jowilmei

It is definitely trivial in terms of the final product. However, it was definitely done intentionally by whoever did the CAD work. I am curious whether or not they made a mistake or not.

I recently purchased a '58 Telecaster CAD file and I noticed something that I would like confirmation about. 

The back of the headstock is not located on the same plane as the neck heel. It sits about +1.7 mm offset from the neck heel plane. 

Is that a correct specification for telecaster necks?

The file is from Electric Herald, and they seem to take accurate dimensions seriously.

EBMM released a BFR Cutlass called the 58 Nitro. It is essentially a vintage inspired modern guitar that I absolutely was enamored with... until I actually had it. 

I justified it as a graduation present. So $3500 and a few days later, it arrived. 

It was beautiful, and, owing to the roasted neck and body, came in under 7 lbs. I picked it up and did some minor setup adjustments and started playing.

It sounded like a Stratocaster. Which is great! With that I realized that I had just spent half a used car on what could have been had for $150 just with a different brand. Also, nitro necks are officially a no go for me. Other small things that sealed the deal were a non-recessed trem cavity cover and a warped pickguard. I hadn't noticed the trem cavity cover in pictures and I suppose using vintage correct plastics means that warping is a likely possibility.

I returned it and began scheming to essentially copy my favorite aspects of it. 

So here are my list of specs.

Roasted alder body

1 piece Roasted maple neck w/ plain maple skunk stripe.

SS frets. 

2 tone sunburst nitro finish (minus the neck)

two post tremelo.

I can do all these things while incorporating my own design choices to make it an s-style rather than a strat replica, but I am tempted to just copy the EBMM headstock because it is so compact. I want to downsize the body a bit as I feel that strats are abnormally long for no apparent reason. The EBMM Cutlass seems to be a bit smaller. Does anyone have experience with downsizing strat bodies slightly? What is the percentage of full size that starts making the guitar look mini, rather than full size? 

Hi all. I’m at building a guitar for a friend. First time doing a set neck. I was wondering what you think about the joint? Is it enough? All in all about 3 inches into the body.

48 minutes ago, MiKro said:

@jowilmei, Double check that the 24" scale neck is not a conversion  neck as well?  Then you could use either the 24-3/4" conversion or a 25.5" standard. You never know until it is all measured out? See image, this is for a 24-3/4" conversion from a 25-5" scale .Something to check first.

It is common to the Asian community to see a shorter scale. Not knocking them at all, but they are usually of a slightly smaller stature with smaller hands. I have a few Korean born customers and I make custom necks for them for that exact reason.

Just my seeing it from the outside, looking in.

MK

 

The bridge is about 6 1/4 inches from the neck and there is no fret board overhang, which I believe is a norm for all 24" scale Fender instruments. Therefore I don't think it is a conversion neck. 

The body of this particular model is shrunk to about 93% of a standard tele, but the nut/bridge spacing are all standard. 

Mikro, are you open to commissions?

Wow thanks to all for the helpful replies.

Alright... this question is certainly a special one. I have a Junior Series Tele that I purchased for a ridiculous price in Kyoto last year. It is a 24" scale length and I would like to convert it to 24 3/4" using a tele conversion neck. Even though it is a short scale tele, the neck pocket dimensions and shape match full size telecasters. If the space between the 22nd fret and very edge of the neck pocket is the same between this 24" scale neck and a 24 3/4 neck thanI believe it should intonate fine by moving the tele saddles back about 1/4 inch. Does that sound crazy?

Alright. So I wasn’t happy with the walnut maple combo, so I started over with cherry replacing walnut. Got a bit farther and then decided it was too “busy”. I have since completely started over with simplicity in mind.

1 piece walnut body

Semi-birdseye maple neck with rosewood fretboard. I found the maple while perusing home depots hardwoods as I often do with my moisture meter. I don’t really know what else to call it.

The non-chambered walnut and maple build is already lighter than the chambered version. Richlite is super dense.

Call me crazy with all the restarts. I just don’t want to “waste” expensive hardware on a guitar that I don’t like.

1 minute ago, ghostdive said:

Richlite top, very interesting...looking forward to seeing this take shape!

Yeah, the only other build I have ever seen with richlite on the body was the Avanc 8 string on youtube. Only downside is it is a heavy material. I'll be pushing 5 lbs with this which is a bit more than I hoped.

Having grown tired of my previous build and grown obsessed with headless ergo guitars. I decided to work on a experimental build. 

Thus far I have got the body and neck made. 

The body is chambered walnut/maple with a richlite top. Neck is 5 piece walnut maple with richlite board. 

I am going with a completely flat fingerboard. After realizing that I prefer a 16"+ radius, I figured "Why not go to infinity?"

The body is absolutley strandberg-esque, but it is significantly smaller as I feel that strandbergs look a bit goofy with their sprawling horns and armrest. 

1 hour ago, Bizman62 said:

That's some nice looking wood there!

I agree! I just found it in a local suppliers stack of cherry and they didn't upcharge me for it so I am happy. Hopefully, I can get a lot of use out of it. 

Alright, so after losing and subsequently gaining inspiration, I’ve started over on the neck.

I’ve decided to use cherry as it gives me the warm and fuzzies in terms of stability and overall look of the instrument.

I bought about 14 board feet of cherry and it’s been a dream to work with. I’ll keep the old neck for future projects.

Progress made. Epoxied the rich lite headstock laminate on and routed the neck pocket to final depth. Lastly, I did a quick finish plane to the body to remove pencil marks and see the grain in all its chatoyant glory. Shame the camera doesnt translate it well

On 10/26/2022 at 8:26 AM, Akula said:

Nice jig. I guess you just ride the plane down over the MDF spacer and keep going until you hit the desired angle? I'd love a walkthrough of how that setup works.

 

 - Jam

You’ve basically got the idea already. I did some math to figure out the angle I wanted and determined where the mdf needs to be relative to the break angle in order for the plane to rest on it and the very tip of the headstock when the desired angle is achieved.

I have got the headstock angle cut in. Calculations led me to about an 8° angle (ignore the writing on the paper) 

This was my first real task with a hand plane and I cannot imagine how I went this long without the satisfying "phwip" of the blade.

The headstock will have an 1/8" richlite laminate glued on top. Partially for strength and partially for looks.

Had a day off and decided to try again with the neck blank. I think my previous piece was just a bad example. The wood felt like Paulownia and I could scratch it easily with a fingernail. I bought another piece that has much tighter grain is feels significantly stronger and harder. Unfortunately there was some tear, so I conconted a laminate headstock to solve the issue.

Thinking about it more, the guitar will probably get a wipe on poly finish. Hopefully that counteracts how easily scratched the wood is. Is there a big difference between oil and water based in terms of hardness?

Phew...

Truss rods are my least favorite thing about guitar building. A close second is neck pocket routing. 

Neck is starting to feel rather light. I hope this Spanish cedar works out okay. I've seen acoustic builders use it before, so I'm hoping it holds up over the years.

What is the best way to glue in carbon reinforcement?

This is so cool. Very inspirational!

2 hours ago, henrim said:

Looking good. I prefer to do the negative part first as it is easier to file the positive one to match. Or in some some similar situations (not guitar related) I have made a negative and used it as mold to make a positive cast.   

I thought about pouring a wax mold and then using that as a template, a sort of cheap and forgiving molding venture. Not sure if that would hold up tp a router bearing. 

I couldn't get my bit any lower, so double sided tape saved the day.

I'm happy with the template I made. It was difficult to get the negative filed out. It's not perfect, but I think it looks alright.

I can't decide if I'll even route the rest of the cavity out haha

9 hours ago, Bizman62 said:

I wouldn't worry about the headstock angle. On my builds it has been determined by the thickness of the blank instead of some optimal numbers. Some 10 deg is plenty steep enough. Also remember that you can increase the angle by using a thicker fretboard.

That's good to know. The Red Special is usually what I refer back to when thinking about industry "standards". That guitar basically threw them all away and has been functional for 50 years or so

Here's a rough idea of the two put together. 

I like the look of this bridge from guitar fetish.