avi ten

Very nice work, Avi. I like your aluminum headpiece solution, and how your logo reflects the body shape. I can imagine it being very comfortable to play.

What brand of tuners did you use?

Thanks. Here is a closeup of the head. A proper metal head for a headless guitar costs about 100 US$, This costs 0. I did not invest in a nice plate pateren as I was not sure tht it will work, next time.

The Tuners are simple no name tuners. You can see here how they are mounted. the idea is to have the tuners at the same level of the back side of the body.

First I attach photos to show how thin it is:

in front is a Jazz III pick___________________________________________it passes under the neck of a regular bolt neck guitar

Then I would like to explain what this guitar is, and what it is not.

For me guitar playing and building is fun and soul fuel, not a profession or money maker. part of the fun is to explore, search, understand and question. In order to get a guitar that sounds and looks like a LP or a Strat I can go to the store. This is why this guitar is "….a collection of different elements…". I learned from a single build what can be done, what not, and what is just a mambo jumbo of marketing. I wrote in the forum to share my experience on the principles and not on the nuts. That is, in spite of some comments and some of my mistakes, the guitar sounds good, it is very comfortable to hold and play and although it is so thin it is easy and cheap to build

The guitar was not designed to enter the GOTM competition. I am not skilled, experienced, crafted or equipped enough to this high level. For this reason I accept all the comments about ways to improve, no need to apologize.

On the top horn issue: I wanted to check if the horn can be used to stabilize the grip of the guitar, not only to be there as a base for the strap pin. I found that it is really working. The problem is that its angle should be fitted to the player's style of holding the guitar, but this is what custom guitars are build for (if you want to listen). The dildo look is of course something to modify; I have some ideas about how to do it in the next build.

I can assure that the brightness isn't from the thickness of the wood. My Superthin prototype was limba body, spanish cedar neck. Both are known to be warm woods, and the guitar was indeed warm. IDK what beech's tonal characteristics are, but we all know that maple is uber-bright. Since yours is bright overall, I'd imagine beech is on the bright end as well.

The major difference I noticed in the sound of my prototype was that it sounded more open.. more alive. Thinning the wood down made it a lot more lively.

Thanks avengers63, I will certainly use your comments, during this build, to improve my next build.

Still I wonder, If technically it is possible to build a thin light weight guitar, and if by correct choice of wood even maintain a good tone, Why is the standard these heavy fat guitars? Something that I am missing?

Ummm...I am not sure what you mean.

I build thin light guitars and the guys who buy them tell me they like them so it is possible. You just need to spend more time on your design. It took me 4 years to figure it out and I am still working on it.

Also there is a place for tradition. The Les Paul is the defacto standard for thick and heavy. I would argue that it is the single greatest example of overbuilding a guitar. Yet it is an amazing instrument. Because most people think they are solid (most models are not) they try to bring this element into their design.

A lot of guys try and take parts of guitars they like and incorporate that into new models. Sometimes it works and sometimes it sucks... that is how it is. In the late 70s BC rich and Gibson all built thin lighter guitars. During the 80s there was a myth that thick guitars sounded better (blame Lynch and VH) so we all started building thicker guitars (ala San Dimas Strats 2" thick). During the 90s Parker convinced me what I thought in the 80s was wrong and I started going the other direction... I lost track for a few years but when I started back I knew what I wanted to do.

I finally realized they were all right. And the best guitars are what is the best combination of design and art. Thick or thin. Tone and the electricity the player feels when playing the instrument are all that matter.

I fully agree with your last sentence. Somehow I suspect that tradition is also a point to add to this sentebce. I am wondering how come that an instrument that is synonym to rock, and what it represents, is so bound to tradition. I asked the manager of a guitar school and store if he can sell my instrument. His answer was that the quality is fine but in order to sell it, it should look like a Strat and painted black. I can not understand this conservatism. I even see this attitude in this forum, a cold wind toward anything that is not in line with the standard. Sorry forum members for saying that.

I can assure that the brightness isn't from the thickness of the wood. My Superthin prototype was limba body, spanish cedar neck. Both are known to be warm woods, and the guitar was indeed warm. IDK what beech's tonal characteristics are, but we all know that maple is uber-bright. Since yours is bright overall, I'd imagine beech is on the bright end as well.

The major difference I noticed in the sound of my prototype was that it sounded more open.. more alive. Thinning the wood down made it a lot more lively.

Thanks avengers63, I will certainly use your comments, during this build, to improve my next build.

Still I wonder, If technically it is possible to build a thin light weight guitar, and if by correct choice of wood even maintain a good tone, Why is the standard these heavy fat guitars? Something that I am missing?

Hello to all

It is almost finished now. It needs only tuning.

The good news is that there is no problem in the neck join, although it is that thin.

The tone of the guitar is little higher than it was with the same pick-ups on a "fat" guitar. It may be good for some players or, it needs more worm pick-ups.

Now about the "dildo" upper horn, although some don't like it, I may write a patent on it. I found it excellent on sitting position; you can hold the guitar against the body and play on the fret-board even without pressing opposite it with the tomb.

Better photos will follow. I want also to find a weight to know how much it is lighter then a standard guitar.

Avi Ten.

Finally it is in one piece, I glued the neck to the body. I put on each side of the neck cavity's shoulders a veneer shim. I need so much force to push the neck inside that I did not put any clam to hold it while drying the glue.

The result is excellent. The join is tough and does not bend with strings loaded.

Basically most of the goals of this prototype were achieved. It is possible to build a thin body guitar (0.85") with standard and cheap parts, and the result is a short and surprisingly light guitar (I will weight it with all the hardware).

Now I have to finish it and see the sound quality, after all this is the test.

Avi T.

the B is most balanced for playing because of the position of the narrow curves, but A looks the best. maybe you can add the A unusuall style to the Bbase.

Thanks all for the help. I add here few new things:

I realized that with the thin guitar the regular single coil should be routed differently because there is not enough wood for the screws. To solve this for this work I just glued shoulders for the screws. Here is a picture:

I changed the neck's head to a headless neck. I cut the head about 1.1" from the nut and then glued a part of the leftover on top to get the level of the fret board. Then I attached 2 aluminum plates (as seen in the photos here) and drilled holes for the strings. I achieved the goal of minimum cost, after finishing it I still have to prove that it works.

Before assembling I wanted to personalize the guitar. I think that an important feature of a hand made guitar is to make it personalized and different and from the mass production.

I almost finished the name veneer inlay and begin the rock symbol inlay.

I cross my fingers for the next step, will the neck join hold the tention?

Avi Ten.

what, this one:

http://projectguitar.ibforums.com/index.php?showtopic=44161

iirc some of this thread was lost due to forum downtime - but johns thread is in tact

oh, thank you for that link, sir!!!

HELLO

The "most thin"(the pictures on this page) guitar is my build, while the "super thin" is the build of "avengers65". it so happened that after the forum downtime my first posts were deleted and one of avengers65's remarks appeared as the first post. I hope that the moderator can correct this.

soonI will report on more.

Hello to all

We, beginners, planning without CAD, carving without CNC, makers of not perfect guitars, makers of unusual designs, enjoy and love what we are doing and thus we are proud abut our disability to create balanced and perfect guitars.

Avi

Hello,

I had a post and later some people respond to it "Project Guitar Forum> Tech Area - English> In Progress and Finished Work>most thin guitar".all of this disappeared last week. I tried to put it back but the post is now not at the top/ How to?

Hello,

The original post was delegated from the forum so I put it back. Unfortunatly I can not bring back the replies but I added my reply.

This is a prototype project and I called this project "most-thin" guitar as I have seen the description of avengers63 telling about his "super-thin" guitar.

For the first project I decided to build a prototype in order to test by myself some changes to the common designs:

I want to find if it really necessary to use "tone woods"? After all it is an "electric guitar" and not a classical "wood guitar". The body was build from 3 pieces of beech wood, standard material for furnishers. This wood is 24 mm thick which means that after processing it will be about 21-22 mm (about 0.85"). This brings to the test the need of wood mass to get nice tones. After all playing should be fun and not weight carrying.

The body gluing:

The neck is a modified one from an old cheap "Cort" guitar that I dismantled. I will join the neck to the body with V shaped joints. They were carved partly by manual chiseling (sorry, no CNC, you can see it in the picture) so they are not matching exactly but I will solve it when it will be glued. The other items mentioned here I have seen on different other guitars, except for these joints.

neck join:

I was inspired by the ideas of thehttp://buildingtheergonomicguitar.com/ site and decided to build a headless guitar. It will be done later and will end in a short, low weight, easy to handle guitar. The lower side of the body is widely carved for better playing in sitting position while the upper body is carved to get a hugging effect. I hope you like it, I like the feeling.

I used also the other hardware, including pickups, from that dismantled guitar. For the electronics I have to do some modifications because the original switches do not match the low width.

routed prepered for smoothing:

Last but not less important, all my choices were guided by the need for cheap and standard materials that will be needed to build a totally new guitar like this. This is why I didn’t use a neck-thru and I used standard tuning keys at the back instead of expensive special parts that are available on the market.

Best Regards,

Avi Ten

And here is the answer to the comments:

Thanks for the encouragement and comments. I put together my ideas on the above remarks:

The two horns look more balanced in practice then in the pictures, and it will still be shaped in the fine wood work.

I have good reasons for the long upper horn. The truth is that I did not know how long it should be so I cut the maximum length that was available on the wood, planning to shorten it on the run. After the first shortening it looked to me so nice that I stopped cutting it. The upper side has two ergonometric considerations: the curve is a little closer to the front (compared to standard guitars), this together with the high horn makes it more convenient to hold the guitar closer to the body at sitting position and holding the neck at an upward position.

I agree that the beech is not the best choice. If this guitar works good I will have to builds the next from another wood. I need help from the forum to find a wood for this: light, strong and stiff to function at this low profile and…. not too exotic or costly.

I am not so worried about the fact that neck joint is not perfect. I am still playing with the height of the guitar elements on this low body thickness so that I am not sure about the final angle of the neck to the body (I am trying to go down with the elements so as not to end up with a thin body but a fat frofile) . The sloppy chiseling will give me the freedom in angle fixing. Hahah, nice excuse. Anyway, on the next guitar it must be perfect.

What I learned from the prototype:

A bolt-on doesn't work very well. A uber-thin body is better suited for a neck-through. I didn't try a set neck, but I'd imagine it'd run into the exact same issues as a bolt-on.

Room for the electronics is a major issue. Switches aren't thin and need more clearance than the body might allow. If you go less than 1", you'll need to either go with cheap, miniature pots & switches or get really creative. Combine this with the thickness taken up with the cavity cover and pickguard mounted electronics are the way to go.

Pickup cavity depth is a major issue. If you use HBs, the mounting wings should come straight out from the base plate, not down and then out. Pickup design will help the depth of the actual pup. If the magnet is under the coils instead of using magnetic pole pieces, extra depth is needed. With careful pup selection, you could easily save 3/8"-1/2" of crucial pup depth.

yes I agree with the neck connection remark. we will see how it is stable at the end.

on the electronics: I will solve this by replacing the 5-way selector and pus-pull knob with a 6-way rotary selector. I need only slight bending of the soldering pins to fit in.