NotYou

I am doing an Sg project. Flame maple top on mahogany , the relative i am building for wanted it that reddish cherry color like heritage cherry Gibson does. I selected a trans tint dye that i felt was similar. I tested it on a large piece of lie wood. i am not liking the color. Can i remove it or most of it? and then go over it with a minwax stain or another dye tint? anyone done this?

Just try sanding it off. Depending on the type of stain, you can probably rub it off. You might have to remove a lot of the wood, though. Mahogany is porous and the flames in the maple will absorb a lot of the stain, but you might be able to do it.

If you can't get rid of it, it could make for a good experimentation piece. Take advantage of it.

Also, if you can't get rid of all of it on the maple, you can still sand it then re-stain it. If you do it right, you can get an amazing contrast in the color. I'm pretty sure the process explained in the forums somewhere.

Spokeshave, microplane, sandpaper.

I also use a sanding block for a lot of it. It helps to keep the whole thing straight when shaping.

I check it a lot with calipers, especially when it gets close to it's final shape. My first neck ended up too thin and my second one was too narrow. I'm real careful now.

What are the dimensions on the board? I'm just thinking of different ways to get two bodies from it, like splitting it down the middle and then taking each piece cutting in different proportions and slip matching it, but with LP sized bodies that wouldn't really work because they are quite symmetrical in dimensions. Another idea that ran through my mind was pushing one body all the way to the bottom left of the board, then rotate the template upside down and push it up into the upper right hand corner. This way you can decrease the height by slightly interlocking the lower horns. This would maintain vertical grain and doesn't need as much height. Is it close enough for two LP blanks? Best of luck and nice wood. J

You might be on to something. I didn't think of it before, but I might be able to just interlock the horns and get two bodies. I don't have the dimensions on me right now. I'll have to mess with it in the shop tomorrow.

If not, it's not a big loss. I can still get one amazing hollow body out of it.

FWIW; True waterfall figure can run between $30-$75bd. ft., Very nice quartered bubinga like this should run between $9-$15 bd. ft. If it has been dried for a long period of time the value may be 20% higher. Just thought I would toss that out so you have an idea as to the values at least currently on the market.

If anyone here lives in the US, Rockler (Rockler.com), a big woodworking chain, has it marked %25 off this weekend. I have some normal bubinga that I want to use for back and sides, so I jumped on this for a top. It was still a lot of money, but well worth it.

Holy crap, this is the most amazing wood I've ever seen. The picture make it look like a giant turd compared to the real thing (florescent shop lights don't help much either).

I just picked it up today and now I have a dilemma:

I could make one guitar with vertical grain (parallel to the strings) or two guitars, LP sized, with horizontal grain (perpendicular to the strings).

I think the vertical will look better, but this is really expensive stuff and the idea of making two is really tempting.

Which do you guys think will look better?

Or, do you think I'd be wise to make two no matter what (I'll be selling these, BTW).

All bowed string instruments (well at least the good ones) have ebony nuts. The luthier who I take my cello to said he put an ebony nut on a steel string and it worked fine. When I have time (hopefully soon, college has put a stop to my guitar) I'm going to try an ebony nut on my acoustic (and maybe an ebony saddle). If that works well, I'll also make one for the electric I'm building now. Ebony is really tough and it will probably last longer than most other materials.

I haven't tried it for a nut yet, but most of my bridges are ebony, or ebony and bone, even on solid bodies.

I think tune-o-matics, or almost any solid body bridge for that matter, kills a lot of your tone and sustain. It usually doesn't matter too much, but I figure if I'm going to make a whole guitar by hand, I might as well make the piece that connects the strings to the body as good as it can be.

Jatoba chips and splinters very easily. It might work though, just make sure you're careful about what piece you use and which way the grain goes.

I've been working on a jatoba body for a while and I never want to work with it again. It's beautiful and it sounds great, but you have to really baby it to keep it from chipping.

Ebony would be a good choice for a nut. It works great for bridges.

I can't imagine carving a top or contours with that Dremel bit... That's gotta take hours!

I use a 60 grit flap disc on an angle grinder. 5 minutes tops.

It depends on what you're doing. I use it mostly for finer curves, or smaller concave parts. I'm working on a double cutaway right now and the horns are concave on top. With things like that, it's perfect.

To make a carved top, I usually use a spokeshave, fingerplane (or something similar), chisels. and sandpaper. They have different uses. I don't think there's one proper tool for the job.

My new secret weapon is a carbide dremel shaping bit (#543).

http://www.dremel.com/en-us/AttachmentsAnd...il.aspx?pid=543

I feel like I'm giving away some secret personal information by giving that link. Seriously, though, that is the end all be all Dremel bit for luthiers. It's made my life so much easier.

You don't have feel alone. I do the same exact thing. I even use the same brass inserts from StewMac.

One thing to keep in mind is that archtops seem to be a lot more forgiving of 'non-standard' F hole shapes and locations than acoustic guitars because the sound is defined by the arch of the plate, and the bracing is more minimalist. Soundhole area matters, shape and position slightly less so. Acoustics, OTOH, sound like acoustics when their bracing is where we're used to them and their soundholes are in a normal position. Change things around, and the sound is different. That's likely why the 'off the wall' designs don't stick; the old designs simply work well, and the sound we've learned to associate with 'acoustic guitar' and the tone we like are associated with fairly traditional guitar sizes and shapes (major part of tone) and woods and bracing schemes.

I think it's worth experimenting with braces. A lot of builders put too much emphasis on easy structure and stability and it ruins the sound of the guitar. The old, pre-WWII Martins had X braces under the bridges, which sound amazing. Their position made the guitar a little unstable, though, and they stopped doing it. There might be a way out there that won't require a compromise, but we haven't found it yet.

Kasha bracing seems to be a great way to go. I haven't heard a guitar yet that uses it, but I've heard only good things. Has anyone tried one yet?

I saw another picture where someone had completely hollowed out the space between the pickups, only it cracked due to drying conditions.

Are you talking about me?

http://projectguitar.ibforums.com/index.php?showtopic=38726

How crooked are they?

If it's only slight, you might be able to widen the slots and epoxy the frets into place. It's not a compromise either. Using epoxy on wide fret slots is pretty standard. That's only if they're off by a very little bit.

If they're too crooked, it's probably futile to even try saving it. I'd suggest using the wood for inlays on another build.

There have been some posts lately (last few months) that talked about a few different suppliers lately...I'd go back over a few pages, some may not have obvious titles...

When you say "hand wound"...you are going to rig up some kind of winder I hope...the wire is hair thin and very difficult to do "by hand" without at least something holding and spinning the bobbin. Passing the wire through a felt pad for tensioning also helps...a counter is good too, but it can be done roughly by eye, to get the best HB effect the coils should match and that can be very hard to impossible to do wiithout some way of counting the turns...

Yeah, I'm going to make a rig. I'm going to set the bobbin up so it spins easily, probably with one hand, so I can just nudge it when i have to. I haven't decided yet about the actual winding. I'm thinking of a few different ways. I plan on counting and marking every hundred or so winds, maybe fifty, so it'll be easier to track.

I keep hearing 5,000 winds is the standard for PAFs. Any suggestions or tips as far as the number of winds is concerned?

Thanks. I'm going to go ahead and try StewMac's kit.

Does anyone know where else to get things like magnets? That's probably my biggest concern.n

I just noticed this thread (I'm a little new here), but it caught my attention.

The sound hole really isn't a sound hole. The wood on of the acoustic's top makes most of the sound. The hole is there mainly to let the guitar breath. Good airflow lets the instrument resonate easier.

Think about it. The violin family has very loud instruments and no "sound holes." The two f-holes let air flow through, while not removing much of the wood.

This is great example of what I mean:

http://destroyallguitars.com/tombills/102-...-genesis-series

Read his description. The second paragraph says exactly what I'm saying.

The sound hole under the strings has been a traditional way of doing it, but it's not the only way, or the best way. That's why acoustic arch tops usually have f-holes. The sound comes from the wood resonating.

If you really want the experiment to work well, try adding two holes on the sides, so the air can move easily through it. I bet the volume will be much louder and the sound will be a lot fuller.

I'm going to try making pickups for the first time. I plan on making humbuckers. They'll be handwound (ouch) and wax potted.

I'm pretty positive I know what I'm doing, but, of coarse, I'll have to find out for sure.

Any suggestions or recommendations. StewMac seems to have pretty good parts. Is there anywhere else I should be looking?

I'm thinking of using a new method to measure my fret slot positions. It's new to me at least.

Instead of marking the lines with a pencil and then sawing, I'm going to saw the line against my straightedge as I'm measuring. The straightedge is thick, so it works well as a guide, keeping the saw in line when it's pressed against it, as long as it's clamped down.

The saw is .022" thick (StewMac says it's .023", but it's smaller according to my calipers.), so I figure if I move the he straightedge further down exactly .011" on each measurement, measuring from the nut, it should end up perfect.

I used the same method shown here on PG before, but I think this will give me the even more accurate fret slots.

Any thoughts?

Put the Bigsby B50 I got in the mail today on my strat. LOL

I've never been a fan of strats, so I don't see anything sacrilegious about it.

I say do it! (and let us know what you did)

The pocket should be plenty snug. Bolt ons require a very tight fit.

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.

You're right, I haven't. I especially haven't looked at any bolt on necks. I think most of the big companies overcharge for their guitars, at least their "good" guitars. If you have a tight budget, then a cheap Fender or Epiphone is the way to go, but if you're looking for something that's going to really be great, you're going to get ripped off by the big companies. A luthier could make you something for close to the same price that will be twice as good and probably personalized. I know not everyone here will agree with that, but that's fine. I'm not trying to start anything.

I'm liking the sound of bolt-ons more and more, but it has to be well made and the pocket really should be tight. To each his own, though.

The pocket should be plenty snug. Bolt ons require a very tight fit. How much are you planning on shaving off the heel? You'll still have the holes there. If you come up with a creative way to cover them could would work nice.

I'm also curious as to why. Is this for tone reasons?

I've never heard of anyone doing this, but I don't se a reason why it wouldn't work, technically. Keep in mind, you run a great risk of trashing the guitar.

You can also trace it out then use a spokeshave.

I use Photoshop a lot when I'm doing something I've never seen that I think might not work visually.

There's a million different ways to do everything in Photoshop. I find it best to grab a large image of the general guitar shape you want and go from there. You can erase the details and use it as a solid colored template if that works best.

From there you can change the curves by just using some creative copying and pasting, or even just drawing the curves.

To add a burst you'll have to play around with the program a lot to make it convincing. Put the outside color (color a) down first, covering the whole body, then pick the inside color(color and lower the opacity. Make the brush large so it covers the whole area you want to be color b. Just click once or twice and shrink and the brush size and do it again, always in the middle. Do that a few time until the middle is a solid color. It probably won't look perfect, but it's a start. To make it convincing you have to finesse it a little.

If that sounds like too much, copying and pasting is always an option, especially if you're just trying to visualize something. I do it all the time.

I hope that makes sense. I went to art school for five years and had to mess this stuff a lot. It's tough to explain though.

The knobs on that Maverick are AWSOME!!!!

I lol'd hard.

That needs to be McCain's new slogan.

You should consider a compound radius. You could have the fretboard arch near the top have it decrease until it's flat around the 9th fret, or so. It would make playing a lot easier in general.

A completely flat radius will make it more difficult to play chords. Even if you don't plan on playing many chords, it might not be good idea to have a setup that will hinder your playing in any way; that's just backwards. A very low radius might do you a little better. There's no harm in trying a flat one though(except maybe in your wallet, if you end up not liking it).