another doug

I've used a $69 9" bandsaw for 4 solid-bodied guitars. The pros are that it was cheap and it works, the cons are: -it has a 1/4" blade, which wanders pretty easily, so I need to leave more wood outside the lines, which means more work to clean up the cuts. -there isn't a lot of reach. In other words, I have to cut a body in several smaller (and sometimes awkward) passes. -you can't re-saw (to the best of my knowledge) There are probably other cons, but the point is that it does work. I've been using mine for years, and I don't regret getting it. However, I am now getting to the point where I wish it was a bit more sturdy and had re-saw capabilities. Just figured I'd throw that out there.

I'm not a pointy guitar kind of guy, so take this with a grain of salt: I think the whole thing looks a little off-kilter as it is. I think it would be greatly improved by angling the neck slightly so that the centerline of the body ends at the center of the "codpiece cutout." ( ) Other than that, the only thing that doesn't really flow for me is the bass-side point of the headstock. Good luck, and make sure the rest of the band wear safety goggles; you could put an eye out with that thing! Just my 2 cents.

In my opinion, the design of the headstock is not too bad, but you may have some issues with the E and G putting excess pressure on the sides of the nut. I can't recall seeing a bass with angles that sharp, so you may be fine, but usually you want the strings to pass over the nut as straight as possible. Other than that, your mockup looks pretty good to me. Just my 2 cents. Good luck on the rest of your build!

I'm not a pro, but my first thought was that the nut was slotted too deep. Could that be it?

Good choice, IMO. Keep up the good work!

Out of curiosity, what did you end up doing with the fretboard/scale length?

For what it's worth, I like it a lot. The grain orientation on the top is a nice touch; it follows the lines of the body well. Any idea what you're going to do for finish/pickups/hardware? I also like the stand.

Looks like you guys had a fun weekend! That is the point I was originally trying to make back on page 2, although when I mentioned the price, I assumed that people remembered the flaws/features that were pointed out in the original Zachary thread. That's a big part of what this forum is for me, too. I am only a basement tinkerer, but I have learned a ton from these forums (including threads like this) about what I *should* be capable of, and what I should be trying to avoid.

I would see it that way too, except he called it an "amazingly figured top," not a "knotty butcherblock that proves flamed maple isn't necessary." As far as the pricing is concerned, all I'm saying is it's not worth that to me. My original post about the price was more harshly worded, but that's what I was getting at. If someone else wants to buy the ikea guitar, they won't need to push me out of the way. I'm certainly not trying to tell you or Zachary how to price your guitars.

That's very true. I didn't look into his base price, but I did know that $1500 is a very good price for a hand-made guitar; I just don't think that one is worth it (obviously some do, and power to them). I certainly respect him for being able to sell his guitars (and build up a very loyal following, apparently). Also, you are absolutely right that I am not at that level myself (note that I haven't posted any close-up pics of my guitars ). I actually like some of what Zachary's doing (the basic ideas, if not the execution, and certainly not the ridiculous hype). It just struck me as strange that he would brag about how cheap the top was, and then ask someone to give him a lot of money for it (I apparently can't write a sentence without parentheses!).

That's my only problem with the whole deal. I have nothing against trying new ideas or using reclaimed lumber or alternative materials (or even "cheap" materials"), and I even like the ikea guitar, but to call it a feature and charge $1500 is ridiculous, especially since he's telling the customer that he spent nothing on materials. I know that time is worth money as well, but the end product still has to be worth the price. I wouldn't mind owning that guitar, but I wouldn't pay much for it, cuz it looks cheap.

That pickup is slanted the wrong way for more bass. Closer to bridge = more treble. Power to ya for goin at it with chisels; I wouldn't have even tried. Looks like it's coming along pretty well though. I really dig the design and the wood choices. Edit: It didn't even occur to me that you may want less treble out of the high strings. If that is the case, that slant will work fine.

+1. I think that would definitely be helpful. I just amended my location to be more specific (it used to say Chicago-ish, but Chicagoland is bigger than some countries!).

There was a recent thread where this idea came up (not sure if it was the same company cuz the website looked different). There were videos of people playing these things and the bends sounded ok. Here's the thread: fanned fret discussion My problem with this idea is that it would make accurate fretting difficult. Since you want to fret a note right behind the fret, you would have to learn the location of the fret in every position on every string. Either that or you'd have to play while staring at the fretboard so your finger doesn't come down in front of a fret accidentally. Hard to look cool like that! Plus, would you need a new neck if you change string guages? Also, every guitar player I have heard, with the exception of those two mpegs from the website, has played straight frets. I think Clapton, Hendrix, Page, SRV, Vai, Satriani, etc. sounded pretty good, don't you? Seems unnecessary to me.

Why would a luthier pay for quality name-brand parts and then not tell anyone? Seems to me that anything name-brand would be a feature that you would want to draw attention to. If you called a FR a "double-locking trem system" that would lead people to think it was a fake that was not worth as much. Also, I'm not a lawyer, but I think if you payed money for the FR, you can use it for whatever you want, but just in case, you should be honest about your modifications (which you would want to claim credit for anyway, as it implies extra work on your part, and therefore a guitar that would be worth more). I think you would only really get into trouble if you used your FR as a basis for churning out illegal copies.

That is a really nice top. Good job on staining it. Looks great! How thick is that body? I don't know if it's just the angle or something, but it looks thicker than standard. Also, that narrow bit of wood on the treble side of the neck pocket looks pretty fragile. Be careful with it!

Throw "Coors Light" and "Schlitz" in there while you're at it. I'd rather drink beer. If it says Budweiser or Stroh's (or Coors light or Schlitz) that tells me to avoid it at all costs (even free)! As for pickups, sure no-names can be good, but you won't know until you hook them up in your guitar, whereas with a name-brand you usually know what you're getting.

Most people use titebond (original), unless I'm very much mistaken. I've used it with good results. I'm assuming all your laminations are wood?

I would use nitro lacquer. You can get a satin clearcoat. You may want to check out reranch.com. They have tons of info and products, but I'm not sure about custom colors. You may also want to look into automotive aerosols. A lot of people here have used them with pretty good results. Just make sure the clear is compatible with the color coats. You'll also want to check out automotive masking tapes. As for the headstock, I would put a mahogany cap or veneer over it, and finish it with the same satin finish. There may be other options, especially if you have access to a spray rig, but I figured I'd throw my ideas into the mix.

I am no finishing expert, but I have done it, so: 1- Those steps are extremely vague. They make sense, but you need a lot more info. What products do you plan on using? What kind of wood? What grits of sandpaper? Grainfiller? etc. etc. 2- There is a ton of information on finishing available on this forum, as Mickguard told you yesterday. You should also check out reranch.com. They also have a ton of info, and sell products that will work together. 3- This is the 3rd identical thread on this subject! If you're that desperate, just bump the old one rather than starting a new one every day.

If I were you, I'd be looking at two options. I'd be leaning toward a custom guitar, even if it's just a bunch of Warmoth parts. My other thought would be to look for a vintage guitar that would fall into your price range. Either way, it should definitely be something with a timeless quality. And guys, lay off the engagement ring! He's getting a guitar out of the deal! If she agrees to no ring, he'll have to agree to no guitar! Just my 2 cents (canadian, in this case)

1- Give it a try on some scrap, complete with finish, and see how it works. Be sure you use something that won't fade much over time. 2- You could always try getting your design printed on fabric. Don't know if it'll work, but worth checking out.

I must've missed it the first time around. It was used excessively in the hip-hop scene and throughout pop culture in the early 2000's. I guess I just didn't get to it until then. All my Metallica was on dubbed cassettes! I missed it the second time around! I have been saying it based on a South Park episode where Cartman said it all the time, pissing everyone off. It didn't even occur to me that the word had a history; I thought they made it up. I'll have to start reading all my cd booklets and see what else I've missed out on!

Firstly, I can't directly answer your questions, especially regarding drums. I would start by checking out the pinned topics in the inlay/finishing tutorial section. That should at least give you some idea. There is no one right answer for clearcoats, but you should find your out what your options are there. You'll probably also find good suggestions on dyes. Minwax may not be the best idea. If you are able to ask more specific questions, and show that you have at least looked around the forum, the experts may be more likely to respond. good luck. doug

A couple interesting things in that Wiki article: 1 - The idea goes back a long way (no real surprise there) 2 - The connect-the-dots method was done in 1977 (and probably many times before) 3 - The patent may have expired and be difficult to uphold in court, but there is also the copyright issue with the "fanned-fret" name, which is now almost synonymous with a multiscale instrument, a la Xerox. 4 - All of that "plurality of strings" lingo is hella boring!