mistermikev

59 minutes ago, Prostheta said:

Bookmatching requires a heavier gauge of stock, at least twice that of the desired workpiece. Bookmatching the back of most instruments would need stock at least four inches thick, which is not a nice job to try and dry reliably. That's without mentioning the higher demands on yield/waste, and that most sawmills won't cut to that sort of gauge without you buying wood by the metric shit tonne (as opposed to an Imperial shit ton). Most wood on the open market is available a couple of inches or 52mm in gauge. Have a look over Novowood's (in Lahti) inventory as that's where I buy most of my Sapele for furniture and architectural.

Flitch matching is more than adequate for a non-figured piece of wood where you're not trying to achieve symmetry by specific figuring patterns. Done well, you'd have difficulty telling a bookmatched versus a flitch matched back.

hehe - get out of my head!  absolutely right.  pretty rare to see 4" thick ash.

metric shit ton... lol... I'm stealing that and it's going on your greatest hits album.

i tried to look up novowood but it's not what I expected?  flooring?

not sure what flitch matching is please explain... I assume that's another term for slip match?

49 minutes ago, Prostheta said:

Single-piece bodies are highly dependent on the wood type yielding stable wood over a large width, which is a far less common thing these days. Ash is easily available in wide slabs, but I wouldn't trust it to produce a stable flat workpiece over any sort of width unless it was super wide ring radius from the outside of the tree for flat ring orientation, or a piece that contained the pith dead centre that could be cut out and rejoined for vertical ring orientation.

i actually have seen 14" wide 8/4 at my local spot but the grain wasn't all that pretty and passed.  it is fairly rare for me... very rare to have good looking stuff that wide.  in my case I was more concerned about getting a good 'hide' of the seam which I think I did well... further I have heard arguments that you are better off with (if 2 piece) with one big piece and one small piece as the majority of the body is continuous.  I'm not sure that makes a big dif but it was in my head when I did this one. 

taking away from this to look for much tighter grain next time and to try to do a center seam and perhaps better symetry.

3 hours ago, Bizman62 said:

For what it's worth I've often wondered why the bottoms rarely seem to be bookmatched or even closely so. Of course in two piece bodies without a separate top only one face can be bookmatched and in that case it'd be the top. But I've seen lots of guitars (or rather pictures) with very unmatching backs. I can't tell if they've used some very expensive wood there but if one piece is straight and the other curls at a 45 degree angle from the seam... That definitely looks cheap to me!

Re this guitar, I think a possible reason for that semi-negative comment is due to the body pieces not being symmetric. The flat part of the bottom looks like one piece but in the cutaway and at the end the grain lines draw a highly visible V-pattern. To me it looks quite nice in the cutaway, but in all honesty the asymmetric end looks a bit less thought of than the rest. Either a two-piece with a center stream or a symmetric three-piece might have looked a bit more refined.

very good feedback biz.  i think the reason you don't see bookmatching on the back is because it would require some extraordinarily thick wood.  you'd have to start with 16/4 material in most cases.  kevin's was center seam... and looked a bit more bookmatched... but it was just slip matched.  something to keep in mind I guess.

57 minutes ago, RVA said:

That is my interpretation of the "one piece" designation for the blue one and my experience with PRS. I own 7 and was covetous of many more! I could be wrong on the red one. 

roger that.  I believe you... just was surprised as I think that'd take some 10/4 stock... 14" wide... yeah, that'd be pretty rare.  thanks again for the replies.

4 minutes ago, RVA said:

They are usually solid ash (see links below). I though about the book matching aspect when I posted the pic, then I thought how sad it is that a solid piece would be less attractive to some. The links below are one piece

https://reverb.com/item/54405863-prs-swamp-ash-special-2002-one-piece-swamp-ash-body-maple-fretboard-moon-inlays-turquoise-prs-case

https://reverb.com/item/1272058-prs-swamp-ash-special-paul-reed-smith-usa-sas-with-hardcase-and-tags

are you positive that by "one piece" they mean the body and the top are all one continuous piece... or rather that there is a one piece top on a one piece body?  Not saying it's impossible... but the front side has very dif pattern than back.  there are a couple of picks there were it really looks like the grain isn't continuing on to the side... I could be wrong... and perhaps it doesn't matter. 

More importantly... I don't see anything in that ash that would suggest that it's necc high quality.  the back side of that blue one - now that's a good piece.  very tight grain, no runout... but the top has runout all over the place and imo really isn't attractive enough to be a top.  

i say this all as a statement... but really hoping someone could correct me and teach me how to locate swamp ash just by looking at it!  that would be a valuable skill!

attractive... I have some really nice one piece stock... and can appreciate that... but symmetry... it just is easy on the eye and it's rare to find in a one piece.

2 minutes ago, RVA said:

This is highly subjective. You picked a wonderful piece of ash, but the masses generally are not "wowed" by ash IMHO. I think it is an irrelevancy with nothing to be learned unless you are evaluating marketability. 

I would note that PRS does sell "swamp ash" guitars that are quite popular. They often look like this, with "rings" and curves

 

 

thank you very much for the reply!  well... afa I know there is nothing about any ash that would tell you it's swamp ash just by looking at it.  by definition... swamp ash is just any variety of ash that happens to be light weight.  In truth that'd be pretty rare in white ash... but not impossible, or so I've read.  what my eyes are latching on to there in that prs... is the bookmatching.  I think this makes a good point altho perhaps unintended... if I had some 16/4 ash... bookmatching it is a great way to make it asym and look fantastic.  In case of this prs I suspect that's just a top... which makes it much less 'astounding'.  I'd like to see the back of it!  I will take that away from this on thing tho... perhaps I should have added an ash veneer on the backside of this guitar.  Thinking of it now it's like "why the heck didn't I think of that?  despite all odds... I have learned something.  Thank you RVA.

so if I may... I posted this guitar on a number of sights.  always interested in potentially learning something or seeing it from the outside in.  overwhelming positive response but I believe there is probably something to learn from the one semi-negative response I got... perhaps.  

"Wood grain on the back looks like a less than expensive piece of wood."

so, have to at least ask myself - is there something to this?  On the one hand... looking at the ash I used... in his defense... it is just plain old ash... not anything fancy like if I went out and overpaid for 'swamp ash'.  It is def not "paint grade".  Is it a "choice" piece of ash... well it's def good 'nuff for me... but I have to wonder what a more expensive piece of ash would "look" like.  

I guess if I had my choice of ten boards... I would go for something with really tight grain lines everywhere with little to no runout.  At the place I would buy this ash... it'd be the exact sm price.  That said finding some w/o any heartwood or other blemishes is def more difficult.

so my question is... what is your interpretation (trying not to just dismiss him) of what expensive ash looks like (short of building the guitar from tamo ash!)?  

        ◦ The woods and materials used, especially if there is something unusual in there!
2 piece white ash body
quilted maple top
birdseye neck with birdseye fretboard
paua abalone inlay, birdseye/paua pickup covers, toggle ring, knob details
bone nut
jescar jumbo fretwire

        ◦ Scale length(s) and other specific configuration details
25.5” scale length
9.5” to 12” compound radius fretboard
6lbs 7.2oz total weight
evh/axis asymetrical neck profile

        ◦ Electronics, pickups, etc.
dimarzio area t tele set (stacked single coil sized humbuckers)
3-way toggle, volume “V”, rotary mode switch “M”, and true bypass active mid booster “M”
    modes: 
        S1 = single coils
        Px = parallel humbuckers crossing (bridge-top+neck-bottom and visa versa)
        Ph = parallel stacked humbuckers
        Sx = series humbuckers crossing (bridge-top+neck-bottom and visa versa)
        Sh = series stacked humbuckers

        ◦ Is this your first build, fifth or five-hundredth?
This is build #9 for me

        ◦ A bit of information on your own background as a builder helps give context to your build.
Woodworking background, built a gaggle of partscasters and then one day it dawned on me: I have a garage, some tools, and several hours each day where I’m not working or sleeping!

        ◦ Was it built in the garage, at school, work or in your own shop?
My humble garage

        ◦ A summary of the build's history. Was it built for yourself, friend/family or a client? Did you design the instrument and its specifications or was it built to spec?
This build is a sister build to a similar guitar I built for my friend kevin.  I had just completed a few teles… so was really not planning on building another tele… but it seems to me just building one… you spend a lot of time on figuring things out and settings things up so it just made sense to build two.  Plus do we really ever own enough teles?

demo:

build thread:

congrats!  well earned!

3 hours ago, Prostheta said:

Like I said....I've never worked with stacked buckers, but clearly they work....for some reason we've yet to divine  

Crazy how far from the Tele mould this is, yet still absolutely parallel to it. Very cool.

I like to think "as different as I am" - hehe.

35 minutes ago, RVA said:

That you very much for the input. I am at the investigation stage and all ideas are welcome. 

I did toy with some scrap wood and my non-sliding miter saw today, and the concept was not as easy as I would have liked. 

I have a $ 100 table saw, and while it have a lot of limitations, the fence stays square to the blade, so maybe I could create a rig from the miter slot. I also have a 14" bandsaw as an option, which may yield a decent cut with a miter slot jig and a resaw blade.

Could I trouble you to put up a pic of your jig? I am having trouble understanding the diagram you posted

well... afa my rig... I had built an early version of the design posted above - a while back.  Unfortunately I used mdf which was a mistake.  the mdf wasn't flat so once it wasn't being held down by clamps and I went to assemble it, I wasn't satisfied with it and tossed it.  right about that time my friend kevin asked me about building him a tele and it's now a year and a half later as I'm getting back to this!  (I will be building this jig probably next weekend so will post pics in my "fish on" bass thread)

my jig design above - it's basically almost the same as the jig in the video below. 

the key to this method is 2 things... 1) is a very good saw blade.  at least for me.... I don't want to have to sand it and risk putting in irregularities.   

2) is the zero play rail.  they expand outward via some set screws... allowing you to adust how wide the rail is... so it sits in your miter slot with "zero play".  not expensive and really great!  (amazon.com)

all in my humble opinion... if you take any miter saw... esp a sliding miter saw... and you try to move the blade/handle left/right... they move quite a bit.  a while back I was looking at a $500+ dewalt and thinking of setting it up to do fret slots... went to the local store and checked them out... was shocked at how much movement is there.  for that reason... I just do not see this as a great candidate for cutting a scarf... at least not reliably.  ymmv.

for that reason, and contemplating a scarf myself in the very near future... I watched a number of table-saw-scarf-jig videos on youtube.  below is my plan for the design for a table saw jig to do the job. 

I have a infinity super general blade for my saw that I have used to do the body joint on my last few builds.  pull it right off the saw, no sanding, and glue up.  the jig I use for that just is a simple board with some hold downs and a zero play rail.  I tell you this not to say "yer doing it wrong" or anything, but more so that in case you are in doubt about it at all... this might be another option.    

this is one of the joins right off the saw before glue up:

51 minutes ago, Prostheta said:

Yeah, without scanning back through the build I think I recall something about that. I might be wrong or thinking of something else

Never tried a stacked humbucker myself, but I can imagine how things can get out of hand pretty quickly in anything that isn't Les Paul sorts of territory.

accidents... in my build... never happen.  just unintended features here lol!  

well the stacked pickups are kind of strange.  there is a magnetic polepiece that is running through both coils... so you'd think that'd make them both north up or both south up depending.  I've often wondered why this works.  we know you need reverse polarity AND reverse winding... and the winding bit is pretty straight fwd... but how the heck can that bottom coil achieve reverse polarity when the magnets are oriented the exact same.  yet, it cancels hum just fine.  the only thing I can figure... is if you took two coils w rev wind/rev polarity to each other... and physically flipped one of them and put it below the other?  when you do that tho you'd be orienting the magnets the sm and the winding would also flip.  

29 minutes ago, Prostheta said:

That and it reminds me of a Mosrite-ish headstock as well! Teles and Strats don't have that sort of "drop", at least visually speaking anyway. I like its consistency tying in with the pickup ring and f-holes.

well in all honesty it was party an accident... as I just don't like to shave off wood just for the sake of matching some imaginary spec, but also because I wanted a little more room in the pickup cavities for that extremely tall stacked humbuckers!

4 minutes ago, Prostheta said:

I'm not that good at hearing things objectively, so I always end up looking for things that I could key onto and that was one of them. My ears aren't that good, so I guess my imagination for how something might translate makes up for that  

Good point about the shelf just beyond the nut. The headstock reminds me very much of the snakehead paddle style, which is very cool of itself I think. The drop from the fingerboard to the tuners looks pretty deep; am I right in thinking that it's more than a Fender sort of half-inch drop?

Sounds like you have a good mind for building on each experience. Onward!

you have some great observational skills.  yes, the neck drop is quite deep.  this was by design to kind of "raise the playing area" slightly off the body by preserving the depth of the wood I had and also using a slightly thicker fretboard.  

snakehead - well look at you - you know your tele history.  yes, I guess I'm def influenced by that guitar and it's "odd" headstock.  funny that in the tele community you often hear folks say "a tele with a 3x3 headstock is just not right"... but the very first tele had one.  so in that sense it's more "right"!

3 minutes ago, Prostheta said:

That's just a fantastic demo. Really excellent opening playing choice to showcase this one. That mid boost is very nice to have onboard as well; it seems to retain the right level of sparkle on top of the added warm mid presence. Overall though, there's a deceptively-large palette of usable tonal options on tap. I could imagine uses for pretty much all of these, avoiding that one-trick pony issue that too many guitars fall into. Man, that parallel stacked tone around 16:27.

Just great work, man. I love it. So what did you take from this build that you might apply going on towards the next?

thank you @Prostheta, your kind comments mean a lot to me.  I wasn't sure how the parallel modes came across... lack of confidence I guess.  I like them a lot but admittedly they might be an acquired taste.  Good ears - they def shine a bit more on the slightly more driven sounds.  

what did I take: well... the number one thing I think I'll take away is "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".  These two guitars took me a very long time to build and part of the reason why is that there were little details where I got the sequence wrong.  for ex, I realized only after stringing up that my area after the nut was going to contact the strings.  this was after the whole neck was finished... so had to go back and shave off, then hide the area as it now stood out a bit.  

another thing I'll take away - the sm dye mix was used on this one and kevins.  I did a color test on his wood and just figured it couldn't be that far off when I applied it to this one... but was shocking how different it was.  I would not have guessed that big of a difference.  drives home the idea that you really need to do a color test.  in this case... I could have redone the color but I liked it so it was fine... but that could have been a real bad time soak had it not turned out so favorably.  that point was driven home deeply in my brain!

44 minutes ago, Bizman62 said:

That sound! Or should I say "those sounds"! Very twangy, on a master level. Very inspiring for the type of music one would most likely want to play with that guitar. I just can't imagine seeing her on stage with a masquarade metal band!

Your playing was great too, very suitable for those sounds.

And the looks... Oh boy! They say that the devil is in the details but it seems he must have had a day off.

very kind of you to say biz.  very much appreciate it.  it's funny.... I've built 5 teles in a row and doing demos for them it has made me play more like that.  have always loved country/blues but as a child of the 80s my playing background is really 80s metal.  perhaps I'll get back to my roots on some future build.  thank you again for taking the time to listen!

32 minutes ago, RVA said:

Great playing on a great guitar! She sounds as good as she looks!

thank you very much for saying so RVA!!  very much appreciate it!

1 hour ago, ADFinlayson said:

Love it mate, I thought that was old Gregory Koch himself chicken pickin' behind the scenes there. 

well that is high praise, and I appreciate it... but i know I'm no gregory kochory lol.  thank you AD for taking the time!!

put together a video demo... would love any/all feedback/comments y'all would be willing to give!  

well... all i know i have learned from google and rarely steers me wrong as long as I get at least 2 sources. 

that said... a while back I did a tele, used "mocha" dye in the grain fill, and then sealed... this was on ash for a 'butterscotch blonde' finish, did not have any problems with the grain fill spreading.  You'd think that'd be a real problem there given how light the final finish is/was.

I guess what they probably mean is "bleeding" if you used a very dark dye it could bleed into the surrounding grain... but even then you are going to sand back after so... can't imagine it would matter.  would just end up looking like a dye sandback.  

i think generally you mix dye with the grain filler... sealing it before filler would just kind of be wasting sealer as until that grain is filled it's not going to make a continuous seal... but I am no authority on the subject and wouldn't be surprised if there are other takes on that.

Just now, jmkratt said:

That's really good to know, thank you. Am I on the right track with the dark grain fill for a nice contrast? I appreciate your help.

well... imo dark grain fill on mahog is lovely... hard to go wrong.  I don't know that I'd go quite black... but dark red or blue or brown or other color that fits into the scheme... it's a winner.

looking good

well... imo if you are going to leave part natural... to get clean lines you should tape off everything but the natural part and spray sealer/clear on that first.  then when you stain it shouldn't bleed through and will leave a nice crisp line.  grainfill is always a winner on mahog!

3 minutes ago, RVA said:

Really wonderful work. Besides the skill exhibited, it is both beautiful and elegant!  Your friend will be thrilled!

well thank you for saying so RVA.  my friend actually got the earlier "blue version" and this one is mine to keep... and I'm most def thrilled!!