Dino

Perry,

At first glance, I'd say your guitars are identical to Jacksons, right down to the body shape, headstock, and even the shark inlays. I'm sure there are many differences, but without knowing what they are, all I can say is that was my first reaction.

All I'm trying to say is that maybe you could benifit more from letting people know what sets your guitars apart from the competition, that's all.

In an attempt to get back on topic here, I will say that if given the choice, I would most likely choose one of your guitars over a Zachary. Though the Zachary designs are "unique", I do feel that the builder may have sacrficed some tone and functionaility just for the sake of trying to be "different". Again, that's just my opinion based on what I see but I can't see drilling holes in a solid body electric as being any sort benifit as far as tone, and I think everyone already covered all the disadvantages of the headstock design.

JMO

I like Zachary's headstock but I don't like the concessions -- the string trees and the tuner compromise--and the fact that the guitar can't be hung from the wall.

I remember seeing one builder's headstock in which he kind of reverses the 6-in-line, or actually, places the high E and B on the treble side in the position the low E and A usually are. In this way he achieves the necessary string tension and keeps all the strings in a nice straight line.

Can't remember who the builder is --maybe marksound knows, he seems to have a photographic memory.

I don't care for Zachary's headstock either.

I do think it looks kinda cool, but I don't think it's a very practical design.

Headstocks and tuner configurations that offer the straightest line coming off the nut, seem to function better IMO, unless it's a locking nut, in which case it may not matter as much.

Examples would be PRS and even Perry's design.

Primal wrote: Ya know Dino, you seem to just be a stirrer of... well, nevermind. In the past, people have brought up these same arguments about Perry, and quite frankly, every time Perry has "won" the argument. In my opinion, Perry isn't arrogant at all.

Primal, I'm not trying to "stir" up anything. Simply making an observation. And since you state that others have brought up similar arguments, I dare to say I'm not alone.

Not sure if any other businesses freely share their research with others, i wont. Cost me money and time, so its important i reap the benefits. Thats business right?? Be extremely silly for me to fund research to determine what does and does work, and then tell all my competitors exactly what i discovered/proved/etc.

On the contrary Perry, several guitar manufactures share alot of their research findings to help educate the public in knowing what sets their guitars apart from the competition. It's called marketing. And I'm not sure who you are "funding" to do your research for you, but either something works or it doesn't. You're building a guitar, you're not developing a cure for cancer.

Also, as Gemm012 pointed out, what's "best" is always open to interpretation.

Im quiet happy to share my research with the world if someone wants to reimburse me for my time and effort. Afterall, it cost me a years wage to do it, and at least six months of production. Otherwise, you'll have to do the research yourself. I thought it was worthwhile to spend the money, and the proof is in my guitars. But, until you've played one, please feel free to make assumptions from behind a keyboard My clients who are ordering multiple guitars, and coming back to give me repeat business, who know what i can do (because of research).

I have no problem doing research to prove to myself what is or isnt right. I guess thats the difference between a pro who turns away the majority of commissions he gets offered, and the majority of the members on this forum... hobby tinkerers.

Perry, no disrespect, but I don't think you're setting the world on fire with your guitars.

If there is in fact something "special" about them, then I would think you could only benifit from pointing out what sets your guitar apart from others in explaining why they are so "special".

To state that a majority of the members on this forum are "hobby tinkerers" is a clear display of your arrogance and ignorance IMO. It's quite clear to me that you are "making assumptions behind YOUR keyboard" as well. Sorry, but I enjoy this site and have alot of respect for it's members and their knowledge.

And the fact that you interpret helping others as "spoon feeding" and/or expect to be compensated for your knowledge leads me to believe that maybe this isn't the site for you.

Yea, well, you can give him more advice when he goes to put the neck back on and it doesn't fit in the neck pocket for all the new paint.

There is a reason the tutorial section of Projectguitar.com has three different tutorials for stripping a body.

Dude, the simple fact that you'd paint a neck pocket speaks volumes for your experience.

Now that you've read all three tutorials on "how to strip a body", I suggest you go back and try to find one that teaches you how to paint one.

It would be better to strip the entire body and start over, in my opinion. If the finish that is already on it is pretty thick, it would be absolutely monsterous to lay down another howevermanylayers on top of it.

Sure, you could do that.

But then you would have to re-seal the entire body and shoot a primer before painting.

Basically, put on what you've just stripped off.

I'm not sure "howmanypaintjobs" you've done, but your advice will surely cost this person a whole lotta time and materials to obtain the same results.

as if would be called a bolt on neck and not a screw on neck lol.

Ahhh ... but if the industry called them bolts, you wouldn't have had to post this thread.

Just mess'n with ya.

We knew what you meant.

Scuff it and off you go.

No need for primer.

Any material you use besides wood is going to expand and contract and eventually crack itself or the body.

Personally, I wouldn't put THAT much work into an RG.

I have no doubt that either method would work just fine and look just as "professional", providing it were done by someone competent.

The only thing I question is the long term effects of each method.

But if the composition of wood has changed over the years and no longer expands or contracts, then that would obviously be the better option.

Don't use marine epoxy to fill gaps that big. A thin veneer wouldn't be thick enough to support anything on the face of the guitar either.

I know this is no longer an option for the ChaosInc., but just for my own knowledge, why would you recommend wood blocks over marine epoxy? No matter how you cut the blocks, there will always be a gap or seem to fill. And even if you did a great job filling the seems, in time, it would inevitably be noticable because you would now have THREE components that are subject to expanding and contracting ... the body, the wood blocks, and the filler.

With marine epoxy, you can route the edges of the cavities and feather the epoxy so it would be virtually impossible to detect any seems. Here's a pic to help explain ...

As for the veneer ...

As I tried to explain, you could change the thickness of the veneer from the inside of the cavity to help support any controls you may have IF NECESSARY. I'm just curious ... what exactly were you thinking of supporting here?

Actually, I'm thinking the veneer wouldn't have to be any thicker then the pickgaurd you are replacing.

And isn't the pickgaurd what held all of the controls in the first place?

BTW ChaosInc. ... I only mentioned the possibility of a neck shim not knowing what type of bridge was on the guitar.

There's a good possibility it wouldn't even be required. Hard to say without seeing what you have to work with.

What a great thread!

Maybe the problem is that you're searching for "bolts" when in fact they are screws.

Satin finishes tend to be softer than gloss, IIRC, so you may want to use satin only for the top (few) coats.

The guitar I'm working on (EVH Camo) was painted with acrylic urethane.

There were several layers due to the camo graphics and stripes, so I have already cleared it with a urethane gloss, and wetsanded the finish even and flat. Then I went over it with 0000 steel wool.

It now has a semi-gloss finish, and I was maybe hoping to add another coat of clear with the flattening agent to help acheive more of a flat "military" look, but I'd also like to be able to "buff" it out to help blend everything in the final stages.

Can this be done?

And what do you mean by "satin finishes tend to be softer than gloss"?

Does it take more time to cure?

Is it more suseptable to damage?

If so, I'll most likely just stick with the semi-gloss finish I now have.

I dunno.

i'm far from any sort of expert (having never done this) but i would assume you would need to route the top of the body down by the thickness of the top you intend to put on it and then glue that sucker down.

I'd probably look into a thin veneer, and then use a neck shim to compensate as opposed to trying to route the top down. Then I would maybe build up the thickness where the cavity is from the inside of the cavity to help reinforce the controls deck.

Sounds like a cool project.

Sorry to have gone off topic, but I'm still very interested in finding out if what I heard about the "flattening agent" is correct or not. (read below)

If ryanb can't help here, can someone else please set me straight?

Thanks!

ryanb,

Do you have pics of any satin finishes you've done?

I've actually heard just the opposite about the flattening agent.

I've heard that it's not suppose to be buffed out and that it WILL become glossy in areas that are exposed to normal wear (forearm contours, etc..).

I've also heard that the flattening agent clouds the finish.

Not a big deal if it's a solid white, but I'd imagine it wouldn't be too good for paintjobs containing vibrant colors and/or graphics.

the question that gets raised now is...

if you can get BONDO smooth, why whouldnt you bother sanding the wood smooth to begin with and avoiding the bondo stage altogether?

1) to seal the grain

2) to serve as a primer

Personally, I'd prefer using a dedicated wood sealer and primer for rattlecans.

For urethane, I use an epoxy primer/sealer.

It's really all a matter of preference and what gives YOU the best results IMO.

why not put a figured drop top stright over the pup routes, rear route it and do a burst finish or similar??

cheers

darren

+1

That's the best option IMO.

My concern with using filler would be the obvious problems with shrinkage.

Though I have heard that alot of people have had success with using marine epoxy.

I've never tried it, so I can't confirm that.

The problem I see with using wood blocks to fill the cavities is that it is wood's nature to expand and contract. Even if you use the same exact type of wood as the body to fill these cavities, chances are they will expand and contract at different rates.

Besides ... you will still have to fill the seams with something, right?

JMO

Thanks for sharing that - good info, Dino.

You'll need to change some of those pics to links - the rule is one image per post, maximum size 480 x 640.

Welcome back!

I went back and edited the pics to links.

Sorry about that.

WoW!!!! You mean I'm not banned???

Whoo Hooo!!!!!

And thanks for the welcome!

Totally unexpected and much appreciated.

I promise I will try to control my potty mouth from now on.

Regarding Krylon ...

Following my very first Krylon paintjob, I did join this forum and initially encouraged people to try Krylon, but after using it for the past couple years and painting over a dozen or so guitars, I've come to find too many disadvantages and inconsistancies, so I've switched over to using acrylic urethane.

I'm not saying that acrylic urethane is "the best". That's obviously a matter of opinion, but I have been amazed at the difference and can now say that I have truly learned how to acheive a "factory finish", and it's not with spraycans.

I recieved an email concerning the use of Krylon from a fellow member here earlier today and thought I might post my respose for those interested. Hopefully it will answer alot of your questions and concerns about painting guitars with Krylon.

Regarding the Krylon ...

You should have realistic expectations as far as results.

There are some advantages, and some disadvantages .... but I'd have to say there's more disadvantages.

Advantages ...

It's inexpensive, easy to find (Walmart, Ace Hardware, etc.), no equipment required, and clean up is easy (just throw away the can).

Disadvantages ...

The books tell you to wait 8-weeks before wetsanding, but with 30+ coats of Krylon, it will take at least a year to fully cure.

During that time, you may experience chemical reactions such as wrinkling, cracking, etc.

Sometimes this won't happen until after you wetsand and apply the compound. It's very inconsistant and very unpredictable.

If you plan on using pickgaurds, or have any hardware that will come into contact with the body, you have to be very careful when reassembling your guitar and never tighten down on any of the screws or the pickgaurd (or hardware) will sink into the finish and cause the paint around it to wrinkle. You must also be very careful not to allow any water to come into contact with any of the exposed wood (cavities) or holes in the body while wetsanding. If you do, the water will get under the paint and cause the paint to wrinkle and crack as the wood expands and contracts. I guess that's true with any paint though.

If you're lucky and everything works in your favor, your paintjob will look nice and shiney ..... for a short period of time only (I'm talking a matter of days or maybe weeks). Even when the guitar has been completed, you REALLY have to treat it with kid gloves and hang it on a wall hanger ONLY. No keeping it in a case or the fur from the lining will leave impressions. No keeping it on a stand or the rubber will eat away at the paint. No leaning the body up against anything or it will leave impressions. You may even notice impressions in the paint from simply resting the guitar in your lap when you play it. The paint will stay very soft for a very long time, and by the time it does fully cure, well ... let's just say it will look nothing like it did that first day you polished it up.

The PYOG books are cool in that they show you the basics of masking and stuff, but I'm afraid the results you see may be a little misleading. The finished pics shown in the books and on the site were most likely taken very shortly after the finishes were buffed out for the first time. I can almost gaurantee those same guitars look nothing like that today.

Just to give you an example ...

Here is a Krylon paintjob I finished just recently.

I let the paint on this body cure for 6 months (since Nov. '05).

I got my compressor and spraygun gear around Christmas and didn't get around to finishing it until just recently.

These pics were taken right after I had wetsanded, buffed, and reassembled the guitar.

By the looks of these pics, it's very easy to understand why alot of people would be tempted to use Krylon.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a274/DinoBonanno/VH1b.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a274/DinoBonanno/VH1c.jpg

After the pictures were taken, I returned the guitar to it's wall hanger and this is how it looked just three weeks later.

The guitar had not even been touched since the photos were taken.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a274/Din...anno/Group1.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a274/Din...anno/Group2.jpg

This didn't happen because of something I did or didn't do.

This was apparently due to some sort of chemical reaction caused by the rubbing compound.

The same rubbing compound recommended in the DIY books.

Fortunately (or unfortunately), this is an awesome playing guitar.

The body is solid mahogany and the neck is a Musikraft maple with 70's style headstock.

I can only imagine how 30+ coats of Krylon has effected the tone and resonance.

Eventually, I will be stripping this one and repainting it correctly.

I will say this about Krylon ...

For relic paintjobs, it probably works great!

But after all, aren't those paintjobs suppose to look like crap?

BTW, I owe a BIG apology to Shredder for hijacking his thread.

I'm really sorry ... that was never my intent.

If anyone has any more questions regarding Krylon, please feel free to email me directly.

And thanks again for the welcome.

It's nice to be back.

Dino

DGW@dinosguitarworks.com

Dino, weren't you like the "Factory Finish" poster boy? What made you stop using the Krylon?

Poster boy?

I did come to this site some time ago and mentioned the book when I first got it.

And if I remember correctly, I was chastised and even accused of being the author himself who joined the forum just to "pimp my book".

I was eventually banned by Perry (Rhodes56) for the use of "vulgar language" by stating that "I didn't give a rats @ss what people thought".

Bitter? ... uh, yeah.

I originally joined this forum in hopes of learning and sharing ideas with adults.

I think we can handle the use of the word @ss from time to time, don't you?

Anyway, there's no doubt that this posting will be brought to Perry's attention, so let's just all assume I'm already "banned" and unable to respond to this thread.

Not to avoid your question marksound, but shoot me an email and we can discuss the pros and cons of Krylon.

Thanks bro.

Dino

DGW@dinosguitarworks.com

Come on! There's help and then there's Spoon-Feeding! You can search google like the rest of us - how do we know what shops you have in your area? Paint can be found at a paint shop. Sandpaper from a hardware shop. It's not rocket science.

It's replies like this that prevent me from visiting this site on a regular basis ...

Your best bet Shredder, is to call a couple local automotive body shops to find a paint supplier in your area.

Unless your sanding your deck, you won't find the sandpaper you need at a hardware store.

Check automotive supply places like Auto Zone, Pep Boys, etc., and look for various grits up to 2000.

Your starting grit would depend on whether you're stripping your old finish, or wetsanding your new paintjob.

Hope that helps.

ryanb,

Do you have pics of any satin finishes you've done?

I've actually heard just the opposite about the flattening agent.

I've heard that it's not suppose to be buffed out and that it WILL become glossy in areas that are exposed to normal wear (forearm contours, etc..).

I've also heard that the flattening agent clouds the finish.

Not a big deal if it's a solid white, but I'd imagine it wouldn't be too good for paintjobs containing vibrant colors and/or graphics.

Shedder,

As for the "Paint your own Guitar" book ...

I strongly suggest you avoid doing any paintjobs with Krylon (or any other spraypaint).

The pics in the book are pretty, but they're not a true representation of what those guitars are going to look like in a very short period of time (I'm talking weeks). Save yourself ALOT of time and frustration and do it right the first time with 2-pac urethane or an instrument grade lacquer.

JMO

Thanks for all the help guys.

oz,

Here's a pic which pretty much illustrates the whole process of creating the graphic.

I'll be sure to post more pics when it's done.

Thanks Racer X!

Trying to acheive a dull finish is something totally new for me and quite different then I'm used to doing, so I'm trying to get as much input as possible on this.

Someone over on the JFC forum suggested the steel wool idea, so I thought I'd give it a try.

As pointed out, the 2-pac dull clearcoat shines up in areas that wear, and I'd like to try to avoid that.

I did a good wet coat of gloss urethane last night, sanded it flat, and used some 0000 steel wool in an area just to experiment and it really turned out nice.

Due to the multiple layers caused by the camo graphics and stripes, I shot another coat so I could wetsand all of the layers flat.

It looks like two coats of this stuff is all I'm gonna need.

A far cry from the 30+ coats of Krylon I used to spray.