doug

Well there's something to be said for "doing it yourself"... :o)

Give credit where credit is due. There are a lot of very very fine guitars out there built by people with intense vision and talent. Though I am partial to my own work for the same reasons as Dave, I would be proud to own work done by others. No matter how refined our own skills are, there's always someone who can do it better in one way or another.

-Doug

Mine seems to make a perfect straight edge - I can get wood so flat it'll stick to the cast iron table of the machine from suction with my sander.

I think that is great...I would honestly have to see it to believe it,but more power to you.

I was thinking the same thing. Actually I almost bought that exact sander. However, after testing it with a couple mock parts I didn't like the final result. I'm still looking... Though I wouldn't be using it on fingerboards.

Routing templates rock for me. I get exactly the same thing over and over and over again.

-Doug

Oh Wes I nearly fell off my chair... LOL! Me too!

What about the time spent? Well maybe a parts-o-axe may save in that respect too...

When I design an original(I have designed a few),I take and draw on posterboard a full scale representation of the bridge,nut,frets,and pickup placement(I decide on scale first obviously),then I draw the body design around that....I keep in mind fret access,picking hand ergonomics,and all that,but The rest is up to me.

Exactly!

In the end, if there was a guitar I liked made by someone else, I would of course buy that instead of trying to mimic it. Of course I like my own guitars, and so do my customers. Yet, I also like my Les Paul. So I'm tickled to play either when the time comes.

Modding's cool. Who ever buys a Harley Davidson and leaves it stock? That's just nuts.

A guitar in no less of an adventure... Take it home, take it apart, replace the things you want different. All in good fun!

On the other hand, building an original design is probably the most difficult to do. Most of the 'original' designs I see here are either copies of existing guitar shapes anyway, or just plain ugly.

Almost the only constraint in an original design is where the bridge and pickups go in relation to the nut. Sometimes I think people are hesitant to veer from "familiar" looks when designing their own. Still, looking similar and outright copy (available templates etc.) are two very different things.

It's true... we've all seen the posts. "My New Build..." What do we find? Another direct Strat or PRS copy built from CAD drawings or CNC made templates. This is far different than looking at a Strat and PRS for ideas then drawing your own based on aspects one deems appealing .

-Doug

Mattia summed it up perfectly... and I quote "Most other guitar designs are derivative of past designs, so I see nothing wrong with creating my own interpretation of a certain shape."

This is a far cry from an outright copy of something off the shelf at your local music store.

Getting ideas etc. from others' work is fine of course. So... if I want a gold sparkle top Les Paul, I would buy it. If I wanted something that is reminiscent of a Les Paul in concept, yet has certain design feature improvements/changes then I would build it. Why? It's no longer a copy.

-Doug

I still buy.

For me,that is simple.If someone already has available a guitar I want,and it is to my specs,I buy it...mostly customs though.

+1 for 2 reasons:

1. The original designer/builder has every right to profit solely from that product.

2. A copy is just that, a copy. It will never be the real thing.

I happen to be partial to the Les Paul line (shape, feel, looks, etc.). As far as I know Gibson makes them. Hence, it's not a Les Paul if it's not made by Gibson. (I'm no guitar history buff though)

-Doug

Edge sander? Interesting... It makes the edge straight enough along it's length?

Yeah Wes I've tried that before... works good.

Tearing and chipping are the result of your table saw blade choice, and possibly your saw alignment. With good setup and the right blade you could make smooth chip free cuts.

Exactly 'how' you might use a router for the fingerboard is a very open ended sort of question. I'm sure there are dozens of ways so here's just one.

How are you tapering your neck shaft? Are you using a template with your router? If you have a template for the neck taper, use it for the fingerboard too. Now they will match. If you don't have a template then I'd suggest making one. Routing templates are wonderful especially if you every want to make another neck. I use a 1-1/4" diameter pattern bit to follow the neck templates. This produces clean edges with little to no chipping.

I think some folks glue the fingerboard to the neck before tapering it, then taper everything all at once.

-Doug

i dont like the look of flat boards - it almost looks concave.. mind you, i have a cheap hondo acoustic here at the moment that is concave

LOL!!! Exactly what I think too! It's so odd looking at it I almost think there's something wrong....

-Doug

It's almost strange making one too...LOL. So used to the curve you know. I think they cater to a specific type of playing style.

Find some quarted sycamore.... Looks great, maybe not as hard as some of the other woods mentioned. The stuff I have is about as hard as maple.

Larry does have some interesting fingerboards including the spalted variety. It's worth a look.

-Doug

the minimum or flattest radius would be no radius at all - a completely flat board.. and some people around here have stated that the prefer that.

the maximum or tightest radius commoly used would be around 7 1/4"

Interestingly, flat fingerboards have been more common lately than ever. I've had more people order flat in the last 6 months than the last 3 or 4 years combined. They've always been requested here and there, but lately there's almost always one in the queue.

Yeah, okay I'm just thinking out loud...

-Doug

The figuring in hard maple is way different than in soft. The soft variety has more pattern in it and is whiter in color. (color depends on if the person doing the drying is on the ball) Hard maple tends to be yellower. I stock both varieties and they are easily discernible at a glance on the rack.

Make a laminated neck with something real hard like wenge, purpleheart, or bloodwood. It makes quite a difference.

-Doug

byronblack, interesting perspective... I'm curious how you have arrived at that conclusion.

-Doug

LOL! Oops... a little late I see :o) Glad it all worked out for you!

Let's simplify this a little...

Old glue must come off. A non-sanding / scraping method would be safer.

Glue adhesion is improved with a rough surface.

Sanding the glue surface will change the size of the neck shaft a little.

Take these into consideration when picking your process and glue. Based on past experience here's one suggestion: I would not sand anything until the glue is removed. Prior to attaching the fingerboard I would block sand with 80 grit. Only a very few careful strokes just to prep the surface for gluing.

-Doug

+1 for "feature"! Nice fingerboard.... It will be fine. Periodic oiling is good preventative maintenance on bare wood fingerboards as already noted.

-Doug

Nice perspective! I have the Performax 16/32 and use it 7 days a week. It's 5 years old now and works like it did when I first bought it. A great purchase! My planer though gets very little use except for removing the surface roughness on rough lumber. Maybe it gets used once a week at most. I never use the planer on figured woods like curly maple. It's 15 years old though.

I can't imagine neck building without the sander. From my perspective, save up for the sander and get a planer later. If you're not doing a ton of volume, then using it to take the roughness off will work fine.

90% of the time stock goes from the bandsaw right to the sander. Of course a jointer is also very helpful, but that work could be done creatively on the table saw.

LOL! I've had mine for a long time and have yet to change the blade... Slide it in the direction of the purple arrow.

I use it to clean the glue out of the slots, and to verify the depth. With the burr you can also deepen the slot pretty fast. It act like a wood scraper, that's what the burr does; scrapes the bottom of the slot.

-Doug

Deepen the slots before binding it to make sure the tang will not bottom out.

Get one of these to clean out the slots. I can't imagine working without one. Put a burr on it by sliding it with the hook across 180 grit abrasive every few slots. It works like magic.

http://www.stewmac.com/shop/Tools/Special_...aning_Tool.html

-Doug

I commonly do this on maple fingerboards, though I use polyester or catalyzed urethane because it's harder. However, the process is still the same. Get your fingerboard all slotted, radiused, and level then shoot the clear. Let it cure well. Once cured sand the fingerboard once again to true it up. Use your fret saw to clean out the slots and finish the depth, and rub it out to your desired sheen. Install the frets carefully so as not to dent the maple and finish on top of it. Denting the finish can cause it to pop up off the wood underneath.

If you don't have some sort of fret press then I can not comment on the hammer method, though the precautions I mentioned would be the same.

I've heard of some companies that laquer/urethane/polyester over verything including the frets. I honestly don't understand why though.

-Doug

Mattia nailed it!

Exactly... that's why "what's the best way to...." questions are so subjective. We all have our ways.

Martin isn't the only one... I've seen it several times, and I have a 1930 Martin that only had a couple loose frets until recently. Held up quite well in my opinion.

Sounds like that thin CA worked for you in the past. Go with what works...