Crusader

I was always very intrigued with music and in High School a friend of mine was a big fan of Slade. Dave Hill the lead guitarist had a thing called "The Super Yob" I would draw body designs in boring classes like English and Social Studies and finally made it in 1994. It was originally headless as you can see the tuning pegs used to be at the bas of the guitar (didn't work very well) I just used the fretboard and truss rod off a broken neck I got from somewhere. Made of Jarrah out off the firewood heap

So continuing, I hope I'm going to make my point a bit clearer After watching numerous YouTubes of 59 LPs this one stands out to me to be one of the best to get an idea of what the 59 sounds like, its just Bernie, the guitar and the amp. It doesn't sound like there's a lot of processing going on and my R9 sounds like that too And its not what I expected - - because its not my idea of what "The Best" sounding guitar would be, its too "syrupy" It suits the type of music he's playing but.....I remember reading somewhere a person commenting on Les Pauls, he said "those things don't 'twang'" Anyway all this leads me to asking the question "Who says this is the best sounding guitar?" I have an R9 and the girl at Kosmic who sold it to me preferred Telecasters, and she said you can tell when there's a Telecaster being played, it sounds so distinctive. She described what that sound is like and explained why and how they get that sound. So after that I've had a lot more appreciation for Telecasters. And just because I like something, it doesn't mean that everyone else has to like it too One day I did some work at this house and the the place was littered with guitars, so when I was finished I asked the owner about them and they were his sons. So I got talking to him and organised a jam session in his recording studio. I took my R9 and one of the Les Pauls I made and played one and then the other. So after that he couldn't stop raving about the R9 and I felt a bit peeved because I was amazed how good my LP sounded. It sounded different to the R9 but it didn't sound 'bad' If you were to ask me what I think is the best sounding guitar, it might be hard to describe. I would say with more clarity in the bass, not so "warm"

cheers I probably should have put it like this from the start I've been listening to Led Zeppelin for decades and I've heard Clapton on the Beano album but don't think I ever understood what a 59 LP is supposed to sound like until I heard this, and I was surprised, it doesn't sound like what I thought it would. At 2:00 minutes he plays clean. Interesting stories he tells too

Hi, not sure what you mean by "thought you knew it" - not to worry Yes listening to guitars to compare them can be very hard to come to conclusions. I've done a lot of it and comparing pickups as well. The way I see it is you have to "train" your ear and I think I've been very good at it but the ability only lasts a while. But I don't think it takes a trained ear to hear what I am talking about. I just thought the 59 Les Paul would be more clear and crisp in the bass register

I was going to edit this but what I mean is the good ones. I've had 5 Les Pauls and only 2 of them I would say were "expressive" Yes this is interesting and I've had a similar experience myself. The guitar sounds good out of the amp but listening to the recording it just doesn't sound right

Yes we all know there are numerous elements that make up the final sound but when you listen to a variety of recordings and compare to guitars you've actually played you start to hear what they have in common They are very "expressive", they "talk" to you

Yes that is true the electrics play a big part of it, I didn’t elaborate too much so I will add more info here A friend of mine in the 1970s had the Beano album but that wasn’t much to go on and with the overdrive etc it just sounded like another guitar to me. And the music was somewhat dated so that’s yet another factor that can cloud a persons assessment But sometimes you don’t need someone to tell you what sounds good. When I was a kid I thought LPs looked too old fashioned but when I went to my first rock concert at age 12 everybody had them and I decided they look really cool So when I was 17 I bought one based on their looks alone but I was disappointed when I brought it home and plugged it in. About a year later I put it up for sale and one guy came to check it out. He was a jazz player or something and commented it doesn’t have the bassy tone that they’re supposed to have Other people also commented about this in fact when I sold it ten years later the guy who bought it was not impressed after he plugged it in Not that it sounded terrible, it just wasn’t what people expected. One time I lent it to the lead guitarist in the band I used to see. Early in the night he was tuning up and we were out the back playing pool. Suddenly I started hearing this very fabulous sound so I had to know. I dropped everything and went through and sure enough it was my guitar Now considering it would have been going through the same amp and pedals, it sounded so much better than the Kramer or whatever it was as his main guitar In 2008 I looked around to buy another guitar and after trying a few different species I ended up with another Les Paul. In 2014 I upgraded to a 59 Reissue But even having that guitar I still wasn’t sure if it had the tone that people rave about. My easiest source of reference was YouTube videos but everyone who puts on a demo almost always cranks on the overdrive It wasn’t until I saw Bernie Marsden with his “beast” and other people with the greenie LP that I started to cotton on to the tone that I think is regarded as being so great Now having said all that (gee this is a lot more explaining than I anticipated LOL) When I made my second Les Paul I put it up against my 59 Reissue and dismayed it doesn’t sound as good......... However after playing it for a few months and getting used to what it sounds like, I decided it sounds AWESOME. Just because it sounds different to the R9 doesn’t mean it sounds bad, in fact it probably sounds more like what I expected a 59 to sound like. And I’m sure it sounds better than the two other LPs I had So that is my experience with the whole 59 Les Paul thing. I think it’s a similar story to the Stradivarius violin. At some point somebody said “this sounds good” and everyone just follows along So getting back to the original question. Seeing YouTubes of Greenie playing “Oh Well” and Bernie demoing his beast and having a 59 Reissue of my own, I think I have a good idea of what a real 59 is supposed to sound like, and it’s not what I expected When you can’t try out the real thing you have to go through a lot to get an idea of what it’s meant to be. I thought a 59 would have a more crisp clear tone in the bass register but to my surprise it doesn’t. I’m wondering if other people had the same expectations Sorry for such a long explanation but I thought it’s necessary to put it clearly where I’m coming from cheers

I always heard that the 59 Les Pauls are supposed to have the best sound but when I finally heard some decent recordings on Youtube it wasn't what I expected I thought the tone would be more crisp in the bass response. For example when you go to buy speakers for your HiFi the more expensive ones seem to be lacking in bass but when you cotton-on to it you realise they do sound better. I think the same goes for bass guitars, pianos and musical instruments and equipment in general, the more expensive ones are tighter in the bass But the 59 Les Paul doesn't seem to conform to this and the bass is kind-of a bit more boomy, more accoustic sounding. Am I right? and I'm wondering what other people have experienced with this. When you heard what is supposed to be a good sounding LP did you like it straight away? Because for me it was more "Oh, that's what they reckon sounds good" Sure it does sound good but its not what I expected What's your experience and your perception?

Wow very stylish and the pink-and-maple go together so well By the way I also did not see a fish, except the top horn looked a bit like waves (upside down)

By the way thanks for the nudge, I often spend an awful lot of time trying to come up with a unique idea but with this one its probably best to stick to something more conventional I already had it in the back of my mind to get rid of that patch but I was worried about the curve. Then when I googled I discovered the one I pictured which is so small it won't matter even if its flat There are rules? Were they made by Leroy Jethro Gibbs? At first I wasn't too crazy about putting a battery compartment in the top side but now it seems a good idea

Very sexy!

I don't know where I would want to cut a hole in my precious duco! But if I used a compartment like this one I could put it right about here!

I didn't know how to mount the battery so I just stuck it to the back with double-sided tape!

Ah so that's where the Beatles got their name!

Just thought I'd share this one

Thanks yes I had a Strat when I started making guitars and copied that as best I could. Later I had a Gibson SG but I think the way they do it is too weak

Sounds like you're having a great time like I do, I'm always calling myself an idiot ...and thanks for the explanation about the rods, cheers

I think the more accoustic a guitar is, the more feed-back prone it will be. With the question about the internal block personally I would stick to the norm to avoid any unforeseen problems By the way do those Little Sisters have a flat top or a carved top?

Hi, this is something I've looked into and I hope it helps if I show you what I decided to do. The neck timber starts off about 25 to 30mm so I kept that going straight through so at least the first and second string are into the one piece of timber of the neck On this neck I flipped the cut piece over which means one end is glueing to end grain. But I think the head veneer and the ears will give it some strength. The only downside which Curtisa pointed out is you can see the joint at the back of the headstock

Thank you everyone for your likes and compliments, but hey what about my jokes? eg. "Who wants a chip?" ...now back to serious Its funny how things turn out for the better, for example my pickup choice and available parts. I decided this unit is not going to be top shelf so I kept the Seth Lovers in their box and used a '59 and a JB which have been waiting patiently since the '90s. Then I went through all the pickup rings I have and it had to be the cream ones because they're the ones I used to drill the holes with. No worries then I decided to have a switch ring. I had a black one and a cream one, so cream got the nod. Then a switch knob - I only had black. And then of course I only had black control knobs! Then when I was all done I looked at it and realised - - - its perfect! Everything is black and cream, even the headstock IT WAS MEANT TO BE! THE NECK I love the neck on this guitar. It has the exact profile of my '59 Reissue Les Paul and its the first one I've done binding on from scratch. Its also the first guitar I've polished and the neck feels so good to play on TONE (and I'm not talking about DiNozzo) It would have been nice to still have the Gibson ES-137 but life goes on. I mentioned earlier that this guitar has a nasal tone that all my guitars seem to have but even my R9 has a hint of it. So tone is a funny guy and you think he's an idiot then he comes out with wit or courage that surprises us all. To my ear this guitar sounds better than the Gibson 137 that I had, which was made entirely of maple, with a mahogany centre block and it had a kind of "dark" tone that I always thought was due to the maple...I dunno Reading comments (somewhere) about the Gibson 137 there was one person who asked "why don't they make a mahogany version?" which where my thoughts too, so here ya go I've done it BATTERY STRIFE I don't know where to put the battery for the piezo pickup. On the previous one I had to take out the bridge pickup to change the battery but this one I want to figure out a way to have it accessible through the f-holes somehow At first I wasn't impressed with the sound of the piezo but after a few comparisons and tone adjustments I think its fine and does a fine impersonation of an accoustic guitar SWEET ACTION Everybody needs satisfaction guaranteed, everybody wants a piece of the Action. I haven't dressed the frets at all on this and the action is very playable, not far off my R9. The Intonation is good too. Usually you ping the harmonic at the 12th fret then compare it to the played note but when using the 18th rule you need a good tuner The intonation starts off good, then as you go up the fretboard it gets lower, then comes up again above the 12th fret and is correct again at some point. And on this guitar all the strings intonate at around the 16th fret. So I don't need to do much filing on the saddle, but I want to get the action a little lower before I start that PLAYABILITY The neck sticks way out on guitars with this body shape and its been quite a while since I sold my Gibson 137, so I'm not used to it and going through a "re-adjustment" stage. Haven't played on 11-52 gauge strings for a while either And in case anyone remembers, that patch

This thing is just about polished off, I just need to figure out where to keep the battery and install the controls for the piezo A few pictures. By the way I've reduced them 30% and hope they're interesting Ground rules, most important things first I used heat-shrink to pull the switch through, comes in handy for all sorts of reasons! One of these is a Gibson. You should be able to tell which one but not bad hey? The art of photography is something not to be scoffed at. Its quite a challenge to capture the chatoyance on 2D Under a different light You're so beautiful I want you back Who wants a chip? Up North there's a big hill called "Mt Nameless" I've been thinking its not a bad name for a guitar... Hope you all like the piccies and if you want to make a comment, go a head

This expresses my thoughts exactly! By the way, what are the spaghetti rods for?

Thanks for chiming in Yes I tried 3 different ES-135's once and they all sounded different. I tried one then the other then the other and each time I picked up another one it sounded better than the previous. Then I realised I was going round in circles! So its a funny thing, it can be difficult to assess which sounds better or just different Playing through an amp levels the playing field but after a while if a guitar doesn't sound nice to me accoustically, I start to notice it plugged in and it nags me LOL Yes Australian dollars use the same symbol but $400 USD translates to quite a bit more in AUD The maple from the local place is from North America, 'rock maple' as they call it. US or Canada not sure Well I think this is what I mostly want to hear, that other people do actually buy these things! cheers!

Thanks for your reply, all opinions matter! Well the problem I have is all the suppliers are over east or overseas and I can't see the pieces before buying. There is a timber supplier that has maple with some nice figure for a much more reasonable price and I've already used some in a recent build. However it has this "nasal" tonal sound that I seem to get with any guitar I build with maple in it. So for me it is a gamble. If I spend up I would hope to get something worth buying About the price, come to think of it, it might have been a 1" thick piece that I saw for the $500 mark

I have started another Les Paul and after cutting it out my jaw dropped, it is gorgeous! So I want to put everything into this one to make it as good as I can with a nicely figured maple top that also has good tonal qualities but the prices can be over $500 Is it worth it?