.5 millimeters) leaving the treble side a bit lower. I must have tuned and detuned the guitar a couple dozen times, went through two sets of (used) strings in the process. The shim is necessary because the top of the guitar has a slight warp in it --raising the entire bridge, so that there wouldn't be enough downward tension on the bridge saddle if I kept the neck flat and adjusted things at the saddle. But I went a little too far with the new saddle (it's the first time I tried making one), it doesn't follow the radius exactly-- I'll have to cut a new one eventually. I'm thinking I could better have left the bridge taller and added notches for the individual strings? Why don't I see other acoustics with saddles like that? ... Anyway, the issue with the bridge is mostly because of the issues with the neck -- since I haven't gotten rid of that dip completely, I've had to achieve a compromise with the other components of the action. This means that the action is within a fraction of where I like it, but that allows a bit of fret buzz --mostly on the G string -- which forces me to use a lighter hand when I play...not a bad thing, but still. One thought I had was to try to use heat to move the neck the rest of the way flat -- can anyone give me thoughts on that? I'm thinking I can clamp the fretboard to a straight block of wood, and heat the back of the neck in the area of the dip. That should encourage the wood there to flatten out again, right? As it is, with medium strings (13- 54) on there, and the working truss rod, I've managed to make a very playable guitar out of this old thing. And surprise, surprise, it's even intonated (it was far from that before). Just a bit more tweaking will make it an excellent player --it's a maple body, so the sound is never going to be that great). But I like it so much, I'm considering selling off the Takamine (and start saving up for a higher-end spruce/rosewood guitar). I'm actually kind of proud of the job I did, and being able to put to work all the things I've learned from hanging out in this forum. Now I have to clean up the rest of the residue left from the glue from the old pickguard (which had warped and lifted off).

It's a perfectly fine way of doing it. And if you do a sunburst (or solid color) the lines won't show anyway. Although...what happens if you angled the guitar shape on the blank a bit -- are you able to fit it onto the blank? There are some schools of thought that prefer having the longest possible grain line (i.e., diagonal) for the guitar, so if that enables you to maintain a one-piece blank, I'd go for that.

I just use the inserts from the bridge itself -- you don't need much pressure to remove the bushings. And I use a clawhammer. Screw the inserts in part way (you don't want them to wiggle about). Place something soft down to protect the surface of the wood -- then place a block of wood high enough to give you leverage with the clawhammer. Then gently lift the bushing out. Assuming the bushings weren't glued in (a factory guitar won't have glued in bushings), that's really all it takes.

Since you already have the neck, that part is actually pretty easy. First, start with the center line. You'll actually want to include the full neck (at least to the nut) in the drawing, since the scale length (25.5") is measured from the nut to bridge (high E saddle). You'll need the width at the nut and the width at the heel, which will give you the taper of the neck pocket (and the rest of the information you'll need to draw in the neck pocket). I usually just put a line at the intonation point. The center line is the most important part though. That'll help you get the pickups bridge and neck lined up. Meanwhile, have a look at the Godin Radiator, it's almost exactly the same shape.

The guy who owned my strat before me spray-painted it (over the original finish), presumably with auto acrylic. Since I didn't feel like taking it apart and refinishing it (it plays and sounds great and never goes out of tune) I was able to polish the parts that show to a fairly reasonable gloss. I'd recommend the micromesh pads for that. But yeah, the paint will be pretty fragile -- it seems to me that the acrylic stuff is much more fragile than nitro in that respect. But it's possible that the acrylic polishes up better than the nitro (not lacquer, the color coat).

Um, gitman, I'm not sure if you were trying to reply, but all that came through were quotes of my own magnificently intelligent prose.

Don't know what it's like on that side of the Atlantic, but in the states, it's readily available at most automotive stores. Nothing is readily available here (sigh). But I'll have a look, you never know.

What guitar is this? What part of the finish don't you like -- the feel or the look? If you want to change the feel but keep the gloss, then it sounds to me like what you really want to do is RE- finish the neck, using the finish of your choice. You don't necessarily need to strip it to do that, depending on what you use (and what the existing finish is). You'll then need to complete the entire sanding/buffing routine in order to return it to high gloss. If you want to change the look -- i.e., remove the paint -- you'll need to sand it back to the sealer coat, then refinish from there. I wouldn't use chemcials on there -- depending on the type of finish (i.e., polyester) that won't work anyway. And you'll risk compromising the sealer coat. Be more specific about what you're trying to achieve here.

I think you haven't left the house yet and still need to give instructions to the babysitter... no kidding. You're going to have to wait until you've spoken to the client so you'll know what he's looking for. But if the guy wants a semi-hollow jazz box and you can't build that for him, you'll have to be straight up about that.

You definitely have to route. The pickup is as thick as a soapbar P90, although it does stand proud of the neck. More or less depending on if it's at the bridge or neck. But there are the screwends and wires on the underside that require space anyway. There are two ways of mounting the dogear: one is so that it sits directly on the wood -- so you'll have to measure the cavity to get it where you'll want it -- you can use the pole pieces to fine tune their height in relation to the strings. Or you mount them on top of foam (usually you get that with the pickup) which serves as a spring. You still use the pole pieces to fine tune, but you don't have to measure the cavity as accurately. Some people feel that the pickup will sound best and capture the most sustain when mounted directly to the wood.

That 'guy' is Dan Erlewine...big-time expert in guitar repair and building. So if he says it's okay, that's the way to do it. There's really no need at all to yank out the pots, if you're not planning on replacing them. Save yourself the hassle. Actually I'm planning to switch out the pups on my new Hofner Verythin this week, and that's how I'll be doing it. Wish I had shrink tape though, it would make it easier.

If I were a tonevoodooian, then I'd agree that the fewer pieces of metal between the vibration of the strings and the wood, the better.