Setch

Smile damn you! Your joints will be fine, you just don't need to worry about roughing surfaces in future. I'd recommend you get a cabinet scraper - probably the cheapest tool you'll ever buy, and one of the best all-rounders. You can just run it over the back of fingerboards etc before glueing and it removes oxidisation and leaves an ideal gluing surface. It's also great for levelling spots fills or runs in laquer, smoothing the back of necks, cleaning glue off joints before you reglue repairs - so many uses. I use mine all the time, most recently to finish up the carving of this volute on my latest...

It gives a weaker joint than if you'd left the surfaces smooth. The idea that rough surfaces create stronger glue lines is very widespread, but it is incorrect. To quote Frank Ford (www.frets.com) "Hide glue sticks to surfaces by electrochemical attraction, or specific adhesion. Mechanical bonds, like little “fingers,” may help modern adhesives such as epoxy because of their very high cohesive strength, but with hide glue’s low cohesive strength, roughening joint surfaces will not help adhesion.. It is better to be concerned about the electrochemical properties of the wood." This is also true of PVA (Wes - PVA = Poly Vinyl Acetate ie: white glue, yellow glue, titebond etc). The glue itself is not strong at all, but the bond it creates is extremely strong. If you roughen the surfaces you reduce the area of contact between the joined surfaces, so you get less bond strength, and more glue between the two surfaces, which is bad since the glue is weak. I know this all sounds counterintuative, but it is right - smoother *is* better when glueing wood to wood with Titebond or hide glue.

Just be sure you've actually got a fretboard - if it's a one piece maple neck with a skunk stripe you could have a *very* frustrating time trying to find the joint

Good glue adhesion with ebony is aided by revealing a fresh surface just prior to gluing, but I still don't advocate sanding or scoring the ebony. The joint created by PVA and/or hide glue is a chemical joint, not a mechanical one, and it works best on a smooth flat surface. Rough surfaces only aid in a mechanical joint, where they give the glue something to grip to, which helps glues like epoxy. Of course, a tablesaw or jointer with a less than perfect blade could be burning or burnishing the surface of the wood, and that isn't good for gluing. If that's the case you can sand the joint flat (don't rock your block - see budmans post) then scrape it to defuzz before gluing.

Smooth surfaces are best for glue joints in wood glued with PVA or hide glue. A rough edge can hide the glue line nicely, but clean flat surfaces as left by a plane or scraper create the strongest joint, if I flatten a joint with sand paper I usually follow up with a scraper to smooth the fuzz sanding leaves. The exception to this is when joining 2 dissimilar materials, like when you glue the plastic binding to a guitar, in this case a little "tooth" on the plastic aids adhesion.

I'd also recommend a healthy dose of cynicism where manufacturers information is concerned - they obviously have an adgenda other than providing you with the best possible glue - ie: to sell you their product. That said, I'm impressed by Franklin's honesty, nice to see. Even so, I'll always side with evidence from people who've used the product a great deal, and most concur that original titebond is a better glue for stressed joints than II. Of course, if you really want a noncreeping glue, get out your double boiler and cook up some hide glue... Definately on my to do list.

Dave, are you a registered MIMF member? If so, browse the library for "Major problems with bottled hide glue and Titebond II" and "Titebond or titebond II" in the glues section. I won't quote directly, but the general perception is that titebond II leaves more visible glue lines, and doesn't set as hard as titebond original. The thread also discusses Franklin's liquid hide glue, and urges people to avoid it like the plague. I think it was actually the Liquid hide which never sets, so you'll probably be OK with any guitars you've used titebond II on already. That said, I wouldn't use it if you don't have to - it isn't a dissaster waiting to happen, but it simply isn't as good as Titebond original. I used a specialsed aliphatic resin on my first guitar, and I much prefer titebond, which I've been using since. It has a really nice 'grab' time which allows you to position a joint and clamp it for 30 mins or so, rather than having to keep it clamped for hours.

Titebond II is not a good choice for guitar builders. It simply doesn't set as hard as regular titebond, and a number of builders have reported joints glued with it creeping or failing. I've heard of tops laminated with it coming unstuck, and revealing unset glue after several weeks. Something titebond did to the formulation to improve the water resistance reduced it's strength and changed it's cure characteristics. With this in mind you have to ask what advantages are provided by Titebond II over original - there are none except it's water resitance, which is a non issue on a guitar unless you plan on using it as a canoe paddle... This information came from the mimf, and is based on the independant observations of many experienced builders over a great many years. I'm not saying T'bond II *will* fail, and if you've used titebond II previouisly you'll probably be fine, but I wouldn't advise anyone to use it given any alternative. Titebond original is a superior product which is just as widely available and no more expensive, so why risk a product which has a track record of failing in lutherie applications?

Warning.... wood working fascist posting The purpose of clamps is to hold two pieces of wood together whilst the glue sets - it is not to squueze them together to and close any gaps. If you want this joint to look good, get it so it is light tight - ie: No light whatsoever shows through if you hold the joint up to the sun. Over clamping is not a solution to a poorly fitting joint. I true up two piece blanks with a handplane, and fine tune with 80 grit paper on a piece of plate glass, and a cabinet scraper. You can also the edges to be joined through a well setup jointer, which should leave them perfectly flat and square, and allow for a perfect joint. Get this joint right, because anything else will look halfarsed, and possibly be prone to failure later. I'd also advise you to use titiebond original rather than any all weather glue. Waterproof PVA's are sometimes less strong than common titebond, and can fail to dry in a large joint, leading to creeping and glue failure over time, especially in hot weather. This, coupled with the fact guitars aren't intended to be waterproof eliminates any benefits of all water resistant glues. Also, avoid titebond II for the same reasons.

I think the whole point is providing a grounding in what is required to design *your own* guitar, rather than writing an instruction booklet telling you how to build someone elses design. I know many people may use the example chapters as guides to build their first guitar, but I don't believe this was intended, hence not including plans or hard and fast measurements for the instruments he builds.

The reason Melvyn 'glosses over' issues like bridge placement etc is because the fine details change from instrument to instrument, and very small alterations to variables can make significant differences. As such, many builders would rather let you work out the correct position rather than tell you an incorrect one. This is frustrating at first, when you are seeking a hard and fast position to get your guitar built, but it's just how it is. As stated early on the intention of build your own guitar is to lay out the fundamentals of instrument building, not to tell you how to build a particular guitar. The instructions given can seem sketchy, but given the sheer bredth of topics which will be touched on when trying to examine guitar building as a whole, rather than specific designs, this is inevitable, at least if you want a book which can be carried from living room to workshop without a forklift... Anyone stressing tunamatic placement can just do what I did - install the stop tail, then sit the tunamatic on the guitar top, string the guitar, and shim the bridge to a working height. Then, intonate the guitar with the saddles in an approximately central position. Mark the position of the bridge, and drill the holes You can be pretty certain that even if your setup changes a little you'll still have enough adjustment to compensate.

It doesn't matter which company it is, it's still equally lame. That said, I don't recall anyone here doing that. I've seen Jehle's logo in the spaghetti style script, but that is simply following an aesthetic theme, I have no problem with that. I've also seen a number of hotrodded Ibanez's which can legitimately carry the Ibanez logo, since they are still Ibanez's! Anyone remember with greater clarity? I could well be wrong...

I can't help but notice most of the responses on this thread relate to how easy the finish is to apply, and how durable it is. If this was the only criteria we'd all be making our guitars out of fibreglass and to hell with tiresome-non-homogenous-fragile wood. The accoustics also matter, especially on accoustic(!) instruments, and this is where nitro shines. Given how much thought people put into selecting wood for it's accoustic properties I find it surprising that many people will then spray it with whatever they have to hand, often laying on obscene amounts of finish. Discuss

You have choices with translucent colour - you can either apply directly to the wood, which done correctly tends to produce more vivid figuring, but can kill the way figured wood dances in shifting light. Drak's work is a virtual masterclass in this stuff - he's real **** and it shows in the quality of the final product You can also simply add dye to your laquer after sealing the wood. This leaves the figure free to dance like crazy, though the overall effect is usually less 'in your face', I belive LGM's orange/amber/I'm colourblind sorry if I got it wrong Ibanez with quilt top used this technique. Thus far I've only tried the dye in laquer technique, and I'm pretty happy with it; see the blue quilt DC below...

I'm very strongly in agreement with Perry/Rhoads - adding the Gibson decal will in no way improve the appearance or performance of your guitar. It's all about honesty, if you're genuinely happy with the guitar you should be prepared to tell any nay sayers 'Screw you, it's a Korean guitar, but I am more than happy with it's performance, elitists go sit on a dick'. If on the otherhand you're unhappy with it, build your own, save towards a real Gibson, but don't try to fudge what you have now. Maybe put the time into fret work etc so it plays *better* than a Gibson, that'll really show people. And to those who say 'it's his guitar, he can do what he likes', well it's Gibson's company, and Gibson's logo, maybe they should be the arbiters of where *their* trademark ends up. Even if you perform the mod with the best intentions, you still have to acccept the possibility that some time in the future and unethical salesman will try to decieve somebody into thinking it's a real Gibson. There was an extended discussion on MIMF about putting company logo's on your guitars, the conclusion being, whilst it is legal if your building one off's for personal use, it is totally morally unjustifiable - if it's not a Gibson/Fender/whatever, any labelling of it as such is unarguably a deception. I think this arguement stands even stronger when the guitar isn't even your own work, or a genuine attempt at producing a bonafide clone.

You'll have a hard time convincing a US based vendor to ship to any address other than the billing address of a foreign credit card, since it sets off all their credit card fraud alarm bells. I'd abandon your attempt to save on shipping, and just get the tuners shipped to the UK. Your only chance of getting the tuners shipped Stateside is by calling your credit card company and having the Florida address added as a verfied shipping address for your card. Some companies can't (or won't) do this, but it's worth a try.

I'd be worried about the glue affecting the way the top takes stain. Your best bet would be to try and steam any dings out.

You can use quartered oak, but be warned it isn't the most stable timber under constant load (ie - string pressure) and it has huuuuge pores to fill. I know a guy who has succesfully used it for at least two guitars (neck and body) and is pleased with it. It is pretty heavy though If you don't want to root through the maple for quartered stock, then don't - most Fender's use flatsawn maple, and do just fine. The extra stability of quartersawn is nice, but it isn't essential, unless you are using highly figured wood which is prone to movement. That said, I'd get digging through that maple - you may find some nice flame or birdseye and be able to pickup a pretty bargain. That's what I'd be doing if there was a decent hardwood dealer any where near me... BTW Steer clear of quilt for neck timber, no matter how pretty it is, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

Arrow head is correct - in the early days of electric guitar strings were still very thick - which is great if you're looking to drive an accoustic guitar soundboard, but unnecessary when your using magnetic pickups. To create a thinner string set many players simply bought the highest pitch, lightest gauge banjo string and substituted it for the high e-string, then moved each string up, discarding the low E all together. The most famous example of this is Tony Iommi of Black Sabbath. Today there is no need to do this, since light guage strings are more common place than heavys - every where has 9's, but only larger stores seem to carry much above 10's.

Arbor press and cauls - Don't need this. You can hammer your frets with a regular ballpien (sp?) hammer. You may need a little more dressing if you hammer, but it's been the accepted technique for at least 100 years. neck support caul - Make one, or use cork blocks with a 'v' cut into them. Alternatively, fret the neck whilst it's still square, then carve it once fretted. adjustable fret slotting file - No idea what this is, so I'm pretty sure you can do without it assortment of fret files - I'd hold of buying an 'assortment'. One fret dressing file will suffice. fret end dressing files - A regular file will do for this. Brian has a great tutorial illustrating his fret end technique, using a common or garden file in a DIY wooden block. and clamps - You can never have too many clamps Basically, you don't need half the Stew Mac catalogue to build a guitar. Much of that stuff is great for saving time when you are building many guitars for a living, but they are luxuries for an amateur.

I'd be cautious though, you are most definately buying blind - every auction has a photo of the same piece of maple, and that's just a small area of a board. I'd definately request more photos.

? Whether you have a headstock or not you will need some kind of nut to set the string spread. The advantage with a zero fret is that is only has to space the strings - not set their height and act as the end of the vibrating string. This allows a measure of slack when cuttig your nut, which should prevent strings binding in the slots. Of course, a well-cut nut without a zero fret will work every bit as well as the alternative.

Same height. Not wanting to be an ass, but this falls into the 'ask someone who's tried it category'. There is no reason to make the zero fret taller - just think of when you play with a capo - same size fret, acting as a nut, and providing ideal action. If you want to guarantee that the zero fret ends up a good height you can leave it out during the fret levelling, which will leave it fractionally taller than the dressed frets. I didn't bother, and the guitar still plays great.

Hmmm.... I guess I should learn to read. If you want a raised f'board, simply glue the wings so they sit lower than the surface of the neck through section, then route or plane the centre section down till it's flush with the rest of the body. This is also covered in 'Make your own electric guitar' - see page 136 if you have a copy, otherwise, BUY ONE!

Building an attachment at 90 degrees to the base or the sled sounds like a good plan. Most routers have some provision for attaching a template bush to the base, you could use machine screws to attach the router to the sled through these. Without the router infront of me it's hard to come up with a solution, but I'm sure you can work around it somehow. Which brand/model of router do you have?