davee5

25.69 yrs old, and rather calm and drug free. However as calm and settled as my body feels, for the most part, I'm definitely hitting that "quarter-life crisis" that sells John Mayer boatloads of albums. Well, that and the fact once you put his hits like "Wonderland" aside, he can friggin play and has astounding tone. Anyhow, a few years now as a burgreoning yuppie in Silicon Valley and while the hormones aren't so much raging any longer, the questioning of this professional life is in full swing. I'm not about to quit my day job and try and sell custom guitars out of the garage anytime soon, but maybe grad school where I can hide for a while from the "real world." -Dave

Mattia, your entire post is spot-on to be exactly what I found. The design I ended up using is still a bit stretched out, the upper horn will end up around the 12th or 13th fret, but when I initially made a much curvier, longer, & sleeker design in CAD it looked great until I put in the neck.... oops those proportions won't work. Although for my taste I've never seen an SG, Explorer, or V (Parkers are O.K.) I liked the flow of in a guitar either. The proportionas are usually right, but "flow" is not the word I'd use to describe them, and the fluidity and femininity of shape whic they lack and many double-cut bases have is exactly what I like in electric instrument design.

I've bought the following books, in the order I would buy them again in planning an acoustic build: - Cumpiano: Very good, quite comprehensive but perhaps not enough pictures. - Benedetto (Archtops): astoundingly good. maybe not ideal as the sole reference for making a flat-top acoustic, but for my money this was bar-none the best investment for practical advice, clear illustrations, and awesome inspiration. It also keeps me very very humble about my own build quality. - Kinkade: does not add much to Cumpiano and not as complete. Mamny more pictures, but I don't really thinkn some are all that helpful. Oddly I get teh feeling Kinkade doesn't reaaaally know his stuff and the book is more marketing for him than it is help for you and I. - Williams' "Guitar Maker's Manual" - Decent, but pales compared to Cumpiano. Full sized plans are handy, but poorly dimensioned. - Koch (electric guitars): decent reference, but scattered, poorly organized, and explanations/diagrams are often unclear. Nearly useless for acoustic - Siminoff's "Luthier's Handbook" - waste of money, basically useless. You can get more info on this forum and it's searchable I will say this about buying too many book on guitarbuilding as I did: you can't buy too many books. Sure some of them are proactically useless, but they always color in a few details, think about things a bit differently and round out approaches, and make you a little more comfortable with the whole process. Buy what you can afford, read prodigiously, and then give it a go. For another thing to consider, my approach is to build an electric first, then step up to acoustic later. Anyhow, happy planning. -Dave

NATURAL! Pleeeease tell me the purple and color options are just idle threats, fishing for compliments. I really like that shape, the carve, and the color of the woods. Sexy as hell! Without trying to bring up a sore subject, while I wasn't so keen on the shape/color of your guitar for Mr. Brown, I really like the work on this one. Clear coat, high sheen, gorgeous. If I might make a comparison I'd say putting color ont hat will make it go from looking liek a quality Norstrand/Overwater-style bass to a who-cares production Yamaha (or something, I'm not really a bass player so my brands might be off). For my money nice woods (like you have), nice design (check), good work (looks like it) and a clear coat (TBD) that lets you see it all in it's glory is the only way to go for custom work. Let's see some more detail shots, I'd love to see the curve transition up close at the arm rest. -Dave

Oh man do I fully agree with that. Years ago when I started planning my guitar and collecting images of beautiful design details it was all basses. I even thought the only way to make a cool looking instrument was to make a bass, so I naiively asked a pro bassist buddy of mine if he would buy a custom off me. Of course having both never built a guitar and having asked a pro musician to cough up "spare" cash was a little ridiculous. I didn't end up using many of the details I liked because they don't seem to fit into our relatively conservative world of guitars. Someday I'll build a bass, so I can feel freer with design and so I can finally have a bass. -Dave

I'm sure much of the fault is mine, I looked back over the thread in detail and the multi-op setup was pretty obvious with a little digging. If it's any consolation to the "hand made" comment I basically feel like using abearing guided template is about one degree fo separation away from NC work, it's not like it's all that much more skilled... I had my templates laser-cut, using NC code, and then used them to route with. So really even my own work, at least the body outline, is effectively NC controlled. Now, back on topic. Let see some more NC surfacing/LP porn shots, I want to see some full-frontal carve-top curves! -Dave P.S. Japanese TV is dang weird.

Man I love ebay for that, though it's been a while since I've bough figured wood. The flamed koa top (flat-top, only 0.25") I got online was all of $40! A comparable set would go from Koa Guitarwoods for over $100, easy. The key was a small knot I fit just outside the body shape which killed its value to most semi-custom shops who can't adjust their shapes to the whims of individual peices as easily as I could. Also gotta love the window-shopping value of ebay, what you see is (close to) what you get. I wish places like LMI would allow the same thing. -Dave

Interesting points, I've never NC machined wood so the bit about grain lines is good to know for future reference. I'm also used to working in a company with ludicroiusly high tolerances on both fit and surface finish, so my ingrained expectations about surfacing work don't really translate well into the wood world where sanding is a reasonable option. I'm glad you're more on top of this than I am. I like your sense of style, so I'm anxious to see what's got you all worked up. -Dave

Hey, just because you did multiple ops on a 3-axis doesn't give you the right to be a dick. And as for lack of skills, when I had access to an NC machine I used it all the time for that exact reason, because it's a crutch. I've done it by hand and I've done it in MasterCAM, and while each has it's own skills I know the reason I gravitate towards computer control is because it seems "easier" to get a perfect part. You know that once it works, it's spot-on and any fear of uncertainty is washed away. That's why I did my entire project in CAD down to the wood knots, and if I coiuld have machined it I would have. My point about home NC-machines coincides mostly with the apparent fact that the volume of people who come into this forum asking how to build a CNC clearly haven't given it careful consideration. There are tons of forums on how to do it, many people have, and many who are both better at techie stuff than I am, and many who are less skilled (despite having never asserted my intelligence in my post other than to say "I'm not as dumb as I sound") who have pulled it off as well. We are in a wood-working arena, so that does take a bit of the heavy-duty requirements off the CNC project from those who want to machine stainless steel in the garage like my roomie. If someone here wants to pour the time into making a CNC, like most here try to pour in the time to make a guitar, then I fully endorse those efforts. But those who roll in, see a machining setup, then say "How can I build one? $10k is too much for me" are equivalent to those who roll in and say "I want a '62 strat but I don't have the cash for one, can I build it in 2 weeks for $200?" Like any of the projects around here, it is very involved and such an undertaking should not be discussed flippantly. And here I was going to ask my buddy to give me his EXACT CAD of an LP top (he used a digitizing arm on a Std.) so you could use it for future projects, given your earlier complaints about being unable to copy the carve exactly... arrogant indeed. (But I'm not a jerk, so if you want it I'll ask him for it) -Dave

Are you running a 4-5 axis machine? Looks like you have an undercut on that headstock where the lower corners (next to teh nut) are orthogonal to the headstock and not the machine z-axis. Lucky dog. As for all those out there who want a CNC of their own: it's a crutch for many people, but it's not as easy as you think it is. Yeah the accuracy and repeatability are fantastic, but having now gone through a build by hand with templates, files, and coping saws you can do just as well by hand with some care. Unless you want to make an aluminum guitar, it's not really that much better than some real skill. However for those lacking "real" hand-on skills.... it's a nice crutch. Furthermore, for all those out there who are going to "build one," you had best really really read up on it. You think making ugitars is tough, try ing making a CNC machine. My roommate, whose IQ roughly doubles mine (and I'm not as dumb as I sound), is building one using a grizzly desktop mill and this is NOT a project for the faint of heart or low of technical skills in electrical, mechanical, electromechanical, and programming/coding. Unless you want to build one from a kit, just forget it. You don't have it in you. Remember what they always say: if you gotta ask... -Dave P.S. One of my best buddies in college NC-machined crave top and back bottom plates for a LP out of aluminum and sandwiched them around a mahogany core. Looks badd-arse and sounds pretty dang good. Bright and sustaining, but the mahogany mellows it out, takes off any twang or harshness. But mostly it looks tight. He left the ridge height pretty large and decided the as-machined look was pretty gnarly and opted not to sand it down. Very "metal."

I like the design, but that machining finsih has r-r-r-r-ridges! What's your stepover/ridgeheight on those surfaced sides there? also any reason you chose to do it with the in-line cutting path vs. contour? I'd figure contour woiuld be way easier to sand out, but I'm not thinking about it that hard. Or perhaps you want the machine lines as part of the design aesthetic? I think they might grow on me, if it didn't look like a poorly programmed part to those with machine experience. Then again all my CNC work is suuuuper-fine with uch tighter tolerances than a K2 machine could hold, so perhaps my frame of reference is a littel unfair. Anyhow, like the shape, make some more stuff! -Dave

While I might disagree with the impact of al the DIFFERENT's you mention, I agree to all your points. I do have one question, though. Do you really think Ibanez, or even Gibson or Fender, is a company chock-full of $100k/year positions? I'd say maybe the CEO and board memebers are in that place, but their marketing guys? Their top engineers? I was always under the impression that even the big guys are not HUGE companies full of high paying jobs, the margins and volumes just aren't there. Sure, the top dogs will get theirs, but I personally doubt, VERY STRONGLY that even the top Ibanez "designer" (conceiving of and then modeling a monkey grip isn't all that tough) is making that kind of scratch. Ibanez (USA) is based out of Pennsylvania, where if you are making $100k annually you are LOADED. Furthermore if their design is being done in Japan by parent company Hoshino Gakki it's even cheaper (not that much, but cheaper). Perry, I don't think you're having a go. I've seen enough of your discussions to know you just shoot straight and right to the point, and I'm doing that same. No animosity, just an exchange of ideas here. Also, putting a woodscrew into scrylic is a pain in the ass, and I have done it. But tapping acrylic is dang easy and machine threads make asembly a breeze. I can't comment on the corporate criticism model you've put out there because those aren't my sorts of reactions. I just peronally think that's an ugly guitar, but then again I don't care much for Ibaneze solid-bodies much anyhow. -Dave

I have to patently disagree that this is "innovation." This is called "iteration." There is nominal, nominal, nomial overall change to the whole product, in fact for almost EVERY guitar there is nominal "innovation" only in the definition of innovation as the introduction of something new. Yet most of theinnovation in this JEM is the introduction of something new solely to the world of guitars. It is hardly a breakthrough technology, hard to manufacture or requiring any engineering time to develop. Other guitar "innovations" may also be good ideas, and well introduced, but about the only real innovation as a breakthrough technology (a "discontinuous innovation" if we are nitpicking) is the introduction of the electric guitar into a world of acoustics. Everything else has been minor to significant improvements on existing designs or ideas. Vaulted fretboard? Not innovative. Flat headstock instead of 15 degree angled headstock? Maaaaybe innovative. Make your own list. The thing is, luthiery is a traditional craft. Though ut's not one I claim to understand fully, it's like any traditional craft or field in its resistance to change that breaks with the tradition. Even thing we would consider drastic are minor changes to the casual observer without any guitar know-how. Moving the soundhole on an acoustic lacks any sort of significant impact to the overall structure and approach, to the macroscopic design of the instrument to anything more than a mental footnote. But to us who know what a guitar "should" look like, it's a revolution and you can build and entire brand around it. (*cough* MacPherson *cough*) Now to most musicians and builders, this is heresy (and I expect to hear about it), but to a world which is rapidly valuing "innovation" as a highly valued skillset and ability, we are in a field utterly devoid of real innovations. In fact, I might argue it's almost impossible to innovate in an environment where where many people are trying to build crappy capacitors just like they did 40 years ago in order to replicate a sound almost a half-century old. It's simply not the right adjective to bring into the wolrd of luthiery. Perry, I respect the hell out of your work but I have to disagree with a few of your points. Really, all of your points about manufacture and engineering. While putting in the colors is indeed "very very expensive" in comparison to basswood, it is not at all cost prohibitive, or even that challenging. Acrylic, like wood, can be run almost at a full-rapid if you have sharp tooling and a fast spindle, so your machinig time argument is patently false (though acrylic does craze if you're not careful, so some real machining expertise is useful). All the holes can be drilled the same size, they just need to be tapped by hand afterwards to fit machine screws, which is may an hour for a full acrylic body (it ain't Ti). Even if the diameters were different, that's maaaybe 2 hours to modify the programs with those few cycles, or maybe 5 minutes to change the tools in the changer. Thousands of manhours is a ridiculous assertion. A standard shop rate in the US is $60/hour, so even if each of these takes 1,000 hrs they should cost $50k, so that's a bit of an exaggeration. I really doubt they test the crap out of these things in extreme conditions as acrylic bodies are standard enough that they don't need destructive testing, and no one is going to drive this thing or otherwise bet their life on it in order to necessitate serious lab work. The retraining for polishing is barely different from paint as it's bascially the same grits, same swirl remover, a little more buffing, and maybe a flame pass. Or maybe you just outsource it and pay the shop $5000 for the whole batch. If the assemblers need to be retrained, then I would never guy an Ibanez because their assemblers are idiots. A fully tapped, machined, clear guitar would be easy as hell to machine, considerably more so than a wooden one covered in paint. Etc. Etc. The bottom line for me is this: these are NOT a difficult thing to create for a company in the business of manufacturing CNC-machined guitars. Anyone here who claims these are killing some engineer to mfg expert doesn't have a clue what they're talking about. Now, THAT being said: yes, charger whatever the hell you want for it. It's a free market, it is still effectivley a one-off, it'a collector's item, it's being heavily marketed, they can make a killing, yes yes yes yes yes that's all true. In fact I support all of it. It's not the kind of BS I usually go for (my BS is more wood flavored, and it is BS, and I do like it, so we all have our own thing), but I have no issues with it. I am ONLY contending that those here who make vague conjectures about how difficult this must be to create don't do this stuff for a living. Furthermore, I DO NOT know the EXACT process they use, and I suspect no one here does. But I do know how it COULD be made, and it's not rocket science, or even expensive-science-requiring-R&D. I suspect that Ibanez makes it similarly to my concepts, or maybe even with more ingenuity for a better product or a cheaper product which is easy to make as well. Sell it for what you want. Hell, it's not even remotely the most ridiculous, or over-hyped, or hideously-expensive-for-what-you-get guitar around! But STOP claiming this is some innovative, hard to make product. It's just wrong. I type too much when I get rankled.

Recouping costs? Gentlemen, I'd say it is clear none of you work in mass-production. -That's a cast acrylic-resin guitar, it can be poured many times over into a "soft-tool" of machined aluminum or brass (a few grand, maaaaaybe $5,000). More likely they cast a big block, then machined it down using their standard CNC programs and then polished it (acrylic polishes very easily) - The paint is phosphorescent-doped so it glows with any kind of coupled-wavelength light hitting it (generally UV), which is why it's only 1 color (again, maybe $1000 from 3M for the whole batch of phosphor additive). It does, by the way, look like paint to me rather than colored resin in the guitar, the front and back look distinctively different when compared to the edge. It seems to me that all the swirls are, in fact, 2D. They are probably under a clear coat of some kind whic is leveld to eliminate teh obviousness of this, maybe even more casting resin. If it truly is 3D, then they used glass blowing techniques that are difficult to explain in text to drag streaks of the paint or doped resin through the casting resin before it sets. Not exceptionally cutting edge. - The LED's are about $5 max for a high-lumen versions, including the drivers - Programmable chip, PIC, or other board to drive the glow ($50 max for a short run of custom stuffed boards, per boar - R&D time is low because almost all these components are off-the-shelf. It's the cost of doing one standard custom job, plus a few grand up front for a the whole batch, not several hundred times more expensive. Also, yes, ugly. -Dave "Thinks he knows everything" E. 5

Thanks for all the kind words, guys, and I'll have some neck shots up for you (hopefully) by Sunday. Neck's coming along fine, gotta bind it tomorrow and then inlay, level, and fret on Saturday. Want to get it done before I leave Sunday for Japan, gotta pay for this project somehow, and that somehow involves too much travel. Rich: Now I hope to prove myself right from that same topic, one post later.... It'll probably be in the March competition since it won't have been finished by then (literally finished, woodwork will be done), but I may wait for a month when the field is light... not that I'll need it. (HA) -Dave

Inlays aren't done yet, have to do the neck this week, but I have some plans for the headstock to match a little logo/symbol I used when I custm bulit my racing roadbike (see the website below, then checkout the headbadge link) plus perhaps my signature at the top. For the neck I'm going with the gears idea, using black MOP for the gears with white MOP for the dot centers in appropriate locations. The actual "black" shell has a very cool metallic look to it that's not as subtle as I initially anticipated, just the right amount of flashiness. Gonna look slick, if I do say so myself, provided I don't botch it. I really liked your f-hole concept and sketched up a few ideas, but none of them looked right, a little too much like that one set of Taylor inlays, "Cindy" I think. Then I tried the f-hole shape with a gear center and it looked like little daisies with big petals... forget that. I may not be as metal as most of this board seems to be, but daisies do not belong on my guitar. The gears seemed easy enough to do and simple/tasteful. -Dave

Brass inserts for all threaded components, wood screws are hacks in my engineering world. Ebony drings were made on a benchtop milling machine my roomie bought a while back to convert to CNC (I live in a house full of geniuses, but I pay rent so they let me stay). Here's a pic of the mill being used to counterbore the neck holes: The mill was also used to make the truss rod slot, thin the bookmatched peices to koa to veneer thickness (a delicate operation!), and drill all the holes straight, and dead on. -Dave

Well my apologies for not doing more progressive updates, but I've been cranking away and forgetting to post. Gotta meet a March 1 deadline w/ finishing sooooo... I finished the body last night and hope to get eh neck done by Monday (well Sunday, then I gotta travel to Japan for work). So before I delivered the body to my super-secrert pro guitar finisher (yeah, I outsourced, but know your weakness...) I took a few shots to share with you guys. Enjoy. And a few details: The Backside, some nice striped mahogany with very light figuring in places The Control Cover, freehanded with a dremel, then bound and put back in place The Control Holes and edge/f-hole binding The Recessed Audio Jack Hole The Upper Horn And a little preview of work in progress: The Homebrew Ebony Pickup Rings, the Rough-Cut Neck w/ Matching Koa Bookmatch Veneer I should have everything back from the finisher around Feb 25, so look for completed pics, assembled and shiny, around March 1. Meanwhile I hope my fingers heal up from all teh abuse non-stop buildin ghas dished out on them. Next time, less using bare razor blades for detail work... - Dave

I may have to backup our new friend Tegro here aand suggest (gasp!) that he actually not start over. Hear me out now... I was probably in school more recently that the legitimate experts here who are posting excellent crituqes and suggestsion, so the one thing I can add to this conversation is a strong understanding of how time-pressde student projects are. I myself am wokring on my axe on something of a deadline, which I will meet (body going out for finishing tomorrow!), and am continually amazed by how much time the last second details take. It took me a full day to route (freehand) my control cavit, create the cover, bind the cover, create the tabs it will rest on, scrape it all flush, fit all the pots, figure out where the jack would be placed, and then fit the jack. 12 hours for one control cavity. Granted I did it the hard way (highly detailed, no plastic), but 12 hours is probably about a full school quarter of shop time. No way in the world Tegro has time to start over and still get anywhere near finished by the end of the quarter/semester, he'll have a big push ahead of him as it is. So now it becomes a matter of priorities: finish the project or make a more ideal guitar? 1. Finish the project with biscuit joints and a less-than-ideal layout: + Get a good grade + Have a decent guitar + Learn a ton and make a better one later + Save some money & wood + Actually finish (maybe) while you still have access to a woodshop full of tools - Guitar will not be perfect, and you'll always know it (this will always be true, it's a matter of degrees of expectations) - Joints may be weak (but buscuits, while not fine-woodworking approved, are a good idea with your setup) vs. 2. Start over and do it closer to "right" + Have a guitar that's superior to those in the know, including yourself (now) + Maybe still get a good grade because your incomplete work is really good and you're a goood learner/student (this depends on your teacher's philosophy about teaching and learning, actually would be good to find this out) + You have extra wood for that exact reason, so use it + Doing it properly improves future projects by learning the right way to do it - If you don't have tons of tools at home, you may be hosed for actually completing your guitar - If you aren't a total stickler for detail and craftsmanship (as many aren't, though I am) it won't bother you anyhow, so you're wasting time - You're just succumbing to peer-pressure from invisible people who type advice on the internet (including me, ha! now you're in a bit of a philosophical bind. I don't mean that to teh rest of you guys... don't hate me invisible people with guitarbuilding knowledge) So really, figure out where your priorities lie and then either finish what you've started and "salvage" your mistakes, or start over and do it better, but make sure you understand what each choice entails. Then make your peace with the cons and embrace the pros you've chosen. Waaaaaaay better project than the little figured-cherry wood birds (sillohuettes only, no wings) on sticks I made in 8th-grade woodshop. Won me a prize at the country fair, but that's because I live in a place where most of the kids are in supplementary math courses, not shop courses. Crazy SF Bay Area, don't you know hands on experience is critical for your kids to become real engineers? I rant too long, but good luck and work hard and wel, -Dave

Hey, I hear you on supporting the local guy, and I alwyas alway do if possible. However there are just some things that are hard to get at the local hardware mom & pop shop. Today I bought fancy-pants threaded inserts, perforated hex-sheet metal, and some end mills (for inlay work, 1/4 the price at LMI). I have MSC because their UI sucks, and both MSC and McMaster have high prices, but you save in the shipping you don't pay from 10 different "cheap" sources. In any case. Anodizing! Yay! -Dave

Thomas Register (thomasnet.com) Any industrial service you need can be found there. Might not be the cheapest, and most of those are business to business listings and you will certainly be snubbed a few times finding someone who will deal with "the little guy," but that's where to look. More useful to you is the regional search feature which includes Canadian provinces. Select your area, punch in anodizing, and start making cold calls. Also most ano houses can do small batch work, but the smaller the part and the more esoteric the color or finish, the more expensive it will be. If you were willing to do a common color (clear, etc) and aren't too picky, you can get your stuff thrown in the next batch for a customer with a larger order for a significant discount. Lastly you had best know what alloy you have, it has a huge huge huge effect on the final finish, the actual anodizing process you need, and sometimes the cost. I once made a part out of 2024 to have ano'd and that was a BIG mistake: 2024 comes out nasty brown-black when you do a standard clear process for the more common 6000/7000 series alloys. As for texturing, you're best off experimenting yourself with wire brushes, etc. You might find places to do that for you, but that's real labor intensive and will not be cheap (pay for wha you get, I guess). Good luck! -Dave P.S. to anyone else reading this: all you guys who tell people to buy their screws/mcpherson-style clamps/threaded inserts/etc. from these random online sites need to start using real industrial supply houses (MSC, McMaster-Carr, etc.) If you haven't done it before search around McMasterCarr (www.mcmaster.com) for a bi and you'll find anything you've ever wanted. Put an order in for a drill press, a urinal, M6 left-handed 316 SS socket head screws in a filister head, really ANYTHING on one order. I put in an order for a few hunded today for project parts and tools, great one-stop shop with decent prices. Stop going to the nobody's with high shipping rates and poor selection with questionable suppliers.

Not to further beat a dead horse, but as someone who IS building their first guitar and who could readily be considered a n00b, I'd like to say I'm in full favor of unbridled yet constructive critcism. In my own experience I know exactly what you're going to say about my build ahead of time. You knkow who's the most acutely aware of my mistakes? Me. Yet I'm taking the time to do it right, or as right as I can, and while I know precisely where I've botched something, hidden something, etc, I will still continue to post in progress shots for 2.5 reasons. 1: I'm proud of the work I've done so far, even if it's got some rough edges, and I want to share it. Likewise I figure if I can share my first building experience, making notes on its successes and pitfalls in detail, then the next fool who decides to empty their pocketbook in order to shape the wood under some metal strings might be that much wiser when he goes about it. I consider myself yet another set of shuolders to stand upon, like those before me and those present here, even if I add only a few millimeters to the stack. 2: When I do botch a detail, and I don't know where to look for help, someone out here does. When asking humbly and respectfully help on issues with my build I have gotten honest, often thorough, and prompt reponses EVERYTIME. After pushing my dumb, and occasionally clever, ideas/designs/etc for half a year now and lurking these boards for much longer, I have never once seen an honest and heartfelt question go unanswered. I should point out that questions which have been asked 1000 times and responded to 50 separate times within easily searchable threads count as "answered." Laziness is seldom an excuse for ignorance, which I might point out is seldom all that blissful. 2.5: After the criticisms and advice have fallen, I am indeed an attention spam who craves complements and encouragement. When I'm convinced my build looks terrible because there's a slight gap in one of my miters (filled with dust and glue of course) it's been my experience that people here are overwhelmingly positive. I hope and expect that it's my attitude about the build that draws the generous side of people out, but I think the crowd and their love of this hobby/profession/timesuck is what drives their passion for the builders and the built and building. A final note: My own experience of any creative process, and guitar-building is most certianly a process of creation, is that both people and products are best served by a sense of reverence for the creative. If you respect the tradition of fine woodworking, luthiery, and the time it takes to be a craftsman, instead of a hack with a router, I believe your work and the respect you slowly earn will reflect it. The world and its myriad contents deserve careful consideration. Every board, figured and quartersawn or bland and riftsawn, is a reflection of the intricacy and mystery of the universe and should inspire us with utter awe. If you consider that quilt top as the masterpiece of creation and evolution that it is, or even just as a truly unique and beautiful object, you will know exactly how to shape and handle it. Disrespect it, take away the awe you should hold it in, and I assure you that there shall be no awe left at all in your finished work. -Dave "Not-Nearly-As-Hippy-As-He-Sounds" E.

I would also love to get some more info on the vacuum baggin process, etc, as I am fully planning to build a very very custom CF case for my new axe (after the guitar is done, of course). I'm not going to discolose any details, but it's going to have some sweeeeet features you've never seen before, but the carbon and glass work is daunting to me since I've never done any. Websites, tips, etc? Thanks all you knowledgeable peoples. -Dave

Thanks guys, this thing has been the result of lots and ots of planning and thinking and I hope the end product reflects that. -Dave

The huge chain-o-gears is an interesting idea, but more than I want to bite off this time around. Plus I don't want this to be the gear-guitar, I want it to just have some subtle, personal touches. Yeah, showing off the gears is appealing more and more to me, and I hear wha tyou're saying about sanding the SS, I might do them sub flush and cover them with clear epoxy, or I might redo them in shell. I figure if I use a good sanding/radius block then keeping them all flush should be tough but not impossible, yet why make things harder for yourself, right? Make more real shell gears or make an uneven fretboard, my choice I suppose. -Dave