Les Paul Style Guitar Build

[D_W]

A view of the pore filling. After I file the frets (and I'll do it again after I finish polishing them), I use 400 grit paper and work a small amount of linseed oil on the fingerboard. This is not a normal thing, I'd guess, but I like the way the fingerboard feels better with the cake of dust and linseed oil dried in the pores.

Since I have a relatively roughshod way of installing frets and I'm making the fingerboard by hand, there can be small gaps under the frets here and there. They are unsightly, but as long as the fret is tight and level, i can't tell any sonic issues (my loudest solid body guitar is one I've made, and none of the other seem to suffer anything).

At any rate, the cake will fill the gap under the frets (we're not talking about gaps of half a freight height, just small gaps from irregularity of fit or fingerboard or whatever. This is one of the reasons I install frets with a drop of CA glue at each end and in the middle. By the time the frets will ever need to be replaced, I doubt the glue will have that much hold - but I'm also unlikely to have to replace any frets as I have too many guitars and building them soaks into the time playing them.

I did half of these as hammer installation and half with a press. On a fender neck where the fret tangs go to the edge of the fingerboard (unless a small bit is nipped to fill the fret ends on the side of the fingerboard with a color match to the fingerboard), I haven't found a difference between malleted frets, and pressed. On this guitar, I tapped half in and drove them home with a caul/clamp (a press) and those did go in more evenly. I won't go into the factors, but I guess that will become the default method forward along with perhaps making a radius double iron plane fixture to make the fingerboard radius a little more accurately. Whatever the case may be, I'm not buying anything to do it - that's not the point of these exercises - it's to be a builder, and not a buyer of fixes.

If you look at this picture, the left two frets haven't been sanded/caked yet, the others have. If this is left alone, it stays in pretty well and the oil hardens or the cake dries out and stays put as the oil goes into the wood. This could be done other ways (CA glue would work fine), but this is quicker.

I will come back later with a much finer paper so that there are no visible marks. This is a good time to do it because I sometimes leave marks on the fingerboard that need to be sanded off (from the corner of the crowning file).

The crowning file itself is a good lesson in staying away from screw mac. it's basically a rounded parallelogram with diamonds that I got directly from china. I haven't bought screw mac's version (which costs five times as much), but I doubt it's made in the US and if it's hosco (japan), then it's already 30-40% higher at screw mac, anyway.

The $14 diamond crowning file has done a lot of work over the past 5 years, more than just level crown and polish (because of my less than perfect fret installation, the file gets to do about 30 minutes of solid filing on a guitar like this one).

These frets are jescar jumbo - something like .056" tall and .110" wide (there are various jumbo sizes and these are probably taller than vintage jumbos). I always feel like I need the extra height in case I get one in lower than others, but they still end up having a lot of height. These are still around full height and may be obnoxious to play due to the high height.

If they are, I'll make a guitar with lower frets later just to have options. I don't like tiny frets, though, either and admit that a medium fret looks funny on a les paul.

 

[D_W]

I don't know that anyone here is actually following any of this to take suggestions on making guitars, but if anyone is, before I level the frets, I check all of the ones that are sitting up a couple of thousandths to make sure they're fully seated. If you don't, you can end up leveling a fret that's not in tight, and guess what you have later when you seat them - one low fret in a sea of frets that isn't low. Not so good.

I don't accelerate the glue on these frets, so I also do this while seating the fret. It's quite a while before the glue is dry and the couple that I had to pull out and reseat didn't tear up the fingerboard. When I was younger, I was too cheap when making things (mostly airplanes) with CA to purchase the debonder. Now, a couple of drops of it on the end of a napkin allows any CA that shoots out of a fret bottom to be wiped off after the fact (off of the fingerboard) so that I don't have to spot sand to remove it.

That cheapness was a habit I learned from my dad - it's not always functional. My dad would never dream of making a guitar that cost $1000 in materials to make, though (a lot of that cost is in the hardware here, but the wood could be cheaper if someone is afraid of spending a lot on wood).

Fender guitars are a better idea if wanting to build as cheap as possible - the little things add up on this - like $120 bridge and tailpiece combinations (a much cheaper option could be used), and pickups, pots, switches totaling about $300 (even with the pickups being used). Suddenly, blowing $200 on rosewood for the top doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

 

[the great waldo]

Put some paste wax on the fb before putting the frets in (rub it in across the grain to stop too much going in the fret slots) and don't rub it too much. And thatll make any (most) glue spatters that appear pop off when they are hard. Try and make the fret slots not too tight as strangely enough the frets tend to pop up when being hammerd in, maybe not so if a fret press is used. Cheers.
Andrew

 

[D_W]

Agree with your comments - if I have a flaw, it's being a little afraid of some things, so I've always made fret slots a bit too tight. Not below the thickness of the bottom of the "T" without the nibs, but pushing things a little bit. That's one of the reasons that I use a two way truss rod, and in the case of this neck, for whatever reason, it developed a little bit of back bow (in the future, I could avoid that by planing just a bit hollow), and the frets pushed it to need another half turn of the truss rod. But I've done that before.

You hit the reason that I didn't install wax - I was afraid of getting it in the slots, but it probably wouldn't matter if I got a little in them due to the tightness.

Thanks for the suggestions - I'm inclined to use a different saw or add just a little bit of set to the saw that I"m using.

 

[the great waldo]

I learnt the trick abouit not too tight frets slots years ago when I refretted a really nice 335 1964 that I had to do twice because the frets just didn't want to stay down. I used some slighty narrower tang tretwire and the frets went down and stayed down. I noticed that on some early 60's German semi acoustics that the tang had no teeth but the frets stayed ok on the fb and remarkably caused no problems and didn't pop up over the years. Guitars and wood make things quite unpredictable. Nice build so far.
Cheers

Andrew

 

[Inspector]

I'm not a musician or a luthier but is there a reason you don't do the inlays, grain filling and possibly waxing the fretboard before cutting the slots and fitting/setting the frets?

Pete

 

[D_W]

I think I did the inlays on this one just with scribed shallow saw cuts or knifed lines only (can't remember) , but I did mark the lines first so as not to have wobbly looking inlays.

But the rest, at least for me, is because I know I will mark the fingerboard one way or another fretting or polishing the frets, so I like to leave all of the final treatment until tool marks (even though they're usually shallow) are out.

 

[the great waldo]

I think I did the inlays on this one just with scribed shallow saw cuts or knifed lines only (can't remember) , but I did mark the lines first so as not to have wobbly looking inlays.

But the rest, at least for me, is because I know I will mark the fingerboard one way or another fretting or polishing the frets, so I like to leave all of the final treatment until tool marks (even though they're usually shallow) are out.

You want to watch out that you don't overradius the edges when doing your FB camber. Your bass side looks a bit overcambered and your fret ends don't look like they're seating well. You might get problems with the strings catching under the fret ends, or if you file over the fret ends you might lose some of your fb width because of the fret and chamfer. IT's a bugger getting a nice radius on a fingerboard as there is a temptation to plane down the edges more than need be as it's easier/quicker than removing the wood from nearer the middle line. By the way I would be more tempted to use danish oil insread of linseed ( although in all honesty I would'nt use any filler at all on a fingerboard)
Cheers
Andrew

 

[D_W]

That's definitely an issue when setting the radius by hand - but I think the reason is that I can get the radius set well, and then the finish sanding causes those to get rounded over a bit. I have two frets on the high side that as they are can catch a high E string. On the low side, I chased the ends in halfway into the binding as I had (not thinking) radiused the top if the binding over (which is the bulk of visible gaps).

For folks who start from flat stock, I'm curious as to how this is done precisely as even finish sanding overradiuses the edge a little bit - thus the desire to make some type of custom plane to radius the fingerboard in a single pass (that may be wishful thinking).

This one will work out, but it may require some supplementation under a fret end or two in a mixture of fine dust and hard glue. Not the kind of work I prefer doing.

 

[Inspector]

Not your cup of tea being a power tool, but for those with deep pockets there are sanding jigs that can do the work. How well I have no idea.
Maybe something along the lines of a shooting board with a version of the radius jig.

Pete

 

[D_W]

not sure, but I would guess that the commercial stock is done on a profiled drum or something of the sort as they're very crisp.

I think the place between "by hand" and "near fully automated" can be a bit of a no-man's land.

I was looking at guitars the other night on ishibashi and noticing how much more crisp a lot of low to mid cost work is on guitars now. Some of the relatively expensive kramer guitars from the 1980s (that are still 1000-1500 used) have pretty crude woodwork on them in places.

 

[D_W]

You want to watch out that you don't overradius the edges when doing your FB camber. Your bass side looks a bit overcambered and your fret ends don't look like they're seating well. You might get problems with the strings catching under the fret ends, or if you file over the fret ends you might lose some of your fb width because of the fret and chamfer. IT's a pipper getting a nice radius on a fingerboard as there is a temptation to plane down the edges more than need be as it's easier/quicker than removing the wood from nearer the middle line. By the way I would be more tempted to use danish oil insread of linseed ( although in all honesty I would'nt use any filler at all on a fingerboard)
Cheers
Andrew

Actually, it occurs to me (just looking at the fret ends on the way to the head earlier - the gap is so small on some, and generally over the falling-away binding, that it would probably be smarter to mix acetone and ivoroid on the couple that didn't burr down to the ivoroid as I chased them back - that is, just the tip where a gap just around a hundredth or a little less is there, there are fortunately no large ones after chasing them back) - and fill just the tip with ivoroid/celluloid to close the gap. The frets are in solid - I can't spring any of them at all, not even with a stick - so that'd probably do it.

(I do know the whole filling in of the pores is a little odd on the fingerboard - it's just personal preference. I don't like finish on rosewood fingerboards, but I don't like big pores, either - even if they're on a brazilian fingerboard.)

I just got another idea for solving some of the fall away issue - center mark a fingerboard, leave it over width and then linear sand or plane the sides to final width after radiusing. that would get rid of the part that falls away slightly. I'll have to be a little smarter about rolling the edge of the ivoroid in at the top, too, and make sure that if it leans in a little, the very tip doesn't get radiused over or beveled to clean off "Scuzz".

These are the pains of being a "not very good maker", but also why I no longer in my mid 40s have any interest in planning to build 1 of anything. I can make better planes than guitars, so the urge to make an absolutely obscene radius plane is definitely there, but it'd be about a 15-20 hour commitment to make a nice one out of rosewood - cracking a nut with a sledge. ...

I will do it after this guitar, who can resist.

 

[D_W]

(at one point years ago, shiraz - the grizzly guy - had pictures of his own guitars all over the webpage along with a link to get a centralized gallery. They were very ornate and looked tightly made, but the style was not my cup of tea!!

AT that time, the site started to get all kinds of pastes and polishes and other guitar making bits and pieces, but it looks like there's less of it now.

My view of design and search for tonality and resonance is that even if you're kind of a mediocre maker (like me), once you fix the little nits on a guitar, it still has some style and long term viability looks wise, and has a little bit of sizzle on the playing side.

Or to put it another way, I hope the design and the materials/core bits are always a step above my ability to execute so that there's something else to carry the guitar along. If the hardware doesn't sap the vibes out of this one and nothing else really goes majorly wrong, it should be really resonant. Didn't stray far with hardware and pickups (duncan antiquities), so those shouldn't be a problem, either. I will be building a few guitars now - figuring on maybe 4-8 this year depending on time allowed and how busy day work is - that always wins if it creeps into extra hours on a project basis. And also what's built, as I could pop out a bunch of les paul specials and fender style guitars pretty quickly.

Truth be told, I've always kind of liked a good les paul special style guitar a little better than the carved top les pauls, whether it's something like an actual gibson LP special or a collings 290 (the latter is super dandy, but the price of them used has gone through the roof).

 

[baldkev]

Bet you cant wait to play it! One day I'll get round to doing one. I guess I'll do a pine one first to see where i screw it up. Ive got a lovely bit of spalted beech which I'll turn into a guitar one day ( sure, it wont necessarily sound good, but it'll look pretty cool )

 

[the great waldo]

Actually, it occurs to me (just looking at the fret ends on the way to the head earlier - the gap is so small on some, and generally over the falling-away binding, that it would probably be smarter to mix acetone and ivoroid on the couple that didn't burr down to the ivoroid as I chased them back - that is, just the tip where a gap just around a hundredth or a little less is there, there are fortunately no large ones after chasing them back) - and fill just the tip with ivoroid/celluloid to close the gap. The frets are in solid - I can't spring any of them at all, not even with a stick - so that'd probably do it.

(I do know the whole filling in of the pores is a little odd on the fingerboard - it's just personal preference. I don't like finish on rosewood fingerboards, but I don't like big pores, either - even if they're on a brazilian fingerboard.)

I just got another idea for solving some of the fall away issue - center mark a fingerboard, leave it over width and then linear sand or plane the sides to final width after radiusing. that would get rid of the part that falls away slightly. I'll have to be a little smarter about rolling the edge of the ivoroid in at the top, too, and make sure that if it leans in a little, the very tip doesn't get radiused over or beveled to clean off "Scuzz".

These are the pains of being a "not very good maker", but also why I no longer in my mid 40s have any interest in planning to build 1 of anything. I can make better planes than guitars, so the urge to make an absolutely obscene radius plane is definitely there, but it'd be about a 15-20 hour commitment to make a nice one out of rosewood - cracking a nut with a sledge. ...

I will do it after this guitar, who can resist.

I use a stanley 60 1/2 block plane to do most of my radiusing and finish up with a 10" or so block with abrasive glued to it and some elbow grease. I've got some radius blocks which I sometimes use to get started but I prefer the straight block or plane (depending on the grain of the particular FB) Your'e a pretty good maker. I've seen a lot worse over the years. I had an interesting hand made Tele a while ago. The customer asked for a setup, I tried to adjust the truss rod at the body end which had one of those box ali sections with a rod in the middle. The metal nut on the rod seemed worn and wouldn't grip in a Gibson style truss rod key so I cut a slot in the end of the metal poking out as a last chance to use a flat screwdriver to move the nut but no luck. I did notice the rod pushed in a bit and thought it miht be broken so I gave the end of the neck a tap on my bench and a piede of concrete reinforcing rod fell out about 15 " long, I'd never seen that before and I musay it did make me laugh.
Cheers
Andrew

 

[D_W]

Bet you cant wait to play it! One day I'll get round to doing one. I guess I'll do a pine one first to see where i screw it up. Ive got a lovely bit of spalted beech which I'll turn into a guitar one day ( sure, it wont necessarily sound good, but it'll look pretty cool )

If it's electric, as much as I like resonance, there's not too much difference (like very very little). I have an overweight stratocaster copy that's ash and bubinga. It's dead as a doornail and sounds like a piano. With a set of low output single coil pickups, you can't tell that it has endless sustain because the pickups are too weak to pick up the tail end of the signal. Long story short, if you make it reasonably well and put good pickups and pots in it, it'll sound good through an amp no matter what. I play relatively little anymore, but often unplugged when I do - so my desire for a sizzling guitar is biased by that. It's embarrassing to say, I guess, that when I was younger, I played a lot and didn't care anything about the little details like that. It's probably a lot like expensive woodworking tools - they're fascinating, but if you (me) do a tenth of the work you'd do if you were just excited about building, is it better to have them?

I'm interested in seeing how this thing sounds, but wary of this or that wonk to fix yet that i'm not aware of. This is about the point where on a telecaster build, I start moving fast, leave the finish thing and rush to get the electronics in the guitar and slot the nut. I'm trying to avoid that - it's always tempting as soon as something is nearing playability to leave bits of it rushed at the end.

 

[D_W]

Not that it's that important (only for me in this case), but I soaked an offcut of celluloid in acetone until it was soft (this is a typical thing for connecting binding or fixing binding problems), like really soft, and stuffed it in the ends of the frets and then knife off whatever hardened outside of the fret.

Not a fix I want to have to make, but it worked better than I would've expected (there's nothing you can catch a fingernail on in fret ends and the acetone evaporates very quickly leaving a "hard" fix fast).

 

[D_W]

No updates at this point - we're in "the slows" where I sit down and run a series of french polish or fix small issues of finish near binding that's hard to french polish. I hope to get the remaining holes drilled for the knobs and switches, which on nice carved top guitars, follow the contour of the carve.

So, my carve is a bit flat at the belly where the knobs will be, but it's still not flat and I work freehand with driling (same with the bridge and tailpiece holes - drilled by "visual jig" (using squares in two directions as reference and then checking visually with the drill. It's just safer for me with more feel and ability to circle around the guitar and make sure everything is relatively lined up in ever direction. )

I don't much care for wiring guitars - it's not like you can't do it without knowing much about soldering, there are patterns everywhere. I just think it's a pain because I like to know everything about every component (which usually results in me making *everything*, and I don't know much about the internals of audio pots. I'm open to making pickups in the future, but not quick and cheap from kits with plastic bobbins or cheap wire.

 

[D_W]

lunch time check of the finish build so far (this whole guitar has all of about 3 ozs of shellac finish on it, and probably a third or more of that is still in the pad). Translation, there's less finish there than it appears and that does equate to not having the luxury of finish depth like you'd get on a high thickness lacquer finish.

The aesthetic nits continue to add up, though - I realize that while the neck is in straight, the right side has a bit of curvature and I think there's more to the right side of the fingerboard than to the left when viewing down from the nut and overhead. That means that there will be enough space on the bottom side for the high strings - no problem - but high side (low strings) is still going to have some excess space and it will be visible - there's just a little too much real estate.

That will make the neck look like the bridge is off center, but it's actually the neck. Fortunately, just aesthetic, but it's part of making the first one where you just go through and make it and learn where you'll have problems - they're always different kinds than you'd expect (I was much more concerned about bridge height being too high or too low, or who knows what else - now I know a couple of places where the fingerboard needs to be more accurate, places I didn't really expect.

red line on the second picture is an exaggeration of what I somehow didn't see when sizing the fingerboard. It occurs to me now that not only does the fingerboard need to be good size, the neck and then the width of the binding all have to be consistent (the binding is 1mm thick, so by that, I mean you can't have 0.7mm on one side and 1mm on another to fit on the neck).

 

[D_W]

question for people who have built or thought much about how stuff is done on a les paul - is there a specialty stepped bit used for the pickup switch hole? The switchcraft switches have *very little* thread depth and I'm guessing that hole is stepped and not just a bit flat area only 1/10th of an inch thick. The step between the threaded part and the cylinder below is pretty large, so a regular stepped bit would make two steps before it bridged that gap in diameter.

I didn't look over at screw mac yet, and I haven't taken apart my two LP copies. I gave the polish one more once over on the top and am ready to install hardware and electrics (will hit the french polish once more in another month or two as there will probably be some pore shrink.