Bainzy

The idea apparently behind Warmoth having many separate chambers is that if the same area is routed as the Gibson chambering, but the chamber is split up into many, that you get almost exactly the same weight reduction and tone, but feedback issues common on semi-hollow guitars won't be as prevalent. One interesting thing though is that if you look at Warmoth's hollow LP bodies in particular, there aren't as many chambers on that model as their Strat bodies. (image from www.warmoth.com)

Pretty much - you rest it on the surface, grab the handles and drag it towards you. It doesn't take long to get the hang of it, and you can get a finish with a well tuned one that doesn't even need to be sanded afterwards.

Yep. I'll be using it mostly for jointing the acoustic top/back and sides. That big ol' honker will get it done in no time flat. EDIT: I just did the plane dating chart and it says it's a hybrid of types 8 and 9 made somewhere between 1899 and 1907, and it sure looks like it could be that old. Anyone have any guesses about how much it might be worth? Not sure about the US, but here in the UK a No.7 of that era and in that condition would usually go for £100 ($200) minimum on ebay.

Nice one - here's some links to help you get acquainted with it: http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/readart...icles_720.shtml (if there's any cleaning needed) http://www.hyperkitten.com/tools/stanley_b...ating/main.html (finding out when it was made) http://www.finefurnituremaker.com/publishe...g_12_part_2.htm (setting up the plane) if you get any pics of it please post them! If you do anything to the plane at all, the most important change I'd recommend is making the sole dead flat and squaring the sides - which is especially important on a jointer plane like a #7. All the used Stanley's I have needed their soles flattening to some extent, having a flat sole makes the most noticeable difference to how easy the plane is to use in my opinion as instead of you having to make the plane flatten the wood, its almost as if the plane is flattening the wood for you, it practically planes itself.

Get some measurements and photographs, or ideally borrow a guitar with the top you're trying to copy, and simply start carving with either finger planes, small pattern maker's spokeshaves - or you could make a miniature carving plane yourself like Setch.

Length depends on how long the neck is. The middle is routed deeper because on a truss rod of the one-way design, the truss rod mechanism works by adding backbow when it's tightened. It does this because when you tighten it, you're stretching it, and just like when you stretch a piece of string, it straightens. If its in a curved channel, straightening the truss rod means that the rod adds backbow to the neck due to the way it pushes against the inside of the channel.

I'm gonna have a go at doing this on the next few LP's I build by trying to plane the neck angle into the front of the maple top with a hand plane, then using that as a base for the router like Setch did. It shouldn't be too hard as it isn't a surface that requires a large plane to make it accurate, anything from a #3 to #4 1/2 should easily do the job. I'll report back on my findings once its done.

I'll make sure to post my thoughts, before and after tuning them all up. When I try the spoon carver method, I'll also let you know how they differ in performance and suitability etc.

Interesting options - I think I'll be trying all of them at some point. For now though, I decided to go for a set of mini spokeshaves I found on ebay USA, once they arrive I'll hone the blades and fit them all with brass chipbreakers to improve performance:

What do you suggest is unsafe about this technique? Its no unsafer that planing the neck blank to begin with. Its also a damn lot quicker, which means im focused on the job rather than day dreaming. Repetative work is one of the main causes of accidents... people's minds and concentration start drifting. If i only have one neck to do, i generally use hand planes etc, but the last run i did was 15 necks. That would be a good day, or maybe two with a hand plane, versus a couple hours tops. Only safer in the respect that a hand plane can't lop your fingers off like a jointer - I didn't mean doing this was any more dangerous than anything else on a jointer. I agree it's definately quicker, and I can't imagine spending all day using hand planes if I was doing your job, it would make the cost of labour for the guitars so high that either I'd be making a lot less money or the guitars wouldn't be competetively priced. The reason I'd say using a plane is easier, particuarly for a beginner at building guitars, is that if you've got the technique down on how to use either a hand plane or jointer, then you have to think a lot less hard about actually doing the job with a plane (even though the labour takes longer). With working out the angles on the jointer you have to think carefully and prepare it so you know the jointer will cut in the right place, whereas with a hand plane you'd just draw it out on the sides of the blank and plane to those lines. I know I'm probably overly plane obsessed, but I do feel like some people starting out building guitars on this forum go into it with the aim of building guitars first and maybe learning any woodwork skills second, which is a shame as it's so much more rewarding and easier going into learning to be good at carpentry first and then applying what you learn to guitars - because that's all guitar building is, a form of carpentry, and some would rather spend hundreds or even thousands on power tools to make building guitars easier and as little like woodworking as possible when they'd be so much better off starting small and learning how to use power tools to replace their hand tools when they start working on a bigger scale in the way that luthiers like Perry do.

Awesome Setch, I wondered what that plane was for - I've been going away from the idea of buying the convex shave actually in the past few days, and using a minature one instead - I didn't realise how big the Kunz/Clifton models are, a bit clunkier than I'd like for this job. If you have such a tutorial/description of it being built I'd love to see it! Another thing I've been considering instead is getting a set of these: http://www.amazon.com/Aldon-SPK-03-Bronze-...t/dp/B00076VSBC and upgrading them with a proper cap iron that works as a chipbreaker so they work nicely for carving tops, the only problem is I can't seem to track down any UK suppliers

Having to hone the blade isn't much of an issue to me, but how is the quality of the blade - does it keep an edge well, and how sharp an edge can it get? Is the bed of the spokeshave flat and providing a good mating surface?

That shouldn't be too difficult, I'd suggest using mostly a round bottomed spokeshave and then finishing it off by setting the spokeshave really fine or using sandpaper. Lie Nielsen make a really nice Preston style spokeshave that would work great for this job, and for an extremely high quality tool its not that expensive: Lie Nielsen (curved bottom) Spokeshave alternatively, you could try using a modern Stanley #63 spokeshave that's cheaper, although I wouldn't expect it to get as fine shavings as the Lie Nielsen: Stanley #63 Spokeshave When doing a job like this on a guitar, I'd use an old Stanley chamfering spokeshave that I got from my grandfather, it's missing the chamfer guides so effectively it's just like a Stanley #63. After derusting, tuning up the blade and fabricating a new brass chipbreaker/cap for it (the original was missing) it does the job extremely well. Another option might be to use a file, or even a palm sander if you're a power tool junkie, but the spokeshave is probably the easiest method and you'll be glad you learned how to use it when you want to try carving out a neck.

Wouldn't it be easier and safer using a hand plane?

I'd consider Lie Nielsen as my LN 5½ jack is amazing but as far as I'm aware they don't make a spokeshave this shape. The spokeshave I'm using right now was from my grandfather is about 100 years old, it's a No.65 Chamfer spokeshave made by the Stanley Rule & Level Co. still with it's original blade, but sadly the chamfer parts and cap iron were long gone before I got hold of it: I've since derusted it and painted it up as shown in the picture, and the blade is nicely sharpened - it works well, but I'm still making a replacement cap iron from brass to improve its performance further that should act as a chip breaker. The main problem with it is that unless I go across the grain with it, the shape of the spokeshave base is too wide to carve out the tighter recessed areas on a Les Paul top. I agree Setch that £55 is a large amount of cash to spend on a tool I might not like, but then there's also a concern of mine that I might end up spending £15 on the Kunz, liking it's style but not performance and ending up buying the Clifton too. Plus, the Clifton presumably would hold its value quite well.

prostheta recently did a group buy on the UKGB forum for black epoxy, maybe you could give that a try: http://www.simnettguitars.co.uk/bb/viewtop...594&start=0 I ordered a pair of tubes, I'll report back once I've had chance to use it as inlay filler.

I've already got a spokeshave with a rounded bottom that works fairly well, but I'm after one with an actual convex shape (the base has a 2.5" radius) for carving tops when I need to get into tighter areas where the base of my current spokeshave will be too wide. I don't really know which one to get though - there appears to be two options, one by Kunz and another by Clifton. The Kunz is around £15 retail whereas the Clifton is £55, but I'm prepared to get a new blade and spend time working on it with the Kunz, and possibly making a new chip breaker if necessary for it. Does anyone have any experience with either, or any other recommendations? (Kunz version)

You know the bit at the bottom middle of the plan where it has the top contours? Copy these lines onto MDF or Plywood (whatever your templates will be made from), and then cut out the shape so everything above the line is remaining. These are now your contour templates. Plane the top to 5/8" thick (or whatever it was on those plans), and then when you're carving the top keep putting those templates against the top until they rest pretty much flush along the top. They should show you where more wood needs to come off, which is pretty handy.

That sounds about right, don't bother taking a wire brush to sole and/or sides, just let the grinder take it off as you don't want to throw it further out of flat than it already is. You might also want to check that the face of the frog is flat so there's optimum contact between the back of the blade and the frog. A good way of removing the rust without worrying about de-flattening the plane surface is through simple electrolysis: http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/readart...icles_720.shtml inspiring stuff...

A lot of people are fans of graphite guitars (eg. Steinberger), so it wouldn't be a surprise to me if someone made a guitar from synthetic wood and produced a different sounding but still good sounding instrument.

Since it's my birthday on the 29th, and since I've made a pledge not to go out during this exam month (which should save me about £100), I've decided as a present for my birthday I'm gonna treat myself to a high quality, ready to use out of the box, possible family heirloom type bench plane. Since I've already got a post war Stanley #3, #4, #4 1/2 and #7 all either from family or ebay, I'm thinking of getting a Lie Nielsen # 5 1/2 plane. It'll be mainly used for guitar building, but I should be able to use it on timber when building things like workbenches, tables etc, and I'm thinking 5 1/2 should be a good all rounder with extra width to make it good for working on body blanks and jointing shorter lengths of timber - but more importantly, something that I know will work properly and any faults will be on my part and not the condition of the plane's. Do you think it's a good size to get for this kind of work, or should I be looking at something else?

3x3 should be enough to get a pair of necks out of if you're careful, length would depend if you're doing a scarf job on the headstocks or not. You might get away with around 25" for a pair of scarf joint headstocked necks, for a pair of one piece necks you might be looking at around 30-33"; I've just done this myself but unfortunately the neck blanks and plans I made are at home where I can't reach them to measure, since I'm away at Uni right now.

Tru' dat.

Planing the headstock for scarfing or just smoothing the face on a one-piece neck, is the easiest task to do on a guitar with a hand plane in my opinion. If you're serious about woodworking, you can get away without them but you really should learn how to use hand planes properly and I think this is a great way to start, and I can't think of an easier or quicker method than breaking out a Stanley #4, #5 or their wider '1/2' counterparts and planing away on that headstock join - an added bonus is there's 0% chance you'll lop one of your fingertips off in the process, and the shavings will be much easier to clean up than powersaw or router dust.

That's really cool info Rich, thanks for taking the time to share that and your thoughts/opinions.