Bizman62

I started by smoothing the top and bottom with the random orbital sander equipped with 400 grit Abranet. The reglued chip from a couple of weeks ago now is level with the rest but as some parts were now almost to bare wood I applied yet another coat of my oil mix. Having the guitar clamped to the workbench by the neck I then started to concentrate to fitting the electrickery while the oil was curing.

As I struggled with getting the pickup wires through the hole that quite didn't hit the bridge pickup cavity I took a long 8 mm bit to widen it through the jack hole. And of course the threading of the bit knocked off a few pieces - have I already said that the wood is brittle?

Of course most of the pieces were missing so I turned to my trusty old friend, the almighty TonePutty. Surprisingly it still is workable after a decade! Agreed, it was a bit grainy but still good enough for this purpose. The result is at least as strong as the original.

As mentioned last weekend the wires of the neck pickup were a tad too short so I soldered some extensions. Not the prettiest but it's hidden and not under stress so there's no risk of the tape peeling off or the joint breaking. And I also remembered the ground wire for the trapeze!

The pickups are now in place, spring loaded for height adjustability. And following the theme of reusing things both the black screws and the cables were salvaged from old computers. Even the lilac rag protecting the clamped neck has a history: I bought the sweatshirt from a last item bargain basket back in 1984 using my summer job earnings. The shoulder seams started to finally give up so wearing it made no longer sense. But even this won't be its final job, after it's too ragged to serve as protection or spreading oil it will help keeping me warm one last time in the fireplace. Talk about longevity!

Nice job, looks like you concentrated more into getting a workhorse than a shiny decorative item on the shelf.

The almost vertical two streaks on the sides look strange, I had to take another look to assure myself that it's not about a photo being reversed. Do you have any idea what has caused them?

Yes, by tall I mean high. Tall seems to be commonly used when talking about fret height. I'm a Finn...

There's no such thing as 'minimal fretheight'. There's lower and taller frets by design, the lowest maybe the 'fretless wonder' by Gibson back in the late 1950's to early 70's. They were about half a millimetre tall or even less. The tallest frets are about 1.5 mm. The minimum is highly subjective, it's the height you still like to play on.

That reminds me about the different marketing styles or rather attitudes, don't know if there's actual terms for those. Anyhoo... Back in the day when PC's were new and mostly sold to companies for a stellar price, the sales personnel were engineers speaking tech jargon about how powerful their products were etc. instead of trying to figure out how and what for the customer would need them. Engineer driven marketing instead of customer experience, the terms were something like that IIRC. Heck, that was some 40 years ago! But that's still an issue, nerds make a product that has all sorts of features which require the end user to be a similar nerd to intuitively figure out how to properly utilize all the features.

Kudos to you for being patient with StewMac and kudos to the SM guy who's going to try to get a simple manual made.

9 hours ago, Asdrael said:

Not sure how high of a grit you level with but you can get fairly cheap rolls up to 320 grit on Amazon for example. No more length limit!

I start with 400...

2 hours ago, spindlebox said:

Well, this was explained to me by Stew Mac. I wish they had explained this when I first contacted them about it.  I didn't see it on the instructions that came with it Either. it's not exactly intuitive. 

Guess they have a YouTube video with Dan Erlewine telling how wonderful that calliper is, explaining all the modifications. So why bother printing an illustrated manual.

It seems to be more of a rule that the customer service guys don't actually understand what the real problem is. They simply apoligize and send you a new item. The guys at StewMac know how their tools work and they automatically assume that if someone buys a luthier tool they also know all the details. Why would they buy something if they don't know what it is or how to properly use it? Manuals are for sissies anyway...

I've used a straight beam, 2x4 cm aluminium beam cut to 28 cm length. Why 28 cm instead of the full length of the fretboard? Because wet'n'dry sandpaper sheets are that long!

I've been wondering whether I should get a long radiused beam and use it for fret leveling. Didn't think it might chew the edges but now that you mentioned it, it's kinda obvious. You can't see what's happening under a long wide beam. With a narrow beam you can immediately see where you've sanded the marker off the fret. Also you can't do a major damage by just a few strokes. Still I find the idea of a radiused beam tempting.

53 minutes ago, spindlebox said:

If you watched the video I focused on making sure things were zeroed out.

I did. But now that it's been said that the stick part has been deliberately shortened for measuring fret heights you'll have to zero it separately for using the depth measuring stick. That will leave the jaws open by a few millimetres. Stand the end on a flat surface and slide the stick down, then zero it for measuring depths.

For ordinary people like you and me such things can be confusing. The tool looks similar, acts similar but has a difference that doesn't seem to make sense.

Agreed, the notch makes measuring fret height more accurate as the solid part will stand on two feet to eliminate errors caused by an angled callipers but then again, why would anyone want to measure the height of individual frets? A fret rocker would be more accurate as it doesn't care whether the fretboard is level or not. For measuring a fret to find a suitable replacement regular callipers should be accurate enough.

Dents are a common cause for fret leveling. So are tall frets. Basically you could have addressed both issues on one go but there's nothing wrong with first spot leveling the tall ones.

So the next step would be to lower all frets to the bottom of the dents. And a beam is a commonly used tool for that.

You can use a marker on the frets so you'll know that you've sanded all frets and depending on the depth of the dents you may need to reapply the markings. And of course you'll have to recrown the frets after leveling.

4 hours ago, curtisa said:

zero each one independently of the others.

That combined with the fret measuring notch. Didn't realize the notch being of importance but obviously it's a feature.

2 hours ago, ADFinlayson said:

So always zero the callipers every time I measure anything.

That. For some reason the digital callipers seem to wander, with the jaws pushed together the reading is not always 0. Guess that's why they have the zero button.

To me that looks like the depth measuring "stick" of the StewMac is a couple of millimetres too short. No question about that. You should get the same readings when measuring the thickness of an object like you did with the case. The notch is irrelevant as the stick is meant for measuring the depth of tight holes.

I've believed that the Tele and Strat necks have been carved from standard 1" thick lumber so that the heel and headstock are on the same plane. That would make sense in mass production.

Question is, how many '58 Telecasters has the CAD designer taken apart and measured. If only one, that particular example may have had the heel lowered for one reason or another already in the factory. Those days they most likely did more hand fitting than today.

Hadn't you mentioned you reshaped it I might not have noticed it. The different angles and various photographic things like barrel distortion can explain quite many dissimilarities.

29 minutes ago, peachtree said:

am I waaaaaay overthinking this (I suspect it's this)?

I guess you're right. If you think about LP style guitars and their pickup rings, the bridge one is usually taller to match the neck break angle. But that's not always the case, they even sell thin sheet metal rings. Same with archtop hollow bodies.

That wood looks gorgeous, by the way!

11 hours ago, henrim said:

using a tube notcher

I didn't even know such a tool existed! After some googling I now know what it's originally for.

Thanks. I wouldn't like to cut the cables right at the pickup and for some reason they aren't soldered to the eyelets. Instead the insulated wires seem to be partially wrapped to the coil under the tape and the eyelets act as cable clamps. That said, if I have to add length I might cut the wires at the bridge pickup, leaving some 10 cm of the original twisted wires.

On with the show...

Taking another look now that the tape was gone it looked like there was a hole after all from the bridge pickup to the control cavity:

There seemed to be light at the end of the tunnel but no matter how I poked it with a piece of wire there was no breakthrough. So I took the looong drill bit and carefully started to drill backwards. I'm glad I took it slow as it appeared that the hole in the pickup cavity ended to the piece that broke off last week.

So, as there was a hole drilled from the jack to the pickup cavity I came up with the idea of enlarging the cavity sideways under the surface. We have scary router bits in the workshop! But it worked and revealed the channel.

Some chiseling to smoothen the edge, I wish there had been a curved gouge but the result is good enough as such.

But the bridge pickup wire still quite didn't reach the switch, an inch more and it would have been perfect. Straightening the twisted wire might have done the trick but I've learned that twisted wires may reduce buzz. What's your take on that, should I straighten the wires or solder an extra inch? Does twisting pickup wires change anything?

5 hours ago, RVA said:

Please do not judge this as a restoration.

It now looks like a tool and that's what I figured was the intention. After sharpening she'll serve you for decades to come!

Personally I don't understand why you should make any working tool to look better than new and then put it on the shelf to gather dust, wearing cotton gloves so your fingertip sweat won't leave marks... That said I fully understand not using a reconditioned blade tool for removing semi-cured glue or other cleaning jobs but isn't that something such tools should never be used anyway?

9 hours ago, henrim said:

Yes, like said a total overkill for a plane sole but this technique is still valid today for machine beds and other surfaces that need high accuracy.

Not to mention that a Made in England Stanley is a cheap practising platform.

Thanks for the update.

It's sad that the laser printer trick didn't work for you, then again buying a few water decals doesn't bankrupt you. 

Do you think the HP TopCoat didn't work because it's water based? And further, do you think acetone failed because it evaporates too quickly to fully soften the "ink"? I mean, would a solvent based topcoat have given more open time for the plastic powder to transfer from the paper to the wood?

5 hours ago, RVA said:

It does look similar, as if mine was that version but twisted.

So yours has a twist downwards as well? I saw those too but yours looked straight in the picture so I let it be. But here it is: https://mvflaim.com/2021/03/13/oddball-smoothing-plane/

As many planes are more or less copies of the same design many parts can be interchangeable. Your frog sure looks like a Stanley Type 16 and up but the lever may have broken and been replaced.

The frog looks like a Stanley starting from Type 16, the "ogee" type with the holes instead of being flat. So it's definitely not any earlier version. Lots of information about the changes type 16 introduced here: https://youtu.be/cBpOQn69lIA?feature=shared.

That lever sure looks odd, I tried to find a similar one but no cigar. Stanley seems to have done it with a separate thumb piece hammered into a square slot until 1962 when they changed it into a bent one similar to your Sargent.

Doesn't this Union lever look similar to yours? Stanley bought Union in the early 1920's and used their stock as long as it lasted. At least there's the washer with a rivet and another rivet right above it:

17 minutes ago, RVA said:

I could not find any type that fit my specs precisely.

Being not able to see all the specs I tried the good old hit or miss method, meaning I chose what I could see and looked at all the options and you're right, it doesn't seem to fit precisely. Let's assume it's a type 16 from '39 to '41, that would explain a lot as it's a known fact that the wartime models had all sorts of modifications to save materials.

Has the lateral adjustment lever been repaired? It looks like there's a hard solder joint and the shape sure isn't standard.

That explains. They're usually waaay too dark, especially pens. The ink will get sucked into cut ends of the pores of a bare wood scratch and you'll end up flooding the damaged area. In such a case even clear lacquer will darken the wood some and highlight the scar. And the wax crayons... How would a candle look like wood? If a coloured crayon is sufficient to fix a scratch in the wood, then any filler would do. Fixes on the lacquer are even easier. If no bare wood is exposed, even a light sanding can do the trick. For deeper wounds some clearcoat is needed.

Getting a blonde wood coloured pen or crayon is similar to finding a glass or water coloured pen. Or skin coloured, for that matter. Remember your childhood drawings? The sky was blue, the sun was yellow and grass was green. And water was also blue. And when drawing people the "skin" crayon was always missing.

Clear nail varnish is often a good choice for small repairs. It dries fast, builds up nicely and if needed you can mix some of your felt pen ink to a layer or two. The right amount might be something like sticking a needle into the felt and use it for stirring a drop of the clear. That little. And many if not most nail varnishes are nitrocellulose which is the stuff many quality guitars are finished with!

Cool indeed. Did you notice that the photo on the page is not the plane in question?!? There's no rib on the toe and heel. Had to double check and found this little plethora of Stanley plane information: https://www.timetestedtools.net/2016/01/27/stanley-type-16/  . According to that there's something that don't match with your plane: The size of model 16 should be in the front and the Made in USA should be in the rear section. And it should read Bailey behind the front knob. Strange... Not saying you're wrong, though, as it could be a Frankie with bits and pieces from other planes. Or a wartime "use what's in the stock" model.