Mattia

While I agree any router is better than no router, all I'm saying is that, it being probably the most important tool in your arsenal, and one that's going to get worked pretty heavily, if you're gonna spend, spend on that. You get better casings, better motors, and above all, better machining which translates into better centred shafts, more stable shafts, and aftermarket support if you do need it. Break two cheapies, and you could've bought a good one. Any slippage, damage to a guitar you've got many hours in, and you'll be cursing yourself. I build, on average, less than 4 guitars per year, usually quite a few less. I've never regretting spending money on a good tool, and I've frequently regretting not doing it. I do wholeheartedly agree, though, that good quality bits are essential.

Ummm....no. I'm afraid you've gone and bought one of the several BS stories floating around hook, line and sinker. Sitka is one of the oldest spruce species, if I'm not very much mistaken. It, and Engelmann, are native to North America. Red Spruce (Adirondak), ditto, and that's considered the 'golden standard' by many, and is the wood pre-war martins are made of. Each of these is a distinct species, and recognizable in wood form. There are various Sitka/Engelman hybrids out there, including 'Kermodie' Spruce, but how well their existence/nature is documented scientifically, and how much of it is marketing talk is up for discussion. There is a story that some monk dragged Red Spruce over to Europe, and the Euro is really Red, but that's pretty much completely bunk. Either that, or Euro went stateside. Something like that. Either way, I don't believe a word of it, and neither do any botanists of note. To my knowledge, there's no proof of any spruce species crossing the ocean and taking hold. Douglas Fir, there's tons of all over the place. The spruces, no. If it's Sitka, it's American, ditto if it's Red or Engelmann, if it's Picea Abies, it's Euro, and a very different wood in look and feel. 'Carpathian' is, 99% certainly, Picea Abies. European Spruce, native to Europe, a distinct species, harvested in the Carpathian mountains. There's a slim chance it could be Picea Orientalis, which is a different tree entirely, and purportedly provides excellent tonewood, but it's uncommon to say the least, and most found in the east of europe, as I understand it. Unlikely it's any of that stuff. Quite some spruce sold as 'European', however, may be Engelmann that's been sold to Europe, and sold back as 'German' spruce (not necessarily by the German suppliers, but by people misleadingly claiming the spruce they sell is 'German' since they got it from a German supplier.). Engelmann is quite different from good Euro, which I think is most similar to Adirondack, although perhaps a little lighter, and with generally more rich, full, but still very 'sparkling' overtones (based on the Red stuff I've tapped, and the sizeable amounts of European I've got and compared side by side).

Little comment re: speed: if you've got the higher speed, especially if the unit's underpowered slightly, use it. Wood loves high speed, metal hates it. Let the speed of the bit do the cutting, taking small bites each time. Lower speed is only really necessary if your bit size (diameter) starts heading up, up up, since the angular velocity you can develop there can be a real bitca.

I say this a lot, but here goes: A router is essential, a bandsaw's nice, drill press for tuning machine holes handy, but like with pretty much anything, buy as you need it, not before you start building.

this is the reason that marijuana will never be legalized here...it's because rather than making an intelligent argument for personal freedoms,pot smokers would rather try to stretch the truth and focus on the peripheral arguments. you guys have no focus.if you did,you would stick to the "responsible use" argument...after all,that is the argument that keeps alcohol legal. every time you guys try to put up a ridiculously flawed study,the rest of the world just throws up their hands and gives up on you. if you really wanted to be an advocate,you would stick to the methods that don't make you look like a b.s artist ← Whoa, back way up. I'm not one of 'you guys', and I'm not advocating legalization, or trying to push weed's 'positives'. Re-read what I've posted; I'm merely pointing out inaccuracies in some previous points, and taking issue the validity of various arguments made. In this particular case, with the 'gut reaction' that all of those studies are bullshit based on 'common sense' (which ain't very sensible at all, most of the time), straw man arguments, without, say, going out and finding research studies which claim the opposite. I'm hesitant to 'buy' those results outright, without doing my own lit search, particularly because the website clearly has an agenda, but I can't really be bothered to spend too much time on something that just doesn't interest me quite enough. But the fact the site has an agenda doesn't immediately invalidate the findings. I don't like drugs, I don't use them, but I don't feel use of weed is something that should be heavily criminalized. Decriminalization of use and regulation of sale over here works for NL, but that doesn't mean it would work everywhere. I'm fairly neutral on this, so I'm none too quick to accept or dismiss any findings out of hand. Far as I'm concerned, the facts (the actual facts, determined by unbiased, peer-reviewed research, not the fears, speculations, and so forth) speak for themselves; medically, Marijuana is less dangerous than either nicotine or alcohol, so as far as it being a 'danger', there's not a whole lot of basis for its illegality. The End. I won't pretend to care about it's 'beneficial' effects, or put much stock into them (if it contains useful substances, they'll be purified, and used like any other drug: see opaites like morphine, same chemical family as heroin, or medical-grade cocaine which is used in certain anaesthesiological areas), but you seem to be accusing me of things I haven't done (focus on peripheral arguments, stretching truth). I do feel making arguments as to the effects of the drug itself are essential for anyone who is actually fighting for legalization at this time, since the 'other side', the anti-weed groups, are very much about pushing either biased studies, disinformation, or outright lies on the dangers of the stuff itself, personal freedoms be damned. That they go overboard when they do it doesn't invalidate the information; that people don't take it seriously, and that the 'anti' crowd uses the 'extremism' projected as additional ammunition to ridicule the 'pro' crowd, and push their own agenda, does nothing to bolster my respect of any of the parties involved. Look through the politics at the information, judge it on its own merit (most of the source articles linked to are balanced, if sometimes flawed in setup, but I suspect most of the conclusions are the summarizers', not always the authors'), and make your mind up on the issue. That's all I've been advocating. No more, no less. Other than that, I've been describing the situation I perceive here as I see it, as I've read about it, and as I hear about from within the medical professional field (alebit in a limited fashion, since I'm still a student).

That's precisely what most of those tests were doing, though; testing blood and/or urine levels of Marijuana in people involved in accidents, and comparing them to those in the general population. Drak: As for age, I'm 25. Thing is, your argument's nothing more than a straw man you set up, just to knock down, and isn't based on any hard evidence. It plays to the emotional angle. Now, I'll be the first to admit the limitations of statistics; the average stoned driver may do fine, but you've always got the very stoned and/or irresponsible driver who won't affect the average, but that hardly matters if that statistical abberation is the one that kills someone in an accident. I agree that saying drugged driving is 'safe' is a big, big stretch, and advocating it is idiotic. After all, see the campaigns against cell phone use (distraction), and warnings against driving when tired. I'm just saying it's not completely impossible that average stoned dude isn't the danger on the road some people here seem to want to prove they are. No more, no less. Besides, playing devil's advocate's just too much fun 8)

Read the source texts, where possible; half of the 'conclusions' the main page quotes (particularly the 'cannabis makes you a safer driver') aren't in the majority of reports, and it's obvious the website reviewing the articles is very, very biased. And the ones they are in, unsurprisingly, weren't published in peer-reviewed journals. Thing is, there are problems with the experimental setup: either they test people who were in accidents vs. a random sample on the road, and find very little to no correlation (ok, all that says is that it's not a highly significant element in road accidents, which, given the amount of smoking and driving that probably goes on, isn't surprising; I'd be interested to see if dope AND alcohol is worse than just alcohol), and in others, people are given dope and then asked to use a driving simulator, so, well, they've got an incentive to think about how they're driving. That's a biased, flawed experimental setup, and frankly, overly slow, paranoid drivers are often more dangerous than people pushing the speed limit but keeping an eye on the roads and surrounding traffic. You may not believe it, but flawed as they are, the studies do consistently indicate very little to no strong correlations between road accidents and marjuana use.

Oof...something is better than nothing, clearly. I'd reccomend getting a 1/4" (imperial) collet adaptor for whatever you get, so you can order bits from the US (often cheaper, and more choice available. I usually get high-quality Whiteside bits from routerbits.com). As for power, I've got 4 routers right now. Started with a big 900 watt Bosch plunger router (Blue, not Green. Professional line) which I still use and like quite a bit. Sturdy machines, quality motor, etc. You only really need adjustable speed (like, below 27000 rpm, etc) if you're using large diameter bits, something you really only should be doing if you've got a 1/2" collet bit (and that's something you won't find on budget machines). I've also got a small Bosch (green) POF 600 ACE, 600 watts, 6mm collet, single speed, which works well, and will do the job if need be. Both are plunge models (you'll only find plunge routers in European stores, I'll bet), and both will do in a pinch. Always, always take small, tiny bites, and multiple passes. Additional depth is always nice to have, and will depend on router size and bit size chosen. Remember you can always get a template bit (bearing on top) and a flush trim bit (bearing on the bottom) to help you route to full depth for things like trem cavities and body sides. My latest two are Porter Cable units from the US, bought a transformer for them, because I like the sturdy design and the fixed bases (A 690 and a 310 production lam trim, mostly for acoustic guitar work). My reccomendation: spend the most cash on your router; it's hands down one of the most useful tools for guitarmaking, used everywhere. Get a decent one, not an off-brand, no-name unit. Blue Bosch units are great if you can find them, even second hand, and the green line will do OK as well. Metabo and DeWalt also make quality routers, with slightly scary price tags to match. Trust me, though; you won't regret spending on a quality router, but you will regret skimping and getting a lousy, cheap machine. These things operate at high speeds, so you want solid construction, good bit holding, and quality motors. I've got a plain, simple Black and Decker drill, a cheap chinese drill press (was getting tired of futzing about for things like sanding drums and tuning machine holes), combined cost? Less than one good router. And I'm fine with that.

I wouldn't say a well quartered Cocobolo fingerboard is particularly unstable, and methinks its (un)gluability has been much exagerrated. It doesn't strike me as particularly brittle, definitely not more so than ebony, which is a lovely, wonderful fingerboard wood (and also, I might add, a not always very stable one). If it looks the part, go for it. It'll probably wear better than a MadRose board.

total b.s. anyone that tells me that being foggy in any way improves driving skills is just skewing the findings to say what they want them to say... oh yeah,talking on a cell phone is dangerous,but getting stoned and driving is not?give me a break i am all for recreational drug use...but responsibility is the key... ←

An oberfraese is indeed a router, but remember, google image search and amazon are your friends for pictures of tools. Should help. My advice with tools is and always remains: buy them as you need them, not all up front. A good/decent jigsaw is a very nice thing to have, and a decent sized router, to me, is absolutely essential. Much more so than a Dremel tool (which really, is only really necessary if you want to do inlay; it has little to no place doing ANYTHING at all heavy duty, and forget doing pickup or trem routes with it right now). Bosch's blue line is top notch, but pricey, but remember that saving too much on tools is a false economy; the crap stuff will die on you, and you will want a replacement eventually. You don't need all of StewMac's fretting tool kit; find a hammer locally, get a fret crowning file, get the fret nipper if you want a bound fingerboard, otherwise never mind, a few fret slot cleaning chisels, and the rest you can do with 'local' materials (go to the hardware store and find a flat mill file, that sort of thing). For hand tools, I like a japanese saw or two (scarfed headstocks, small one for fine cuts), but it's more 'crucial' for acoustics, IMO. A block plane and/or a #4 jack plane are great to have around, but have a learning curve. Flat blocks and sandpaper will do for a start, and are cheaper, investment wise. You'll want access to a drill press for tuning machine holes, and at least for drilling a 'guide' hole for your trem studs. You could make do with one of those Wolfcraft drill guide setups in a pinch. Also, clamps. Don't forget clamps. You want lots of those. Doublestick tape is your bestest template holding friend ever.

Jatoba's a south american, not African wood. Often called brazillian cherry, common for flooring, and has a fairly good rep as a tonewood, although it's not always the easiest to work. Merbau I'm not wild on; it looks quite a bit like mahogany, the tap's quite decen, but it's denser, heavier, coarser than even the coarsest of African mahoganies, and can be a bit splitty when worked. It's also not a whole lot less expensive than Sapele or Khaya, both of which I'd choose over Merbau if given the option. I see quite a bit of outdoor work done in Merbau, as it seems to wear well, and some of the figure's quite striking, but it's just not my thing.. Nice guitars, though! Looking sweet!

Ah....TruOil is a gunstock finish that most people in the US reccomend. Sports/Hunting stores have the stuff. Personally, I've used Liberon's Finishing oil, which looks to be more or less the same stuff. Go to a finishing place, and look for something based on tung or linseed oil that provides protection/finishing. As said, pure oil can work, but can take forever to dry.

I know, I know, bad me, digging up old-ass threads, but some of this stuff needs rectification. First, it ain't no gateway drug. Crafty, your numbers prove that, much as anything else; that hard drug users almost all (supposedly, depending on the study) use or have used Marijuana doesn't mean diddly. You'll probably find 99% of them also used alcohol, breathed air, smoked cigarettes, and watched pronography. B comes after A does not mean B has any causal relationship with A. The Dutch model also provides fairly strong evidence, with some of the lowest hard drug use in the world, and the Marijuana use is pretty marginal as well. And that in a country that's arguably got the highest THC content dope (on average) of anywhere, thanks to the fact it's semi-legalized. The 'gateway drug' argument is one oft touted, and never proved. Weed is less addictive than cigarettes (psychologically, yes, but nicotine is a powerful physically addictive substance) so average users (ie, those who don't abuse it, smoke daily, and/or smoke lots and lots of it) get less crap into the system. Tar content's usually lower, and weed's carcinogenic 'nature' is very much up for discussion. Kinda depends how 'clean' the stuff is, I suppose, but fact remains that exposure is important: how many you smoke/day makes a big difference to your cancer risk. Driving while stoned doesn't seem to be a big problem here, in the Netherlands, where it is a real possibility. People who do smoke (and it's not many of them) don't do it and drive, and very, very few will do it if they have to go to work the next day. It's just not THAT socially acceptable to walk in with a weed hangover, if you will, just as it's not really acceptable show up with a hangover after a night of binge drinking. Now to address some of El Dangerouso's analysis of the Dutch situation, based on some incorrect information, and some skewed perspective: It's not prosecuted, basically, which leaves us in a complicated situation: it decriminalizes users and sellers in very specific locations (coffeshops only), but it's still illegal to grow, except for personal use (ie, 3-5 plants, max). Meaning: production's still largely in the criminal circuit, but political pressure from outside means legalizing is a difficult proposition to say the least. The Netherlands is a small, if populous country in a very crowded part of the world. I'd prefer to see the whole thing legalized, because it would mean more taxation and controls would be possible. There's also the disturbing statstic that here (in Amsterdam), a healthy majority of Coffeeshop (ie, weed bar) owners have criminal records/criminal pasts. Not entirely unsurprising, given the not-quite-legality of it all, but still, not great. OK, this is where you're simply wrong. The Netherlands, for its size and population, very much IS an economic powerhouse. Maybe not like the US, and Maastricht is certainly a highly rural zone, but a powerhouse it remains. Huge amounts of engineering (I think quite a bit over half of all dredging/land reclamation projects go to Dutch companies), one big oil company (Shell), one of the largest remaining non-Asians electronics companies (Philips), a healthy banking sector (ING group, particularly), significant publicly traded companies with overseas presense (the majority of AHOLD revenue, dutch company, comes from it's US and South American super market chains, IIRC), and a strong position in the IT and other service and knowledge industry markets. Historically, it's a nation of entrepreneurs and traders, and some of that's still true today. We're pretty big on 'knowledge economics', not as big as the US (but few are). Maastricht, not s'much, but the Randstad area (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague), where about 11 million of the Netherland's 16.7 million inhabitants live, defnitely. Next, I lived in Maastricht for a full year; 99% of those 'strung out' folks in the parks (what 'parks', though? In Maastricht? Not much parkland...) are tourists from Belgium, France and Germany, over for the weekend to get high, and have a good night out. The downside to being very close to the border. It's a particularly problematic area because it's also not the strongest part of NL economically, and its proximity to the border means it is very popular with drug tourists. The locals who smoke will, as said, mostly do a joint or so on the weekend, and the park on a nice sunny day is as good a place as any to do it, with the same effect on GDP as going out on the town and getting good and drunk on the weekend has. Which is to say, not much at all. Have to say that I still saw very, very little evidence of hard-drug use (Heroin) anywhere in Maastricht, and even up here in Amsterdam, it's limited to certain areas (none of them parks), and the junkies are quite well mapped out (Social Health Services keeps tabs on most of them; locking them in jail just isn't the wanted option). Given there *is* no drug-realted downhill economic spiral, you're blowing smoke out your nether reagions, good sir ;-) The drug policy in NL has been in place for a good many decades now, and the economy's grown and shrunk like any other does in the business boom/bust cycle, drug use in the general population is lower than average, excessive drug use and hard drug use well within 'bounds', HIV relatively in check, teen pregnancy some of the lowest in the world (as opposed to the US, which has some of the highest), so I can't say you're basing yourself on much. Thing is, it's not as poisonous as some of the legal poisons, which is why many feel it's being treated unfairly. Secondly, let's look at the misunderstanding of supply and demand economics here: right now, the industry's huge, but it's underground, the profits go unreported, and there's a fair chance a good number of people working in it are actually drawing unemployment benefits; ergo, it's already sucking away productivity, and providing none. More would work in the industry, but these would be newly created jobs, new industry, more productivity in a sector not previously exploited, additional tax revenue, and probably decreased crime (and thus lower costs, particularly when it comes to drug-related internment) in certain specific areas. These aren't people 'drawn away' from other industries, necessarily, but new opportunities. Ones I personally wouldn't want to partake in, but then I'd never work for Big Tobacco either. That's a personal choice, and that it will always remain. You may not like it, I may not want to work in it, but to prohibit based on that is to prohibit using very flimsy arguments, to my mind. As you say, it's a capitalist model you're following, and you like it (it's got it's drawbacks when done the US way, IMO, like the complete lack of social responsibility felt for making good healthcare a fundamental right; I'm a med student, so it's a bit of a pet hate, but moving on..). The market regulates itself, and is currently doing so at full tilt. If it were legalized, weed would have to adhere to a number of health and safety rules, and the Dutch experience, for one, would indicate it would not lead to explosive increase in Marijuana use. Barely anything in a capitalist model has any tangible benefit beyond fulfilling demand in return for profits. It's an industry here, but still nowhere near a 'huge' one, and mostly a marginal, tourist-feeding (tourists are the #1 buyers and users of weed in NL, based on my observations) industry that could do with 'opening up' a little more. For the record, I don't smoke weed. I never have smoked weed, I don't want to smoke weed, I don't smoke cigarettes, but I do enjoy the occasional glass of wine, fine single malt scotch, or cool belgian beer. In moderation. Would I vote for outright legalization? Here, probably. Elsewhere, I'm not sure. It's still a potentially serious health risk (although not on the same level as nicotine or alcohol abuse is), but I do feel decriminalization of use, at the very least, is a healthy step to take.

All you US-based guys really, really have to realize that you can usually get hardwoods downright CHEAP compared to pretty much anywhere in Europe. Also, it's usually quite a bit easier. Seriously, Walnut costs as much as Mahogany (Honduran, about 3750-4500 euros/cubic meter, whatever the heck that is in board feet), and is generally imported from the US (Euro Walnut's quite a bit more expensive, and rare), same is true of Cherry, Maple, Swamp Ash etc. Alder's fairly findable, ish, but again, half the time it's American. African Mahogny is pretty affordable, relatively, as are quite a few of the other African hardwoods. Luthier's supply places, particularly the spanish ones, have some great deals on things like backs/sides for acoustics, and fingerboards, and we can find Italian Spruce tops for a fraction of what you can in the good 'ol US of A at fantastic quality, but beyond that, we got it pretty rough. When I see people saying 'build this jig with scrap maple, it's cheap and plentiful', I just laugh, and not in a happy way. There just isn't that big of an amateur woodworking market in Europe, as witnessed by the tools for sale; there's very little (like jointers, planers, thickness sanders, bandsaws) to fill the gap between hobbiest tools and full-on, high quality, but HUGE and EXPENSIVE industrial, often tri-phase powered, tools. However, having said all of that, 8 quid for a foot of maple is a tad very steep. I got a board of (flatsawn), slightly flamed maple about 6ft long, 8" wide, 1" thick for about 25 bucks, so 12-13 quid. About 30E for a 3" wide by 1" by 7' board of mahogany (honduran), although African's quite a bit less (5', 2" x 10-12" board for about 50 bucks). In short, over here, I expect to spend about 50-60 bucks on basic woods for a non-figured top electric, as a bare minimum, if I hit the lumber yard for all of it. My current two (Swamp Ash strat+tele, maple necks, EIR boards) came in at around 50-ish, all things considered. 70 if I count the whole board I bought for the necks, I suppose.. Also, bizarre as it may seem, the cheapest place and best serivce place to get a lot of your hardware is often gonna be the US, even with shipping and duties. StewMac still gets a bunch of my cash, GuitarFetish on eBay has gotten some as well (oh, and the majority of my back/side woods for acoustics came from the US), and there are a few other good eBay shops that may be worth looking at.

- I have no clue whether or not it needs grain filling. Look at it from an angle, in good light; if you see pores, they probably need filling. HOWEVER, since you want a 'natural' look and feel to the thing, I'd say don't fill it, no matter whether it needs it or not. - Superglue works nicely for fixing/zapping cracks, knots, etc. Try packing in some imbuya dust, and then dripping some water-thin superglue on it, waiting until it dries, then sanding it back. This can end up looking a bit too 'dark'. I'd 'zap' cracks with water-thin CA on their own first, though, to help stabilize them, then fill the gaps with whatever method you want. Two seperate issues. Other gap filling method: mix up some epoxy/sawdust. Try various amounts of epoxy and dust, until you get the 'right' colour when its dry. Should be able to simply apply it with a spatula/old credit card; probably too thick and goopy for a syringe. Test the 'look' of whatever you do on some scrap first though, to see what works for you in terms of looks. I really don't know how big/small the cracks are. - Oil and Wax is great, the ultimate finish for a 'natural' feel, and the only real way to test if it'll stick is to try it on scrap. Like any other finish, really. I'd probably go with Tru Oil, or a similar polymerized oil finish, over raw tung or similar. If you do decide to oil, ignore any statements about stopping sanding at 320 or 400 grit; the finer you go, the nicer the oil finish will look. I usually go up to 1200, or 0000 steel wool (which can be a pain, since you really, really don't want any steel particles remaining in the finish, oxidizing, and staining the heck out of everything) and then apply oil, maybe 5-8 coats (depending, really. Wipe on, let set, wipe off excess, scrub down between coats with fine steel wool or better, synthetic steel wool), then a coat of paste wax (carnuba/beeswax blend works well, make sure it's got ZERO silicone in it), and buff with an old T-shirt.

Am I really the only person who cringes when they see flamed maple on a guitar top? I mean, it's a dead-giveaway for one of two things (or both): photoflame, or plywood tops. Neither of which is particularly a great thing in my book.

Re: chambering, I do feel it's got an effect on sound, but it's one of many, many variables in construction, like anything else. All your choices will affect things, but it makes no sense to try to control every single one before you start building. Build, change things on the next one, and figure out what works for you. My chambered guitars (which is most of them) also usually have carved tops, both inside and out, and they do feel very 'lively', have a prominent mid-range, but do not suffer from any lack of 'bite'; my brightest guitar is my first scratch-build, a semi-hollow with a carved top, inside and out, and a block under the bridge. No F-holes, but it does give me very easily controllable feedback, even at moderate volumes. Chambered bodies vibrate differently from solid ones, obviously. What this means to the tone exactly depends on playing style, hardware choices, neck construction, wood choices, electronics choices, other construction decisions, and probably a few other things to boot. I think the only thing I've found across the board is that chambering makes a guitar a) lighter and slightly more responsive. I won't pretend to be able to predict how it'll affect the tone on any guitars but my own, and even then it's a bit of a crap-shoot.

...with clamps? Not quite sure I'm 'getting' the question here. You have a neck blank, you've squared up the sides, you've got body wings, and you've squared up those sides as well, if you've got a neck angle, you've probably marked that on the body (ie, glue the wings on at a slight angle, then afterwards plane the excess wood away to leave you with a nice, even flat top and back). Use brads or dowels to 'pin' the wings in place, so they won't slip and slide around when you actually apply glue, glue one side on at a time, use clamping cauls EVERYWHERE, and glue+clamp the whole shebang up. Alternately, if you want pictures, get Melvyn Hiscock's 'Make Your Own Electric Guitar'. Step by step neck-through construction right there.

Best bang for your buck? Probably a second-hand guitar. I quite like Taylor's Big Baby, but really, I'm not wild about much any guitar under around the $1000 dollar mark. Thankfully, I've invested about, oh, 4 times that in a wood stash that should keep me busy building acoustics well into the next decade...

The strat headstock's kinda...odd on there, has to be said, but it doesn't look completely wrong. Then again, maybe that's just 'cause I like strat headstocks. I agree a 3+3, probably symmetrical, would be a good choice for this. Fairly compact, not too 'heavy'. Somehting that follows the body design. I'm not wild about it, but I'm pretty conservative in my tastes (don't like my guitars too absolutely 'crazy'. I do have one potentially 'worry', though: the section between the bridge and the neck is very, very narrow, particularly if you're actually going to use a trem on it (as your drawing indicates). Take into account the mass removed for the trem cavity, and the pickup routes, and the fact you don't have much lateral wood left to provide extra stability, and you may end up with a guitar that's a tad too flexible at the body, which won't help tuning stability. Then again, I may be wrong. But draw it out really carefully, side and 'see-through' views. Thought 2: that's going to be incredibly annoying to play without a strap, unless you kind go 'classical style', and tuck your right leg into the cutout at the tail..

Yep, level sand it before you polish. If you've got a very, very smooth surface, go ahead and start with something like 1200 or 1500 grit, but I suspect you'll probably find that a bit slow (I generally start with 800). You want to make sure your whole finish surface is uniformly dull and unreflective post sanding, before you whip out the buffer.

MadRose is a bit lighter and less dense than coco, FWIW, but I don't know if you'll hear any huge, major tonal differences. Cocobolo is, IIRC, the heaviest, densest member of the rosewood family, and is one of the woods (along with Pau Ferro, I might add) that quite a few people react to adversely when working (dust causing skin and/or respiratory reactions), so if you decide to use it, be very, very careful with it. It is a gorgeous, if sometimes very 'red' (darkening with time, generally) wood, where MadRose has more browns and gold tints, and not always very, very dark ones. Honestly, I think you can't really attribute too much 'tone' to the fingerboard. Madrose, Pau Ferro, Cocobolo are all rosewood-like tonally, and will probably sound quite similar. Go with what you think looks nicest. Re: gluing, I've seen some reports of problems gluing Cocobolo, but for every one of those, I've seen 10-20 people saying they've never had problems gluing it with titebond. As with any joint, freshly prepared surfaces are best to achieve a strong joint (best to 'worst': planed, scraped, sanded).

If you mean PRS-style faux binding, this is how I did it on my last guitar. Didn't mask quite as well as I should've so the results weren't *quite* as even as I would've hoped, but there you go. I'm going to assume you want to stain the top itself as well here, since I did (black, sanded back, tinted topcoats then clearcoats). Otherwise, skip the first 5 steps. If you're just staining, and not shooting tinted topcoats, skip everything past step 5. If you're staining and tinting, you'll probably want to do it all. Make sense? Anyway, here goes: 1) Mask around the edge, leaving the portion that will become 'binding' unmasked, but masking the top adjacent to it. 2) Seal this binding edge well. You could spray stuff on, but my weapon of choice is some shellac (mix yer own, although I've heard good things about Zinnser's Seal Coat), about 3 coats wiped on with a paper towel. 3) Remove masking tape. 4) Carefully and dilligently scrape (scalpel, single edge razor blade) any and ALL sealer that got UNDER the tape away. If you don't, this will cause uneven staining. 5) Stain your topwood directly, if desired. I use water diluted stains, so that the solvent won't eat away at the sealer (shellac). 6) Once you've got everything stained as desired, shoot a mist coat (clear) of you finish of choice. 7) very, very precisely mask off ONLY the binding edge (And probably the sides, but that all depends on your finish choice). Pinstriping tapes available at automotive supply places is Good Stuff for this kind of thing. Tack it down snugly. 8) Spray your tinted coats, quickly is better, in 1 day is best. 9) When the color's where you want it, and everything's touch dry and a little (doesn't have to cure, or anything), take a fine scalpel blade (#11 is my weapon of choice), and gently scribe around the edge of the masking tape. You don't want the tape to lift the colour coat off with it when you remove it! You won't need much pressure if you use a brand new, sharp blade 10) Use the same scalpel or a single-edged razor to clean up any colour that may have gotten under the masking tape onto the 'binding'. 11) Spray your clearcoats, and consider doing a few 'extra' light passes around the edges; they've got a little less finish on them, and you want enough build thickness to safely 'level' any tiny bump at the transition area. Consider doing a good semi-full level half-way through your clearcoating schedule, so you can apply the last set of coats on a nice, smooth surface. It's not really horribly difficult to do, the results are great, but it does require very careful, precise masking, and meticulous scraping here and there.

Go with a pre-slotted board if you don't get a slotting setup/template of some kind, and just go for whatever neck style you want. My first from scratch guitar was a set-neck, scarf jointed headstock mahogany thing, and it's still fine to this day. Just make sure you think everything through, and work meticulously.