Mattia

I've been wondering what's the best way for a beginner to do a clear top like that. Reading some of these threads about applying clear-coats it sounds a very long and dangerous process (in terms of the toxicity and fumes from the paints, and requiring a spray-booth? to do it properly)...

←

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.

I've made my first major mistake.

I cut the taper in the neck before doing the scarf joint - I don't know why I did it, just had a brain fart and realised afterwards.

As you can see from the pic (planning the angles), i've tried to continue to plane it and glue it together, but because there is such little gluing area i'm finding it very difficult to get a good join, the headstock just comes off and to make matters worse, I made the angle to steep (my fault for not setting up the mitre guage correctly). I've since cut a straight cut removing the steep angle, and i wondered is possible to glue an extra price on for the headstock and get a good join, if so, how would I go about that??

If it can't be repaired i'll convert this neck thru into a glued neck by cutting of the current neck section at the body, although i would like to be able to repair it if it can be done.

←

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.

Duh, forgot to post my main question. Are the stewmac metallic dyes really superior to all other dyes? If so, why?

←

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.

So I take it you have a 2 wire hum and want to split it, unprofesional though, it cant be done without rewinding the pickup.

It would also be esier to use the 5 way as normal then using a concentric put in one position for volume and tone and a push pull in another for neck on to give you complete switching variations.

←

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.

Mattia, have you actually used some of the bandsaws that I mentioned - these all range from 12" to 14" and the DeWalt model can be had for under £500. I tested that unit recently and can confirm it is very good quality and easily a match for delta. Scheppach basato range is also top notch and a 12" can be had for under £400, if re-sawing is a priority then your somewhat right, but re-sawing is not all that a bandsaw can be used for. I disagree 100% that DeWalt or Scheppach are hobby tools - simply not true.

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.

What's a plane?

Please don't say something that flies.

←

....

Right. Looky here: http://www.axminster.co.uk/category.asp?cat_id=207024

Planes and scrapers are your friends. Spokeshaves can be fun too.

This is simply not true, there are many good and useful bandsaws around for not much money. I myself am using a cheap 10" sip bandsaw, and so far it's been faultless, i've cut the neck and fingerboard taper with it, the body shape, the scarf joint, the neck profile and even used it to tidy up some straight edges, all this work and it only cost £129.

Sure, its not the most fantastically built, and I can forget about re-sawing, but for someone who wants a cheap bandsaw to help with affor-mentioned tasks can't really go wrong.

There are also good and reasonably priced bandsaws from Record, DeWalt, Scheppach - all of which are very good machines, you certainly do not need to spend £1500 on a bandsaw unless you are doing a very level of work.

←

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.

Hiya,

I know I've mentioned this in another post, but I didn't seem to get any replies >_>...

Can sanding an acoustic archtop to remove paint be done in the same manner as in Brian Calvert's tutorial on the site - or are any precautions needed in terms of binding around the edges and f-holes? Also, What is the best way to protect the fretboard while doing it?

cheers,

elynnia

←

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.

it would stand to reason that active pups would be even more sensitive to wood's tone as they would pick up nuances of the acoustic structure that passives might not even pick up.

←

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.

Ah, I guess the Bocaster isn't different enough, eh? 

Hey, I'm new here. I really can't keep track of who's built what quite yet ;-)

My next project won't be anything original though --it's based on an existing, if somewhat obscure, design.  And the mod I've just about finished is a tele with a --ugh!-- natural finish...

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*

I'd say that coming up with a truly unique and original body style that actually works --not only functionally but aesthetically --is something extremely difficult to achieve.

And this seems especially so for project builders-- you don't have the same split in functions that you'd find at an actual guitar company, that is, a dedicated design department, a dedicated engineering division, and a true production unit. Coupled with the resources to build as many prototypes needed as necessary to perfect the design.

Which is why it's rare to see a project builder stray very far from what's already been done (although a few of them will try to tell you their design is original). And it's even rarer for a project building to come up with a completely original design that still works on all levels.

Hell, even companies like PRS end up copying other companies' designs, just tweaking here and there so they can call it original...

←

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.

I was considering not voting this month, since none of the guitars really thrill me personally --and Jeremy helped put the finger on why that is : I'm just getting bored of seeing all these highly figured woods...

and what do you people have against pickguards? Don't you understand that they're functional AND they're an important element of the design.

←

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'm thinking about making wooden bobbin covers for my current project.  i won't have any trouble making them but i'm wondering whether i need to remove the current plastic ones or glue the wooden ones over them.  if i need to remove the old ones what's the best way to do that?  one of the pups is an 80's gibson t-bucker so i don't want to mess it up.

←

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 :-)

It is still interesting to me to see the limited number of tools available  in some countries. Here in the US hardly anything is made here, but we sure are lucky with what is sold here.

←

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.

Ahh ok, looking pictures I understand now !!

Is this OK to buy what do you say??

BAND SAW

Demian.

←

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

After a "lunchtime" MSN search... I'm just as Ignorant about luan as I was before. My first search "luan" came back with peoples names. My second "luan wood" came back with layerd type woods and things like doors made from the luan I see daily (layerd like plywood). Now a search for "Meranti" got some wood that looked similar to mine.

I did find one site that said luan was a mahogany veneer.

Do you have any links so I can compare mine, and make sure I dont have junk wood? I would hate to waste a week or two working on a neck thats made from junk.

Thanks

JJ

←

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.