Andyjr1515

A late entry, I know....but may I present to you 'Impish Challenge' This is the 6-string electric, built for Tim (whose name tag on another forum is impmann) and, although not handed over yet, was just finished last night. I am a hobby builder with my first full build around 5 years ago. More recently, I have started taking on bass and guitar commissions in addition to building for my own use and fellow band-members. After a series of bass builds, it has been nice to go back to a 6-string build. Tim's spec / my result (as usual with my builds, sometimes two different things) was: 25.5" scale, 6-string Style to have passing nod to Alembic's wonderful '80's six stringers Low weight, chambered (finished weight 6lb 12oz) Camphor Laurel top; Sapele back; Wenge demarcation veneer Maple/purpleheart/mahogany/purpleheart/maple neck; figured ebony fretboard Alegree Custom stacked P90's Schaller Hannes piezo bridge Schaller 'flagShip' piezo/magnetic mixer-preamp Magnetic control chamber and trussrod covers The build diary is here. Here are some pictures: And here are some (poorly played) sound clips: Magnetic only: mid; neck; bridge Piezo only Piezo / Magnetic mix: mid; neck; bridge Thanks for looking, folks Andy

Yes indeed

Great job Top drawer stuff

It's looking good from here I think a kit is a great way of easing into building - and there are some really nice kits around. I agree that I've also never seen mahogany that colour, but as long as it does the job. Also the veneer looks really nice and well applied. 0.6mm is the standard thickness for veneers so this is a decent jobee

It's worth remembering that a locking nut means also needing a fine tuning mechanism at the fixed bridge/floyd-type trem end. Again, for a 7 string, these start getting very scarce in terms of choice and often are quite expensive. The alternative is standard nut and locking tuners (although many players don't even see the need for locking tuners). We should all stress, by the way, that what we generally put forward in these kinds of threads are thoughts to consider or elements to dig a bit deeper into. We rarely say 'you should do this' or 'do it this way' - and there are many things I personally share that I preface with 'I don't know if this is going to work so please don't assume I do!' What you'll find the folks around here can do - and willingly do - is to share the things that have worked for them, share the disasters (and we ALL have them) and share the 'conventional wisdom'. But as @ScottR wisely says, don't worry too much about breaking the rules. It is, on the other hand, worth pondering why most builders tend to do similar things in certain situations - there's often a good reason

Carry on with this thread by all means . Ref case, it doesn't have to be an Ibanez case, of course. Most case suppliers give the main dimensions so its just a check that someone does a case that will be long enough (which is almost certain)

That is a very special looking guitar Wonderful stuff.

Hi, Liquorice. Welcome to this great forum I suppose my first question would be whether it is the functionality you are not sure about, or the look - or are you trying to produce an exact replica? Functionality-wise, the two things that I personally would normally be thinking about are: Can I achieve straight string runs? Will it fit in a 'standard' commercial case or gig bag? If it's a yes and a yes, I would then ask myself: And does it look OK with the body style? And if that's yes also, I would be a happy chappy Generally, if I'm basing a build on an original, I aim to build 'in the style of' rather than exact replicas . As long as it's not a commercial venture, the big boys wouldn't normally pick fights with home builders anyway, but it is worth remembering that logos are almost always trade-marked and, interestingly, headstock shapes often are too. And anyway, my aim would be to try and build something better than the original - so why wouldn't I want to put my own spin on the headstock shape? So, unless you really do want an exact replica, I wouldn't worry about it. If it looks good and is going to function OK, then all is well

Yes - looking good. I'm completely with you in striving to avoid routers wherever possible. I'll use one to trim a glued on back, but the tops I do by hand nowadays.

Honestly, though, close up it's not a patch on a well applied spray and buff finish. But, as @ScottR says, it works for me....and, for me, spray and buff generally doesn't!

Once it had fully dried, I still wasn't certain about the gloss so I've given it another coat. This time I added a teeny % (8% max) of mineral spirits to stop the brush drag and make it level a bit better. You know, this new formulation REALLY doesn't like being thinned. It ended up just about OK but I think I'm going to contact the manufacturer's technical department and find out what thinners they recommend... Gosh - could I be looking at not using standard polyurethane varnish in the future???? Anyway, this - I am sure - is good enough to polish out the micro brush marks once it's fully hardened. It doesn't bear close examination until then but it looks fine at a distance While the gloss is curing, I can still get on with the finishing jobs...which is what I'll do next, starting with re-seating a couple of dodgy frets and levelling / crowning / polishing and fret-ending

First coat of varnish is now on the back: The neck will be left unvarnished - the tru-oil slurry and buff approach for a neck is pretty unbeatable in my view... In the meantime, the top and sides have had their second coat: As with one of my other recent builds, because of the environmentally led formulation change of the polyurethane varnish I've pretty much always used, I've switched to using an artists fan brush. The new formulation doesn't react at all well to medium to high levels of thinning - pretty much essential for the wipe-on method - and life was too short to try everyone elses standard polyurethane varnish. I was also not convinced with a recent try of the Osmo polyx gloss - even though I found the satin absolutely great - I had severe reactions to second coats with the gloss even though they had been left to dry for the recommended time before recoating. I can't do with ultra-sensitive coatings...particularly when they are even sensitive to themselves!!! The great thing about this standard polyurethane varnish is that it will go on top of pretty much anything...

And first coat of gloss is on :

As I say, it's a tale for when you're cut off from civilisation with no TV, no internet, no phones, once the I-spy has gone round the alphabet at least ten times and drinking beer is the only other way of passing time... Let's just say it's a long and tortuous saga involving Francis Ford Coppola, James Caan, an unknown Hollywood producer and me

..and the only reason I watched it, @ScottR , was because it had James Caan in it and - the story being far too long and improbable to be worth relating or listening to other than over a crate of beer in a hut cut off by snow somewhere in the wilderness - I have a special affinity towards James Caan as there is a better than 90% probability that a short cameo scene in one of his films from the late 90's was written by me... Quite....

Got caught up watching a film that I should have left for another evening! I regret it this morning, of course....

Not sure. I'm actually using pretty heavy-duty stiff and cloth backed abrasive. I don't think it softens at all but the slurry very quickly fills between the abrasive grit pieces which must help.

Ooohh - I now understand what you are saying! I had assumed the braces were flat backed as well. OK - so basically, you will roughly end up with the same shaped top as if you were using a radius dish. Clever. Although, knowing how much my home-made GoBar top already bends under the tension from the rods pressing the guitar top into the radius dish, I'm not at all sure I would trust mine to press curved braces hard enough to ensure the required clamping force for a decent glue joint!

Sounds like a great result, whatever the factors in play are I'm not sure what additional tension results from gluing on a flat surface - or have I misunderstood what you are saying?

Hi I've only just picked this one up - apologies for the delay. To radius or not is one of those topics where there is probably no definitive answer. Most - but not all - commercial acoustic steel-string builders put a spherical radius on the top and the back. 'Typically' this is around 25' radius at the top and 15' radius at the back. However, from the various reading and discussion I've had, I've never been convinced that there is a concensus as to the actual and proven advantages. The great majority of acoustic builders follow pretty closely the 30's (?) Martin dimensions, radii and bracing patterns. I'm sure Martin did a lot of trial and error builds before they hit on that particular design, but again - as far as I can work out - many modern builders generally work on the basis of 'it works alright then why change it?'. I HAVE seen detailed scientific studies of harmonic response of various top and bracing designs, but I haven't personally seen any similar studies of flat vs radiussed. So my own personal views: There are one or two noted manufacturers that do flat tops. As far as I know, all classical guitars have flat tops. So, personally, my view is that it sonically it probably makes little difference. The only thing it might do is 'tension' the top as you would tension a drum skin. The back does pretty much nothing sonically on an acoustic guitar. Hence the simple bracing. It is there for volume projection and unlikely to be impacted by the radius. You could argue maybe that it 'focuses' the sound like a headlight reflector...but I think that is unlikely Brace design, node position, top thickness, top wood, etc, however, does make a HUGE difference to the tone. I do 'tap tuning' personally and have had enough success to know that it works; I absolutely don't understand how to optimise it, though! Having said all that, do I radius the tops and backs? Yes And why is that? Because for the first build, I followed a plan that had radius in. And it worked. And it sounds great. And for the second build...I did it because I'd already made the radius dishes and - well, it worked for the first one, so why risk changing anything else? Maybe not very scientific, but reasonably pragmatic! But - the build challenges. Well....most of the REALLY difficult parts of an acoustic build are directly or indirectly caused by the radii. And remember, classical guitars are flat. And they can project beautiful tones in an unamplified auditorium. So maybe my reasoning is not even pragmatic Hope this helps Andy

No - surprisingly it doesn't seem to add scratches. In fact, since I started doing it like this all of my grit scratch issues have gone away! I can only think that it creates SUCH a slurry, that the whole surface of the timber mushes up. Like always, I would never say 'this is the way to do it' because it sort of defies the conventional wisdom - and conventional wisdom, by and large, is held for a darn good reason. But this is a day later - if I'd been going for a satin finish, it would actually be done!!!! So - in just two days - all with slurrying: one run with 80 grit; one run with 120 grit; two with 180 grit; final one with 400 grit: Bonkers, isn't it I'll be leaving this now for a few days for the tru-oil to properly harden ready for gloss coat of the body and headstock plate to properly bring out the figuring. The neck will be left as above to retain the silky-smoothness.

Final build task before starting the finishing is tidying up the neck profile. I will do one last tweak once the guitar is finished and all strung up but to get it pretty close, I go by feel and then, holding the guitar a bit like a back to front cello, I use a scraper - drawing up the neck length very lightly - to take away any lumps or bumps along the length or facets around the profile curve. And that's it! Basic build is complete and finishing has now started I use a variation of the tru-oil slurry-and-buff method as a combined sanding lubricant, grain filler and sealer. The body will actually be gloss varnished eventually, but I have found this method to be just as good as a gloss prep method as a finished method in its own right The only difference (if at all) is that I probably use coarser abrasive cloth at first - typically 120 grit but sometimes even 80 grit. This is the first application following the normal 'final sand': Five minutes later, I have this: And then fifteen minutes later I have this on the back and neck too: The slurry from the sapele, wenge and purpleheart will, if not wiped off, discolour the maple, so I always wipe off the wet tru-oil from the maple even before I start the actual slurry and buffing. When dry - this will look a bit naff - as the oil soaks in differentially. I will probably repeat with a coarse grit once more, once it has fully set, before starting the proper slurry and buffing Sunday/Monday-ish In the meantime, to MrsAndyjr1515's delight, there are a couple of small guitar and bass jobs that have been waiting a while that I'll be getting on with.

This probably illustrates easier. The binding was glued to the straight and square side of the fretboard, leaving a 2mm step along the join with the neck. Using a scraper, and the fret-ends as the limit at the fretboard level, I scraped at an angle to taper the binding at the neck profile angle and lose the step. You can see an area still to do on the righthand side of this photo: The bit of luck is that if the fretboard had already to been shaped to the flat 'C' it will be when finished, instead of the slight 'D' it was still at, I could not have hidden the step where the binding meets the maple as a smooth, continuous curve - there would have been a kink in it. Phew!

Well it's a through neck - which was one of the main challenges! So the binding strip had to be let into the figured top which took a bit of nerve and hope. The lucky bit is that the neck wasn't fully shaped at the sides, so there is still a smidgen of maple to come off as I chamfer the bottom of the binding for a smooth transition. In fact, it's my very next job....

Yes - a poor design in many ways. Even down to the rear bush being 13mm! Our leading machine tool distributor chain don't even do a 13mm Forstner!!! In the end I had to use a brad-point drill but far from satisfactory for a bush.