Prostheta

Ah yes, he's made a safe edge on a (double cut?) file and grinds them flush. That's pretty much what I though would be the right approach for doing it on the neck, and I can understand the positives over fretting a fingerboard off the neck....which I've never actually liked (or the idea of) for several reasons. It all looks like an excellent process except that I am not so sure about using cyanoacrylate for attaching binding any more. It's convenient for the speed, but there's so much more that can go wrong compared to cements and/or acetone. For example, when I bound the body of one of my recent guitars the interface between the binding and the body softens to the point that it can be pressured into the channel by the tape's natural tension when stretched (5% I think the 3M spec is) which creates very clean and adhered binding that scrapes back as though you're a god. CA, not so much since it is neither the same as the wood nor the binding, plus it contaminates porous woods readily. I think a nice set of Swiss Vallorbe needle files are in your near future! I like the quietness of his workshop. Not entirely Tom Fidgens, but miles from Adam Booth!

Red is hard, or at least my own personal preference in that direction. I've always wanted a deep black cherry guitar, possibly one with depth from a candy toner. I'm hardly a finishing guy, so that one will have to stay in the mindbank! I'll have to check out Freddy's approach. As I see it, flushing up the fretwork to the edge of the fingerboard is the greatest challenge unless that is done off the neck. I'll have to see what his solution is.

What sort of colour scheme are you aiming for with this Maple? If you're aiming for another sandback sort of approach with black, I would consider testing brown as it produces a much more natural result. Black pigments are stronger (they aren't really black, just super potent blue/purples for example) than shades such as tobacco, and that strength drives pigment into fibres producing a blotchy, spotty look which doesn't sand back evenly and kills the chatoyance. I've never done nibs myself. I don't know how easy it would be to go down this road binding the fingerboard on the neck, as I believe it's the sort of approach that suits sanding the fingerboard and fret ends as a separate part? They're a weird hangover, and I don't even know why Gibson established this as a thing in the first place! I wonder what the deeper history is on that....

I'm surprised that the fingerboard and headstock aren't bound themselves. The dust in the slots from sanding the edges make it look self bound in that last photo!

Nicely done! Congrats.

Wow, old thread but sure, definitely relevant. I've been using a Line6 Helix floor for a few years. It's consistently simple but sounds great. For my own use, it would make little difference whether I use a Helix, Kemper, Axe-FX, Quad Cortex or whatever. Having an expression pedal built in or the option of an external pedal with a (10k?) pot is a bonus. That makes me think as to whether I could make an optically-switched pedal for the Helix....hmmmm Softwarewise, Audacity, RipX DeepAudio for figuring out tracks, Cakewalk SONAR and a few old plugins such as Toontrack stuff.

Just a joke I do think that it is a difficult process to master consistently, and when we're at the level of making instruments in small quantities where we can spend time on getting the detail work right, it's a skill worth mastering. Even using a single square file with a safe edge on one side can be enough to produce excellent fret ends....but once you get a proper tool, man oh man, so much better.

If you learnt that in one day, I need to know which day is mine to crack it as well!

Your fretwork is clean as glass these days. I agree that your 8-string is definitely something else.

I'm happy with third, congrats man! It's always a tough contest, but it always has a worthy winner. So what's next?

I bought a travel Ker-Plunk set purely for the coloured ABS sticks Much cheaper than buying actual side inlay dot sticks!

Great hearing for you as always man!

Probably an overhead pin router. Those are essentially a "manual CNC".

This is exactly the sort of subject that I have put an inhuman amount of thought into....how something is made, not simply that something can be made. The latter part of that is just the entry fee to the fun times of the process Manufacturing, process design and creating the roadmap on how to produce a thing is what I enjoy the most. Most years, ESP do these crazy one-off custom shop flash guitars to show what they are capable of doing, which is absolutely awesome to watch for many reasons. Mostly I'm examining the process and logistical issues, mentally trouble-shooting and identifying the problems along the way. The custom shop stuff tends to be without restrictions once the can is ticked off. Being cognisant of the implications within the how to achieve an end result with various restrictions is the real challenge. Those restrictions being the usual ones of time, money, materials, available tooling, throughput and efficiency, etc. Finding the right key markers and balancing them all off against each other as priorities/compromises is the real party. In my mind, I visualise this as a children's mobile that you hang above a cot or whatever. A tree where everything has its own place within a fully-balanced system. Every priority requires a certain degree of compromise, and hence rebalancing the system as a chain of consequences up that tree. I suppose that this is partly why I enjoy making guitars more than the formality of finishing them. The end result is not always the sole driving force. If I were tasked with a Mars mission, I'd probably figure out a nice efficient repeatable solution but when asked "well what are we going to do when we get there?", I'd likely answer, "not sure....play golf like we did on the moon?". Do you mean feathering the clearcoat, or some sort of burst?

I haven't explicitly seen this on an "ESP-ESPs" as I presume they mill their necks on a 5-axis CNC, however I've seen it a lot on mid and lower end "LTD-ESPs". It makes sense since there is a significant advantage in throughput and simpler tooling. Quite likely the machines used to churn out LTD necks are ganged and mill several simultaneously, ESP necks are likely done individually. Glad you have an interest in these quirks, Luis. I think a lot of people don't even notice.

It seems to require figuring out one's own working methods....I've found that for ABSs my sweet spot is where the interface between the binding and the wood becomes slightly smushy, so that the binding can drive itself into the rough surface of the wood. Wicking acetone doesn't seem to achieve this level of bond unless the binding is under a good amount of tension to "drive" it into the channel. I've taken to using different methods for different areas such as brushing acetone to soften the binding in difficult areas (rounded corners on headstocks) in addition to prior heat forming. Never at the same time of course! The smush factor during attachment helps to cover any discrepancies better than trying to backfill with acetone/binding slurry after the fact, as that never seems to colour match or blend in seamlessly enough. Smushing produces a wonderful unified join line once scraped back. I haven't had opportunity to do anything with CAB or celluloid recently, however "muscle memory" for choosing the approach before for those materials is different to ABS , certainly.

I've started using a cement, which is essentially gelled acetone or other solvent. Wicking has you working blind, and I don't work on faith. A little acetone fuming over a jar helps soften for horns. I know what you mean about Bessey clamps slipping. It's why you're meant to plant the foot before the screw pad otherwise they end up a little offset.

Here we go. These are the ones I use. Bessey GZ30 or the Würth rebranded equivalent. https://www.ilaritools.fi/product/46/ruuvipuristin-bessey-gz Prices vary, but aim for less than €50 each. Some places do package deals of 3x for reasonable prices. The two-part Bessey clamps with the pinned head just aren't as good. Single piece steel spine, wooden handle. No looking back. edit: UK source £39 ~5000N clamping pressure https://www.machinery4wood.co.uk/Bessey-All-steel-screw-clamp-classiX-GS-300-140/P41492 £50 ~6000N clamping pressure (these are what I have) https://www.machinery4wood.co.uk/Bessey-All-steel-screw-clamp-GZ30-300-140/P41522 Not sure how to convert N to PSI given there's no surface metric.

Rim clamps are great, agreed. These are also more appropriate for acoustics/violins, etc. Have you come across what's called a "pressure cone" in engineering for bolted parts? The same applies to clamping wood. The interface between each part is the area that the clamping pressure is mostly applied to with wood, which is why thicker cauls help to distribute that pressure over a wider area.

It isn't something that comes down to measurements really unless one sets a guideline. Breaking a corner is usually enough, with the right about of clear added with the right level of feathering. Generally these things are done by experienced hand and eye. Consistent application of scraper and abrasive. A Japanese worker will likely have the time to apply themselves to ensuring that the form of the binding is good and hence concentrating on the quality of edge transition. A mass manufacturing worker in say, Indonesia might just be belt sanding or rotary sanding the entire edge to achieve throughput without focus on these finer aspects. Goal oriented manufacturing as opposed to process oriented. I'd actually be interested in seeing how say, Korean manufacture at World Musical Instrument Co. compares on this scale, or whether they have internal variance based on end goals. If I recall, they make the mass manufactured lines for companies such as PRS (this has changed I believe), Chapman, Ormsby, BC Rich, Schecter and dozens of other known names including ESP's LTD brand. They're absolutely ENORMOUS. Personally, even though the intrinsic difference between a WMIC-produced Chapman/Ormsby GTR/LTD are likely not that great I would opt for an Ormsby every time since Perry's guys do the QC and fine setup personally and have high standards. One might even say, "uncompromisingly bastard-like standards". After all, you can clearly tell a guitar that has been made and scrutinised by human hand and eye with care just as much as you can tell one that was just another on an endless line of identical planks with zero mental investment in each.

It's things like this that help me feel less bad about the binding work on the Invaders neck.

I was hunting around for the more egregious examples that got me thinking about this yesterday, and came up a bit short, but also had a realisation based on less than obvious relationship. First, photos. ESP. Clean, crisp and well-defined. Notice the highlight off the edge of the burst's step at the end. Pearly is showing this because of the hand scraping. Next, an LTD. Not sure of the year. Check out the curve around the corner next to the low E string (this is a lefty). You can also see that the flat top of the binding was encroached upon by sanding a LOT. It's clean and tidy though, but a different approach. This is where things get interesting. This is....not as good as the last one. AAAAGHHH! Whut. Well, aside from the terrible lines, there's a fundamental manufacturing difference between these, or at least in LTDs. That is, I suspect that the headstock is cut using a 2,5 axis CNC on the same plane as the neck/fingerboard purely as it's less time on the CNC and a far less complex production method. This means the edges of the headstock are no longer perpendicular to the face of the headstock. As home builders, we rarely consider this aspect as we tend to cut headstocks using templates referenced from the headstock face, and hence produce perpendicular edges. I'm sure that this discrepancy doesn't entirely throw off the binding work to the point that it absolutely requires additional shaping/sanding work, however it does reveal some interesting artifacts that manufacturing pressures impose upon the final instrument.

I don't see this discussed anywhere near as much as I think it deserves, however there is definitely a high level of variance in how binding is finished in manufactured instruments. What got me thinking about this is that I've been near-religiously maintaining that 1,5mm binding thickness around everything so that it can be scraped back reliably and sharply. Then I saw a few photos of various LTD headstocks and noticed a huge difference in final finishing. In essence, it looks like LTD guitars (cheaper Eastern manufacture, generally Indonesia, etc) tend to have their headstock edges sanded to a curve including the binding, which reduces the apparent thickness of that binding. That is, the "thickness" of the binding meets at the paint/binding transition at a significantly curved/angled edge. Comparing this to a Japanese-made ESP or even an E-II, the binding is much more crisp and the sides of the headstock far less eased with a more definite edge radius than an overall curve around the side. I'm fairly certain than there will be more variation in non-Japanese made instruments, and I know that Japanese made ESPs are not entirely immune to faults in production either, but this is another significant difference in manufacturing approach that I can only presume is directly affected by how labour-intensive each is. How does everybody here like to finish their binding off? Rounding it into a smoother form around the edges or maintaining crisper lines?

I sealed the face of the headstock with finishing resin, masked the perimeter and sprayed it black, two coats with a levelling between. I made a quick binding scraper tool to take off the paint from the edges and softened the hard corner manually with a blade. After flattening the second coat, the decal was applied and buried under a clearcoat. This will be left for a few days to cure before I cut that back and apply a second clear. Whilst I was at it, I also applied the third coat of clear to the Invaders headstock. The two vertical distortions in the first pic are from the window blinds....they looked like wrinkles, but after checking there's absolutely nothing there. Panic! I'm far happier with the scraped binding on Pearly's headstock than the Invaders binding. That could have been a lot better, but this is purely a cosmetic nitpick. I'll discuss binding a little later....

For anything that requires small amounts of clamping pressure, I would agree. That said, it must be understood that there are two types of successful clamping (to make this more brief, presuming relatively standard PVAc) when gluing two surfaces. Firstly there's the physical component where the surfaces are well mated, both wetted with the glue and in good contact during the setting up period. This requires less clamping pressure to achieve, which the plywood-and-wedge method described will generally produce. Certainly, this can easily be more pressure than a vacuum bag which would be 10N/cm2 or 14,5PSI at sea level. It might produce a join that is adequate for the end use, but less likely to hit the second point, which is a cosmetically invisible glueline. This requires a higher clamping pressure a magnitude greater than that so that the contact between the two surfaces is excellent without excess adhesive between the two. This also increases bond strength, but not enormously so. If a body is being bound so that the glue line between a top and the core wood is covered, then you have latitude to get away with a lot more. When joining two halves of a body blank, I always ensure that the clamping pressure exerts around 150-200PSI so that the join is as cosmetically clear as possible. Surprisingly, glue evacuation is not something that is readily achievable without a lot of effort and way more clamps than is reasonable (or generally feasible) and that's a subject on its own.... Clamping with a plywood-and-wedge method might work for much smaller surface area clamping, such as around the rim of a violin or an acoustic, but a solidbody has about two magnitudes of surface area more than that. The numbers get a bit weird to look at when you run them, but there's a method.