Geo

I'm sure that would work. At some point you might want to stop sanding and start rubbing it with 0000 steel wool. Or just go ahead and french polish it (google should turn up some information on that). If you build up shellac on the fingerboard, I'm pretty sure the strings will cut through to the wood in no time. But I've never tried it. Think of old maple-necked Fenders... lacquer can't withstand the strings, and shellac is soft.

You probably don't need to glue the shim if it's going under the anchored end, but I suppose gluing it doesn't hurt. I would put it below the truss rod rather than on top.

Pretty sure it's the plates glowing blue. I've never seen an amp where this wasn't the case with the power tubes.

You don't need a 12A_7 with matched triodes in a guitar amp. Also, it isn't strictly necessary in the power amp either. Different individual tubes bias differently, which is the reason for using matched power tubes. But as long as you don't have one tube redplating while the other is idling fine, you can use mismatched tubes. You may get less output or less bass, but for a ~50w guitar amp this may not matter to you. Me, I run one Sovtek and one Chinese 6L6 in my Bassman at the moment. Both glow blue and the amp is loud and normal-sounding, which to me means that in my situation, the mismatched tubes are fine. Now, I use this for bass, so I should probably put some matched tubes in there... but it suits my bass sound well. (My bass sound is aggressive and overdriven.)

I wouldn't put a veneer on it with a natural finish. What are the chances that the endgrain of the body will look like it flows out of the veneer? In my mind it just looks cheap, but maybe it would work.

I would rather finish the sides of the fingerboard. On one guitar I taped off the sides and I could feel a tiny little ledge where the finish on the neck dropped off (where the tape had been). It was an oil finish, and maybe I did something wrong, but I would rather have it flush.

A rock-solid power supply is definitely needed for some styles (esp. bass amps), but a lot of classic guitar amps don't have great power supplies. In classic guitar amps, it seems that imperfections are part of the amp's charm. What's your intent? I'm just curious. If you're looking for more power output and/or headroom, there are other ways to do it using cheaper transformers... or are you looking for those things in a single-ended design? I tend to look at designs with "new" power amps and think, there's probably a reason that's never been done... but that's just my skepticism.

Very pretty, understated design! I would shim that neck right away! It sounds like that's the only thing holding it back, since you love the sounds you get out of it and it plays well otherwise.

That's what counts. And I agree, moving the neck towards the floor may help.

My gut reaction is the same as avengers's--it looks off-balance (though I do like it). I think your guitar is "radially symmetrical" around a point ~2-3' below the treble side ("towards the floor" if playing it on a strap). Most guitars are symmetrical around the centerline--even the "offset" ones like the Jazz bass, Explorer, etc. They all have something on the other side of the centerline to balance them out. One way to work this out is to have the headstock "flow out of" the shape and help balance the guitar. Your headstock is awesome, but seems to follow the traditional "symmetrical to centerline" design rather than matching the body's symmetry reference.... Does that make sense? Regardless, it's a cool design and the woods really work well with it. And one more thought... another soundhole on the treble side of the body would REALLY alleviate things.

You could probably strike a balance here... refret with thicker tangs. If this is too much backbow, use heavier strings. Pretty crude, but I bet you could get it into decent shape using frets and strings as your "truss rod".

Hm, I wouldn't stain mahogany blue, since it has such a lovely color on its own (but that's just me). The concept looks good, but you might consider switching to P-90 bridge, humbucker in the neck. To my ears, P-90's can sound a little "woolly" in the neck position, while humbuckers give you a rounder tone there. And a P-90 in the bridge will always smoke a bridge humbucker... Um... what does that leave you? It sounds like if you work with what you have, either way, you're going to have to do some fretwork. It's not hard, just read up on it... and be patient... it's quite tedious. And get the right tools.

That off-centerline glue line is very distracting! Weird, the neck pickup is positioned more like it would be on a bass than on a guitar, but the bridge placement is clearly for a guitar.

Mmm... but that would cost money. Thanks, I'm glad you like the shape! Progress on this will be pretty slow, as I can only work in my parents' basement and I can't get home during the week because of school.

Here's the body cut out. There's still a lip around the bottom because my bit doesn't reach far enough. I'm debating whether to bevel this off with a spokeshave or do binding on the back as well. Any thoughts? http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q119/Ge...ct/IMG_1539.jpg http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q119/Ge...ct/IMG_1538.jpg

For a first build, I wouldn't spend a lot on parts and wood. Chances are that something in your crafstmanship will cause more problems in the finished guitar than using a $10 bridge. Now, if you buy cheap hardware, your project turns out great and you realize you need better hardware, just upgrade it. This helps spread the cost around too--spending $500 over a year is a lot easier than spending it in a few weeks as you gather supplies! This is why with each project, I tend to buy one or two new tools--either upgrading from the crap I've been using, or buying something completely new to me. Random thoughts: -if you have a steady hand, you don't need a drill press to drill straight holes. I do it carefully with a hand-held electric drill. I wasn't good at it at first but I can now drill 90deg holes. -you can build a guitar without a router (I've done it) but it's such a pain, you may as well just buy one. (And get a template bit) My current solidbody project has cost me ~$107 so far. I still need to get neck/fb wood, frets, etc., but it will probably be under $150 total. Now, I bought some dirt cheap parts from an ebay supplier. For this project, I was just itching to build and figured, what the heck, I can get better parts later if these are proven inadequate.

Here's the plan for my next guitar. The body is ash. It will be stained blue I think, with white plastic binding. The neck will be maple, walnut or poplar (not sure yet). The pickguard will be walnut. 2 P-90's, a LP Jr. style bridge/tailpiece, ebony fingerboard... finish will be tru-oil. Sorry that's the only picture I have right now... Just thought people might like to see the body shape. I'll have more pictures soon once I get the body cut out etc. EDIT: hm, didn't realize the headstock was so invisible...

FYI tru oil is not strictly clear. It darkens dark wood and looks quite amber-ish on spruce.

In the strictest sense, yes. Pretty easy if it's a bolt on neck. If it's glued in, you have to remove the neck without damaging anything. But there are other considerations: Is the top carved around the neck pocket? You may have to shim the neck up then. If you do that, what does it do to your needed bridge height? Can a flat hardtail bridge deliver? Will you have to shim that too? There are so many variables... you MUST draw this out fullsize. But... ... it sounds like you're on the right track. Just keep in mind: by changing bridge and neck angle, you are essentially redesigning the guitar, like taking the chassis out of a car and trying to reshape the body for a different chassis. I don't think you need to worry about that as long as the neck joins the body at the same fret and you calculate your bridge placement correctly. The nice thing with Strat-style hardtails is that if you do mount it a little too short or long, you can fill the holes with dowels and drill new holes, because the bridge plate covers a big chunk of the body. Don't do that.

Treat it as an "inlay", enlarge the tearout (you don't have to fill the whole depth), and inlay a scrap in there.

Think about it... the strings are not parallel to each other. The whole neck is "radial". As the strings get farther apart towards the bridge, why shouldn't the edge of the neck follow suit? I.e., it would follow its own radial line, rather than the radial lines of the two E strings moved over a few mm.

As I understand it, pickups do not feedback unless they are microphonic. Feedback happens in the strings or in the microphonic windings of pickup coils. And thus all the normal acoustic guitar feedback would be available as well, no? If the top is going to be free, it must be braced like an acoustic. Or: If the top is glued to the solid core (as shown in dpm's drawing), it will not vibrate much acoustically, because it can only really flex behind the bridge, and an acoustic bridge creates torque, trying to flip the top from tailblock to headblock and vice-versa... or perhaps this is different if you use an archtop-style bridge?

That is a STUNNING MASTERPIECE.

I find this an exciting project! Sometimes the point isn't a brand-new flashy design, but crafstmanship... and hey, Blackdog's headstock is VERY classy. I think the basic LP design lends itself very well to subtle changes. It's almost as adaptable as the Tele.

Agreed... but from an economics point of view, I don't have anything else. If I do this, I may stain the neck blue or black (not sure of the exact color scheme yet) so I think the light woods together will be all right. Of course, poplar can be greenish, so the maple and poplar might come out very different shades of blue... perhaps black stain is safest... Anyway, I was mostly concerned about poplar's general qualification as a neck wood. It sounds like it makes a good neck. Thanks to those who answered.