Mattia

The 'long' part is waiting for paint to dry, levelling, prep. Spraying itself doesn't take too long, and in a pinch, if your outdoors isn't too bad, spraying outside with a respirator on can work fine (does for me. Although I prefer waterbased stuff because I don't really have the space for Nitro). The clear finishing is one issue, but the question was regarding the staining. Plenty of tutorials on that here, and plenty of recent discussions on various colour bursts up and running, with links to appropriate sections/sites. Way I see it, you've got two ways of getting trans black: staining the wood directly, or shooting a black tinted clearcoat or two, then clearcoating over that. Each will give you a different look, so you want to try both on scrap. In fact, you really want to try your entire finishing schedule on scrap. Personally, having done it both ways, I'm leaning more towards the 'wipe the stain on' school of thought. It might have a little less chatoyance (that 3-D effect), although it's debatable, but it definitely gives you a more imposing, impressive finish.

Ouch.. The wings already glued on, right? And how were you planning on gluing the headstock? ie, adding the scarf joint on the bottom, or on the top so that part of headstock piece is part of the neck shaft surface? You could theoretically scarf another piece in for added length, but you'd want to make that scarf much, much more angled than this. The further away from an endgrain to endgrain joint you are, the better; endgrain doesn't like sticking to anything, see. Are you reinforcing this neck with CF? because if you still want to stick with the neck-through, and have two scarfs in there, I would. Also, if you're having problems getting a good, tight joint already (it's practice and technique that makes it easier, really, although you could build a router planing jig like the one on Martin Koch's website), consider the fact you'll have to put two scarf joints in, and have them be equally successful. They'll also be rather visible, so if you're doing a natural finish, you want to keep in mind it will be visible, and it will probably annoy you lots. I know this ain't terribly helpful now, but in future, build your neck blank, do the scarf joint, route the channels, BEFORE you glue any wings to the thing. All easiest to do when the blank is big, square, and parallel-sided. If you've got your heart set on a neck-through, don't give up on it so quickly. Saw the body wings off with a little bit of a margin, plane down the neck blank you've got there to clean it up, and save it for a set neck/bolt on (or two) on a future guitar, get yourself more wood, and do it right. You're not that far along in body construction, and IMO, this would be about as much work as doing a set neck joint for the first time, what with neck angles and such. That's my 2 cents.

Not per se. StewMac sells repackaged TransTint dyes, which you can also get at various other outlets. They're metal-acid complex dyes, which means they're more fade resistant than 'regular' powdered anilines, and they've got the advantage that they'll dissolve in water or alcohol/lacquer thinner, so they're more versatile that way than, say, the LMII metal acid dyes.

Leather dye is what's often used for blackening fingerboards, and might be the way to go here.

Back to the original question: might want to ask Dave Myka what he thinks rosewood neck/mahogany on maple top guitars sound like. He's built several, IIRC.

I don't know how to do it, and I know it's fiddly, but it can be done without rewinding the pickup. You wind each coil in a humbucker seperately, then wire them up in series, so you just need to 'undo' that, and bring the leads for each coil out. I've seen a photo 'how to' on this topic somewhere, but for the life of me I can't remember where.

My personal suggestion is don't arch it; I can't think of a single arched telecaster that I like the look of. Telecasters work because of their simple, clean lines. A single F-hole can look classy (I do like thinlines), pickguards look great, but beyond that...rather have something closer to a Peavy Wolfgang/MM Axis, if you want a tele-esque carvetop. However, beyond that, just look at any 'ol arched guitar/top plate carving tutorials, figure out how you want to arch things, and go from there.

Look at some high-end basses for dead-obvious neck-through. Heck, this month's guitar of the month (or bass, as the case may be). The neck extends all the way down the body, with 'wings' glued on the sides to create the actual body. Set necks are, well, set necks. More similar to bolt ons than to neck throughs, in that they actually have a joint between neck and body, as opposed to, well, having the body tacked onto the sides of the neck. That's oversimplifying things oodles, natch.

Do you mean literally re-wiring the pickup (ie, a 2 conductor pickup into a 4 conductor pickup), or are you simply talking basic wiring? Because we really, really don't need tutorials for wiring a coil tap or coil split. Look at most any manufacturer website (Seymour Duncan, f'r instance), or simpler yet, head to Stewmac.com and peruse the free info sheet section, and you'll find various basic switching options. Apologies if that's not what you meant. As to the 5-way, that sounds an awful lot like what Varitone switches do. Google for that, or wait until BigD shows up (he makes the things, might be willing to share some insight).

Hee! Ahum. Sorry. Lie-Nielsen's spokeshaves are the finest in the business, and a block plane from them will set you back quite a bit. I doubt you'd regret the purchase, but you would blow half your budget right then and there. Personally, I'd rather have a microplane rasp, then a spokeshave, and a far cheaper Record or Stanley will do. Stanley block plane or low angle block plane, and/or a Jack plane (#4) would be my reccomendations for a first plane. Then google some on plane tuning, and learn some sharpening, because planes are worse then useless if not set up and sharpened correctly. If you can stretch to Lie-Nielsen tools, do so, but most of us can't. I wish I could, but I know I can't.

I have not, no. My main point was that we don't have the mid-range models *at the mid-range pricepoint* like they do stateside. 400-500 is a big, hefty jump from 129 quid, and 400-500 translates to almost 1000 dollars US. 1000 dollars will get you a lot more bandsaw in the states than it will here, and 300-400 won't get you much at all here, but quite a lot there. 1000 bucks is hardly a 'middle priced' tool, if you'll pardon me. And that's my point. Yeah, the saws are out there, but they're out of (financial) reach for most.

.... Right. Looky here: http://www.axminster.co.uk/category.asp?cat_id=207024 Planes and scrapers are your friends. Spokeshaves can be fun too.

DeWalt's saws generally ain't cheap, and none of what you've mentioned translates as 'any quality' in my book. Useful, sure. What you've described there is a cheapie, decidedly hobby quality tool. A cheapie bandsaw will do as long as you're making relatively small cuts, and I wouldn't mind having one, but for the additional quality I get, no chance of doing any semi-serious resawing, they ain't great, and they're not worth the space. What I mean is that in the EU, we don't have the equivalents of a 14" Delta or Jet (or similar medium-sized woodworking machines, although the UK is better than most countries for those as well, if you ignore the crazy price tags) for anywhere near the prices they pay in the states (about half what you pay at Axminster for a Jet, anyway). Honestly, if I had more space, I'd probably get a small, 9-12" desktop bandsaw for things like trimming, smaller cuts, etc. but it's simply not worth the space cost for me now. Rather wait until I've got the room (and the money) for a bigger saw that'll be more useful to me in the long run. Your 10" bandsaw is what I consider firmly in the 'hobby' category, not in the in-between category I'm talking about. For all the tasks you've mentioned, a quality jigsaw and a router will do just as well (or a hand saw if we're talking scarf joint), and take up less room to boot. Also, I said 1500, I meant dollars or Euros. Not pounds. 1500 pounds will get you a 24" bandsaw, second hand, quite easily. In fact, 1000 euros/dollars should get you a resaw-worthy bandsaw on the second hand market if you shop around some. Pott: look for a router with a 1/2" collet as well, as mentioned. Might as well do it right the first time. The bigger and badder the jigsaw you get, the better off you'll be, and avoid Ferm like the plague. Utter, utter garbage.

Stripping is stripping, but if you're talking celluloid binding, remember many strippers that'll attack your paint will positively destroy plastic binding. Sanding would be the way to go there, but as with any acoustic instrument, I'd be very, very, very careful; the carve and thickness on the top in particular are done that way for a reason, so you don't want to go re-shaping the top. This is particularly true for flattops, since the wood's alreay very thin, and spruce, well, sands away easily.

Active pickups have a much WEAKER output/picking up capacity than passive ones, really; it's the built-in preamp that boosts the signal up something wicked.

Hey, I'm new here. I really can't keep track of who's built what quite yet ;-) I'm shocked! Shocked and appalled! Except, y'know, I like Teles and Strats with natural finishes, and I'm not afraid to say so *looks around fearfully* Well, to be fair to PRS, they more or less pioneered the 'blend between Les Paul and Strat' thing, and did it well. They stayed within the realms of classic guitar design, and created what I'd term a modern classic with their standard doublecut design. The electric guitar's not as young as it once was, and all sorts of shapes have been tried, tested, tried again, and the successful ones (and/or the ones people find pretty) stick around. You get variations in acoustic guitars, but again, they're mostly just slightly redrawing curves, with basic dimensions staying unchanged. The results can be quite dramatically different, though. Personally, while I tend not to want to build exact replicas of anyones guitar, I have no problem in doing my own version, my own interpretation of what are now fairly 'classic' designs (various carved-top set necks. Although given my friends' statements of late, I feel more Tele building coming on, which is fun, but not overly challenging). If you look at them, they're quite recognizable, where my influences lie is clear, but put em next to the guitar they 'copy' and you'll notice that yes, they are quite different. Is it particularly original? Nah. I step in the footsteps of many who've gone before me, and I really don't mind. Is it an exact copy, be it in homage or otherwise? That also ain't the case, because while I admire what's gone before, I generally don't want clones. It's a matter of degree, but they're still my own designs, ones I spent a long time pondering and playing around with on paper. They terribly original? Nah. But I think they look good and work, look and feel like what I think guitars should look and feel like, so I'm content to stick with them, make each one by hand, slightly different than the previous one, different carve, different detailing, attention paid to each part, quite obviously not a factory built guitar, or a clone. That's what makes building interesting, for me.

That's your right, of course (note to self, don't count on idch's vote if you ever submit one of your carved tops). On flat topped/slab guitars, I quite like pickguards, but there aren't all that many of those designs I'm wild about. I like carved tops, end of the day. On the other hand, part of the fun here is the wide variety of tastes represented in terms of what we build. Got lots of people building wild, outrageous 'metal' type designs that I wouldn't touch with a 50 foot pole because they do nothing for me aesthetically, but which I can admire in terms of workmanship, quality, etc., to people building Teles or carved tops in the Gibson/PRS 'tradition' (that last one's me, although I do quite like Telecasters now..simple ones.) Besides, want to shake things up? Build something different and submit it :-)

Quick version: plenty (and I mean lots) of acoustic guitars out there with non-adjustable bridges and saddles that intonate just fine. I'd leave off routing the saddle slot until you've got the guitar done, and can find the optimum position with a 'srap' piece of bone, plastic or metal (ie, temporary bridge per string, mark the place where it intonates properly, repeat for each string, then see where the saddle should go optimally. With a 1/8" wide saddle you've good a bit of leeway in adjusting intonation per string. The thinner your strings, the pickier intonation will likely be, so I'd say but at least 10s or 11s on there if you want an acoustic style saddled bridge.)

Go with just the one, I'd say. PRS Santanas had two simply to hide the fact the neck went past the pickup, and a chunk of maple needed removing for it. I don't much like the look.

LGM: interesting thoughts, overall. I have to say that I agree with most of them, except for a scant couple: first the 'carve through' on the armrest, well, that's half the charm of having laminates in basses of that type. I can't begin to describe how wrong it would look if it had a bent top there. Matter of taste, I suppose, but it's a valid design choice and while I personally might've carved a little more, so as to smooth/curve the transitions by the tiniest fraction, it does still follow the curve of the guitar. Mirrorerd, up a tiny amount. I just think yer weird for not liking it ;-) Also, paintjobs? I don't particularly care that a black or a Kandy is friggin hard to do, and that's not going to make me downgrade a natural finish. Wipe-ons/oil finishes are also fine, but to me, only fit certain designs, and Teles ain't them. Basses, similarly 'organic' designs, yeah. Design choice, wood selection, hardware, how that all works together is more important to me. I may never do a completely solid black finish ever, I very much doubt I'll do many pearls or solid colours in general, but that's a choice I've made, fits my sense of aesthetics best, and is in-line with the kinds of isntruments I tend to build (not shredder guitars). To each his own, I suppose, but how difficult something was to achieve shouldn't be a critera. How well it was executed definately should. I mean, no offence to anyone, but Telecasters are about the simplest guitars in the world to make, and Strats ain' far behind. For the record, I voted for Phil's bass, which is the one instrument this month that stuck out for me. Clean workmanship, smooth, flowing lines, lovely detailing (matching coverplates, home-built pickups with wooden covers, bold yet restrained fingerboard design), and a design that, while recognizable, doesn't look (to my non-bass expert eyes) to be one I've seen somewhere else exactly. Much as I like Stew's design and aesthetic, I'd like to be voting on something other than concept, paintjob, and assembly alone. The man's got fantastic finishing chops, and a funky, funny sense of design (this one, and that yacht themed guitar last month), but ultimately it's a customized parts guitar. Not that that's a bad thing, but it tells me little about his building skills. Tells me he's great at finishing, though, but this isn't a 'finish of the month' contest :-)

I've got no real experience with pickups, but my impression is that you really can't take the top of the bobbin off without making the whole thing collapse on itself. They're defining the coil shape and keeping the slugs in position. I'd say your best bet is veneering the tops, or just winding your own pickups :-)

Oh, we have tools. Lots of 'em. Just they're mostly either not great, or really-great-but-waaaay-expensive. So, um, yeah.

The Hiscock, hands down.

Honestly, I couldn't tell you. Look for some reviews of the saws, then decide.

You be the judge of your particular chunk of wood; blind, I wouldn't use it, but that's me. Mahogany, whether genuine or 'African Mahogany', is tried and tested, and a neck-sized piece isn't going to set you back loads. Luan, Meranti and Phillipine Mahogany all seem to be names describing the same vague collection of Asian hardwoods. Most are of the Shorea Genus, which contains a boatload of different species, and colours ranging from very pale to deep, dark red. Trees from a couple of other genuses are also used. Found this quote on one wood seller's website re: Meranti/Luaun/Phillipine Mahogany: "We consider it the second cousin of Honduras mahogany (twice removed)." African (Khaya) they describe as honduran's "Boergeois cousin", which I found quite amusing.