ihocky2

Loving the body design. Not sold on the head stock yet though. You have a wide rounded body, the head stock, is long a gets fairly narrow. It looks like there is a good 2" of wood at the end that is just hanging out there. It just doesn't seem to suit that body that well.

The bondo is a bad idea. It is only chipped through the paint. Adding bondo would make everything flush. Then when you paint a finish, that will be a high spot. If it is a guitar that does not and will not have much of anything in resale value, I would try drop filling with super glue and sanding and polishing. If it has anykind of resale value, I would not touch it.

I can't answer all of the questions, but I'll try and get what I can. you can definitely chamber the maple body to reduce the weight. Search through the forum and you'll find plenty of posts on it. As to how much it will affect the sound, is (and probably will be) debated. I would tend to say that simply because of the lack of material and density, it will mellow out a little bit. It is just a question of how much which I can't answer. Some people leave barely any edge of the body and it is still strong enough, others will leave like a half inch but both will keep a strip down the center for the pickups and bridge to mount to. As for the strap button, I know a lot of people that play Jackson's other than the strat shaped, like to move the strap button onto the neck plate, or at least that area. Since again there you have either no, or little front horn.

Poplar and basswod seem to be more finicky when it comes to pickups. There were a lot of 80's metal guitars that sound great that were either poplar or basswood. But with the wrong pickups, the sound like garbage.

definitely better than the original. I can wait to see the full scale drawing.

I love how that swirly patch of grain almost follows the contour of the top of the wenge S type. I also love how the light colored wood is showing through just a little bit. I adds just a hair of contrast, and makes it really stand out. All of these are extremely inspirational. So now instead of havign a plan for about 8 future builds, this is making me want to build about another 3 dozen just off the top of my head. Well, when the wife starts carrying on about the pickup load of exotics, I am blaming ACG

Edit: I see you revised it while I was posting. I like 6 the best so far. I think the lower horn looks a little too thin compared to the rest of the big meaty body. I would try thickening the horn a little bit, while keeping it pointy. Also maybe play around with adding more of a waist to it.

That would be for the tuner. Think of a Walkman or Discman with the volume control. That is what he is talking about.

I am not sure about the type of knobs you are talking about, pictures would help. As for the wireless, I am not sure how well it would still transmit, but you could cut the cavity so the wireless pack would fit in nice and snug with maybe some type of retaining ring, but almost all of one of the sides would still be exposed to the back. Then just your body is in the way.

What type of stripper did you use? Usually I have read that you need to get the aircraft stripper to get through the heavy poly coats.

When you compare the two side by side, Hooglebug's looks more like a PRS than it does the Moser. The only thing similar is the wave. If you hang those two side by side on the wall, no one would think they were the same thing. And the wave carve is a feature, so it is not something that can be protected. Or else Fender would sue anyone that uses a belly cut or arm cut, Gibson would sue anyone who uses a carve top, and Jackson (Fender) would sue anyone who uses a vee with a longer upper fin. There is absolutely no grounds to stand on and there is nothing similar about the two. You have to really stretch to think they are the same design. Gibson has more of a right to go after ESP for their copy of a Les Paul than anything here.

I was digging through some cabinets at my wifes family farm in the tool shop and found an older Stanley jack plane. I was told I Can have it since no one else will use it and it is in kind of poor condition. It had gotten wet somewhere along the way and has a decent coat of rust on it including the sole. So first thing I am going to do is some work removing the rust with wire brush and some clean up work. The good news is that the company I work for has several surface grinders. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think all I need to do is clean off the heavy rust and then have the operator clamp it up so that the sole is sqaure to the sides and to take off just enough to make it flat? If this is wrong please correct me, I am looking to have it worked on later this week or over the weekend depending which shift can get to it.

I personally like to spray 1 good coat in the neck pocket for bolt ons and then sand it down to accomodate the neck fit. I use just enough finish to seal off the wood.

I am pretty close to making some sawdust on my second build, which will be a Tele style guitar, but I am still toying around with the final shape. I want the basic style of a Telecaster, but still something different. So far these are the two designs that I am leaning towards, and wanted to get some opinions. If anyone has any ideas that would help either of them look a little better, but still capture the basic idea, please post them. EDIT: I have updated from the first two. I agree that having an upper horn looks kind of odd and started to make it look more like a Strat, which I didn't want. So I decided to keep it with the standard Tele upper horn. I added a rounded and extended rear portion similar to a Satch. Which I think looks pretty nice on it. The links are for the original and then the rounded with all of the hardware and the neck on it. Original http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b192/ihocky2/original.jpg Rounded http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b192/ihocky2/modified.jpg Bodies Side by Side

Well hocky, you should know that (like all catalyzed finishes) the fumes from this conversion varnish will kill you just as fast (and just as dead) as 2-pack poly. I use a respirator with dual carbon filters, nitrile gloves, and a long-sleeve shirt & pants. And that's spraying outside in my driveway. Indoors you'll need a proper spray booth with a contaminant-free source of clean air. Thanks for the heads-up. I was planning on spraying outdoors and wear a good respirator anyway, so was pretty well prepared anyway. But I kind of figured that since this did not cure as hard as 2 part poly's that it wasn't as harsh on your body. But why bother taking the chance, an ounce of prevention so to speak.

Thanks for all of the follow up info. This sounds like it will be a really nice product. I don't want to get into the poly's because they are soo hard to sand and all of the problems with breathing it in. But I am not a fan of how long nitro takes to cure and how it yellows with time. This sounds like a nice in between compromise product that I will absolutely be trying on my next project.

Thanks for the help. I understand that depending on how heavy you spray is going to determine how many coats you need, but can you give a general range, ex. 10-12 coats. The main problem I have is that I've never really dealt with anything that I was concerned about mil thickness. I know that 4 mils is 4/1000" or about a quater of 1/64". But that doesn't mean a whole lot to me other than numbers.

I'm going to bring up an old topic here for a few quick questions. Will the guys at Sherwin Williams know what types of dyes and pigments are compatable with this product. How hard is it to sand and buff as compared to nitro and to 2-part poly. How many coats are necessary to get a good build that will not sand through and generally how many passes are you guys using per coat. I know with spray can nitro it is generally 2-3 passes per coat and something like 20 coats to get a good build. But this sounds like it will build a lot quicker. I saw the spec sheet said that over 4 mil thickness will be more prone to cracking.

They do make a threaded bushing that seats into wood with the inside threaded for metal scews. The only thing is I don't know if they make them that small. If you can find them that small, great. I would absolutely try them. But the problem you'll probably run into is that the screw will try to thread into the pickup and the insert at the same time and will bottom out on one of them before the other and you'll only get limited adjustment. So you are probably better trying to find the smaller wood screws.

Here are a few links to product by Mark Wood which is all electric violins, cellos, and such. But the do list teh pickups he uses. And I have heard him play these with distortion. Just listen to Tran-Siberian Orchestra. http://www.woodviolins.com/html/CobraCello.html http://www.woodviolins.com/html/viper.html

Sorry, I think you are right that it is single acting. I was assuming that the nut was secured to the threaded rod. If it was and both ends were threaded then it would be double acting. If both ends are threaded and you were so inclining you might try using some J-B Weld on the threads at the nut end and then thread the nut back on. Essentially welding the not to the rod so when you turn it, it tightens or loosen then whole rod. But that will only work if the opposite end is threaded.

That actually is a double action rod. I can't describe exactly how it works off the top of my head though. I would have to double check one of my books first. But I'm sure some here can give you a better idea.

But you had time to reply to the post. That's is about the same amount of time that you would have needed to do a search on Google.

Can't you get the dual output effect by running through and a/b box. You certainly aren't going to be playing both necks at the same time. If you want to cut down on the number of knobs, but have a blend and tone for each you can use a concentric pot. I don't remember who carries them, but you have a smaller inner knob with a ring type knob around it. That way you essentially have two pots in one.

I was looking through the schematics on the Seymour Duncan site and have narrowed it down to the following 4 options. But I don't know the difference in the sound between them, can anyone give me a good idea of how they compare to each other and how noticeable the difference is. These are the ones I am looking at '53 Tele '66 Tele Standard-3 way with one volume and one tone Broadcaster with Blend Also, the Broadcaster uses a 15k resistor on the 3 way switch, what will happen if I eliminate it completely or replace it with a higher or lower value? Thanks