j. pierce

i did my guitar Idch's way, cut the body first, then did my cavities when I decided I wanted something lighter; but I did do my neck tenon first. Since I capped my guitar, I cut half of my cavities (the ones that had controls in them) out by drilling a few holes and joining things up with a coping saw. Then I went over to the back side and I only had to route the lip that the back plates would sit on. The front was covered with the 1/4" top. It was so much easier this way than routing (which I did on the other cavities) that I think I might just cap the front and back of my next guitar. I have a router base like this one that makes routing cavities much easier and more stable if you've already cut the body out. I've also made templates out of MDF that cover more than the entire body, (basically a giant square) supported on edges with pieces of cutoff from the bodies, so routing an already cut body is really no different than routing a block. just make sure nothing slides around.

I was listening to the band The Meat Purveyors today, and they do a cover of Ratt's "Round and Round"; as a sort of country-bluegrass thing. That and some of the cool tele's I've seen here and just having seen a local finger picker playing a tele and playing it beautifully, and I made this three-minute photoshop as a sort of lark: Looks pretty bad, but I'm tempted to throw together a V with tele hardware now, just because I could . . . (w/o using the horn like in this pick, I don't think it works) I have a bad habit of thinking up awesomely stupid ideas and then following through on them . . . Of course, it'd have to have three-barrel-saddles, unless I tried to throw a bigsby on it . . . Nothing good could come of this.

I generally route the channels between where my pickup routes will be placed before I glue the top on. So what you'll obviously want to do is plane a 1/4" off of that, route your wire channels, glue a new top on, and then redo your finish. Or, you know, you could do it your way, that would work too. I'd actually probably go with what Uncle J said in his first post, seems like it'd be easier than trying to do one really long hole. edit: Check out this page, it has some info. There's some pictures and various text relating to this. My friends tele simply has a top-routed wire channel, the whole thing is hidden by the pickguard. It's an older cheap Squier though, so I don't know if that's the legit way.

I'd determine the measurements you want by making a full scale drawing of the instrument. It's the best way to make sure everything works out right. (You don't need the entire outline of the body really, just the string path.) Find out what the measurements are of the bridge you want to use. Determine your scale length. I like the feel of a 34" scale length. Space out the bridge and nut that far on your drawing. And then figure out a string spacing/nut width at the other end that feels comfortable to you. (If you know a production model instrument that feels comfortable to you, you can usually find measurements at their website) Draw the string lines from the nut to the bridge, (account for extra space on either side of the strings for the fretboard, so the strings don't fall off, of course) Figure out what fret you want the neck to join the body, and these string lines and fretboard edge lines on your drawing should tell you how wide you want the neck and neck pocket to be at the end. If you want to use a pre-made neck, I think it's really best to wait until you have parts in your hand, but I believe you should be able to find all the measurement info you need at Warmoth or Stew Mac. 2 inches is more than thick enough for a bass body, probably a little thicker than you need. (it'll be heavy) Warmoth lists their bodies as being 1 3/4" thick. The one I just made is closer to 1 1/2". edit: Warmoth also lists their bass necks as having a "Standard 2-1/2" wide vintage fender heel specs" So you're probably fine. But again, plan around your scale length and choice of bridge.

when I made my neck-through, the neck through bit I laminated up was fairly thick so I really didn't have to much of a problem - mark my neck angle when joining the wings to the neck-through, and afterwards, I just planed down the extra thickness on my neck piece where it stood proud because of the angle. Actually, my neck piece was thick enough that I actually ended up having extra thickness on both sides of the neck, despite my 5 degree neck angle. After attaching the neck on the guitar I'm working on, I'd have to say it's probably easier than making an angled neck pocket for a set neck. (Neither job was *difficult* per se, but the neck pocket was more exacting and time consuming work.) Ideally, if you can cut it accurately, and plan ahead, you ought to be able to use the carvin neck. Calculate the neck angle, using this mark where the neck would stand proud of the body on the top, cut this out carefully and then glue this piece on the bottom of the neck blank.

I like the shape you've got going there, but it seems a little too long in the waist area, if that makes sense. I'd pull the rear of the guitar in a little bit and shorten up the waist. The general shape you've gone for is great, it just seems a little out of proportion.

I dunno, if it wouldn't kill the look entirely, I might recess the pickups just a bit, just so you can lower the neck and the bridge. I hate having the strings way off the body; much too uncomfortable for me. But that's just me. It doesn't seem like much, but if you've ever played a tune-o-matic style guitar with no neck angle and the raised fretboard height . . . it leaves a little to be desired. Just my opinion. Toaster pickups = totally sweet, however.

I used the KTM-9 stuff with my father's spray gun with really nice results. Some people say it doesn't harden as much as other stuff, I don't know; I can say the guitar I did last year has taken a lot less finish damage than most of my guitars (retail ones) do in a year. I'm not the best judge of telling how hard a finish is though. One thing with the KTM-9 is that you'll have to use some sort of grain fill coat on any porous wood. I did a maple neck through with mahogany wings and a rosewood headstock. I neglected this step, and the rosewood finished up nice and glossy, the maple got a nice satin sheen that with enough elbow grease glossed up. With the mahogany, I went through an entire can of KTM-9 applying coats trying to get things smooth - The best I could do was a mostly-smooth semi gloss finish; think halfway between those faded, pore-showing finishes on those new issue LP junior doublecuts and a regular guitar finish. Without the filler this stuff just keeps soaking into the wood, although you mentioned you did a sealer coat, this would probably alleviate a lot of this, but if you want a gloss finish, the grain fill is probably still a good idea. (yeah, I made a lot of stupid mistakes on my first guitar, not realizing there where great places like this to turn to for information and questions.) System 3 Epoxy filler is the stuff recommended under KTM-9, and it works quite well and is fairly easy to apply, but you really need to get the mix right or the stuff either sets to this incredibly rock hard mess you can't sand at all, or doesn't set at all and stays malleable forever. This is why I neglected the filler in the aforementioned project - I ended up having to beltsand a bad fill job off the whole the guitar, (one side too hard the other necer set) and then re-stain it. I decided I'd rather have a satin finish anyway, so I jumped into the spraying to see what I could get. I've done some experimenting on scrap since, and I think the finish would be much more durable with the epoxy layer underneath, and also looks nicer. Make sure you get the epoxy layer real thin (you really only want it in the pores) because sanding it is a pain. It's hard to sand around the edges without sanding through it, be careful there. A cloth wet with alchohol while applying helps smooth down the corners without taking the epoxy too much out of the pores around the corners. in my practice, sanding down the epoxy with 400 grit paper tends to leave the epoxy a little cloudy, even after cleaning off all the sanding residue, however once it gets wet with finish it turns clear again. I don't know why this is. It had me a bit confused. I did my finish job in two days, spraying a bunch of coats one day, and then sanding with 600 grit the next day before spraying another bunch of coats. (I don't remember how many I sprayed. It was a lot.) I probably didn't sand enough on my guitar. Then again, on properly grain-filled practice pieces since then, it didn't take much sanding at all. Just to level things out. I only did a cursory sanding with 1000 grit and 2000 grit paper before jumping into polishing with the practice pieces I've been doing. The guitar I decided I liked the way it looked and left it as is. (That thing is an ugly dog and weighs a ton, but it's a good sound . . . sitting down. In the studio, where no one can see it.) As far as KTM-9 finishes go, you can find most all the info you need at the LMI page and the stuff linked of them: LMI Product description for System 3 Epoxy Filler, some good instructions/FAQ LMI Description page for KTM-9, some info LMI instructions for KTM-9 Another set of KTM-9 instructions (those links are from my bookmarks file, they're showing up good for me, but I might have had them cached; regardless, if you look up KTM-9 on LMI's page, you can find all the info you need linked from there. I believe there where a few discussions here about it if you use the search function) I'm sure other people will pipe up with more info for other finishes, this is really the only finish I really have experience with in the guitar realm, (only gotten to the finishing stage on a guitar that one time, although I've been practicing with this stuff in anticipation of my current project actually finishing) but since you mentioned KTM-9, I thought I'd toss in what bits of info I have.

Goncalo Alves is such a pretty wood, in my opinion, that it wouldn't need a top. Of course, the contrast between woods is always nice. I'm seeing a spalt top looking better than a lacewood, but again, that's all just my asthetic opinon. I have no experience tonewise with the woods mentioned, but the little bit I'd worked with Goncalo Alves is seemed to be kind of like rosewood in how it worked - dense and kind of "waxy" almost; I imagine it might have a similar sound? I don't know, for certain.

Okay, can someone make sure I'm right here? I'm working on a bass - it's a 34" scale, so when placing the bridge, I should set it so the saddles all the way to front are on that line 34" from the nut, leaving me room to make intonation adjustments by making the strings longer? Should I leave a bit of play so I can move the saddle forward if need be? (or is that even an issue?) Also, I had to change to a different bridge for this project (I made some changes in the plans before the build and neglected to compensate for that in my neck construction, so my string spacing was too wide for my fretboard) and the new bridge is a bit higher than I had planned, so I'm going to have to recess it; should I mask of this recess when finishing the guitar? Just hit it with enough coats to seal it and then mask it? I'm not sure how i would go about cleaning any excess buildup of the lip of the recess without damaging the finish around it. (I'll be using a clear spray finish, I'm unsure which type at this point, I need to experiment with my fathers spray gun a bit.)

I guess I'm thinking around $60 (US), if that sounds fair. I'll ship for free to the US.

Well, I screwed something up somewhere along the line and the bridge I had planned on isn't going to work; even at it's narrowest setting the outside string spread is too wide. I just ordered a new (and expensive, ouch!) Schaller bass bridge that can be set narrower, so I'm hoping to sell this to make up some of the $. It's an ABM roller bridge, adjustable for string spread as well as height and intonation. Chrome, (although the adjustment screws and rollers are black) solid brass with steel saddles. Thing's got some heft to it. I don't have a digital camera, but it you go to the Allparts webpage and type in "BB 0320-010" (the part number) in the search box that's the bridge I'm talking about. http://www.allparts.com/shopimages/BB_0320-010.jpg <- For an image of it This is brand new, unused on anything, includes original screws, allen wrench, (and the back of the Allparts blister card if you want it. ) If anyone wants any measurements that Allparts doesn't supply, I've got it right here, just ask. If no one's interested I guess it'll go on the eBay.

I really love the concept, but those pickups and bridge look rather out-of-scale to the rest of the body. I know this is just a planning design at this point, but with the the body and the bridge seeming to echo each other so much here, it seems like it should be taken into consideration. I'm intrigued by the idea of the body scoop on the guitar but try not to let the strings lay below the rest of the body! Might make for some difficult strumming. But yeah, this should be very cool.

What do folks use to slot their TOMs? Nut slotting files? I'm a bit worried about ruining those expensive buggers.

I've got some schaller bridges on the way via my local music store. Stew Mac lists the bushing size the same as a Nashville bridge, at .278". What size hole do you guys drill for these? 7mm? I figure the best thing to do is wait until I have the thing in my hand, and I certainly won't drill any holes until I do; but I need to swing by the hardware store in the next couple of days, probably before the bridges will be here, to pick up some misc. stuff and figured I might as well pick up the right drill bit while I'm there.

If it sounds good but doesn't look great you've now got your studio guitar. Did you use 3 on a side tuners there? Honestly, I think you could change up the right side a little bit to clean up the general outline, and then bevel the edges all the way around would also help a lot.

Say what you will about Good Charlotte (don't really care for them at all) but I really kind of like the cartoony 12th fret bat inlay on their guitarists signature PRS. Except for the green.

beautiful. Hows the carving on the back of the horn feel? the giant pickguard is great looking. love that finish, too.

When I did mine, I took it down fairly close, almost flush, with the scraper and then finished it up with the sandpaper when sanded the fretboard. the plastic binding gums up your sandpaper pretty bad - and if you sand the binding with anything too coarse, it scratches easily. But it you're progressively going through finer and finer sandpapers until your board shines anyway you'll take care of these.

The guitar I'm working on now has a TOM style roller bridge; I was originally thinking of putting a Bigsby behind it, but I don't think I use trem enough to warrant the cost at this point, and it's always something I can retrofit. (Although having a trem would probably keep my from making those detune-y warbles by bending the neck, which given the noise my SG made yesterday is probably a very bad habit.) I'm probably going to do a string through set up behing the bridge, I've got some of those smaller top-mounting ferrules on the way, but I'm debating making/purchasing some sort of a trapeze type tailpiece. Not as ornate as a Rickenbacker, but hopefully a little more going on than those first LPs. Or maybe something out of ebony like those nice jazz boxes, although that would be more expensive and difficult. (but hey, learning is a good thing!) The reasoning is purely asthetic - the way the guitar is made, there is a rather large empty area behind the bridge, (kind of like an SG) and while a stop tailpiece would take up some of that space and probably be a visually pleasing, I feel like a trapeze tailpiece could look really nice there. So my question, I guess, is there any downsides to these style tailpieces in terms of sound? I would venture to guess I could expect there to a be a bit less sustain than through-body? Would this be noticable? Maybe I do the through body and the tailpiece, rigging it up so the tailpiece covers the through body holes when attached, and then see if there is a difference. I guess I'm just looking for anyones thoughts on trapeze style tailpieces. thanks.

I often times prep for joining just with sandpaper - I use two long surfaces to make a 90 degree angle (a perfectly straight 2x4 clamped to a large workbench works, I use two long pieces of aluminum channel I got at the scrap yard) with a fair length of 60 grit sandpaper attached. (self adhesive paper, double stick tape or adhesive spray) Usually I shoot for my sandpaper and straight edges to be at least one and half times the length of whatever side I'm trying to smooth up. Take whatever you're sanding, and hold it against the back of this assembly (keeps your edge from going out of square) And run the whole thing against the sandpaper. The more surface you have to sand against, the easier I find it goes. Depending on the wood, I can usually have my handsaw cuts smoothed up for joining incredibly quick. My router fence is messed up right now and I never got around to fixing it, so I always end up using either a follower bit or a guide for my router base to run against to square things up - but if I'm doing more than one piece of wood, (or a piece too thick for my router bit to get in one pass) it's actually quicker to set this contraption up once and use this than set up the router for each piece of wood. Maybe I just like hand sanding too much.

quick webcam pics of my 12 string tailpiece, since I very often don't make sense when I talk: The top two are the back and front of my 12 strings tailpiece, and the bottom is my regular TOM. Just experimenting, (with the gauge of strings I use on mine, at least) you can easily run both strings from each pair through the single hole on a 6 string TOM - won't look as nice though. I imagine it'd work better and look nicer if you at least modified the back end so the recess would accommodate both strings though. if that picture doesn't show, I guess just wait a bit, my host has been a bit slow sometimes. I'm going to stop rambling now. I love me a 12 string though.

I checked, my TOM style tailpiece on that cheap 12string has the oblong/oval recess to allow for two string-ball ends, but it also has twelve smaller holes through it. Although, I don't see why you couldn't modify a regular TOM, but it'd be difficult. I'd imagine the string-through approach would be nice. Another option would be a tailpiece like this one from Stew mac - I've seen them in various places and they don't seem to be too hard to get, and the cheaper 6 string ones I've seen up close look like they'd be easier to modify than a standard TOM bridge.

I was just looking at the website for Daddy's Junky Music ( a regional music store chain in the northeast US ) and they have a Gibson Marauder in stock at their Springfield location. http://daddys.com/php/usedgear_detail.php?aproductid=GIB5929 They might be able to answer your question for you - I'm assuming your in the U.K. by the flag in your posts, so a phone call is most likely out of the question, but they might be able to let you know through email. Maybe there's someone the board locally who could look or call? I know a guy who managed the Daddy's here in Vermont, if he still works there I'll see if he can get the guitar up at his store (they often shuffle the used gear between their various stores) and I can measure the angle ( or lack thereof ) for you - but no promises.

oops - didn't even think about that. I'll have to check mine out when I get out of work this morning, but if I remember correctly, the tailpiece has sort of a an oval-ish recess to acomidate two ball ends from the paired strings, but I think both strings go through the same standard hole - looks like something that could be modded fairly easily. If I was scratch building one, I guess I'd go the through-body route.