MLP Bartlett Build

[ordenes10]

Hi Tom .a question about the linseed Oil filler. Today i did some Tests. Is it right not to sand after the filler is dry? Directly a coat of lacquer? Thanks

[johnP-90]

Hi Tom,
Have a question about correct binding thickness. Really regretting not ordering your Royalite bindings now, looks like yer using .090" for the neck as well as the body?
I have some StewMac white 1/4" x .065" but I think I may need .090 for the body binding and maybe the neck. I can see that the extra thickness on the neck will make forming & rounding the fret end "nibs" a lot easier. If I final sand before cutting the body binding channel will .065 suffice for both, or should I get .090"/2mm then scrape & sand? Not liking the idea of using the thnner stuff now.
(Spent half the evening checking threads etc, more confused now that when I started, as they all seem different, some use .065 etc etc).
Thanks, John.

[nuance97]

Originally Posted by johnP-90

Hi Tom,
Have a question about correct binding thickness. Really regretting not ordering your Royalite bindings now, looks like yer using .090" for the neck as well as the body?
I have some StewMac white 1/4" x .065" but I think I may need .090 for the body binding and maybe the neck. I can see that the extra thickness on the neck will make forming & rounding the fret end "nibs" a lot easier. If I final sand before cutting the body binding channel will .065 suffice for both, or should I get .090"/2mm then scrape & sand? Not liking the idea of using the thnner stuff now.
(Spent half the evening checking threads etc, more confused now that when I started, as they all seem different, some use .065 etc etc).
Thanks, John.

Body binding = 2mm
Neck binding = 1mm
(+/-)

[alk-3]

Yes, body should be about 2mm, and neck is about 1mm give or take a little bit.

[alk-3]

Originally Posted by ordenes10

Hi Tom .a question about the linseed Oil filler. Today i did some Tests. Is it right not to sand after the filler is dry? Directly a coat of lacquer? Thanks

You shouldn't need to do any sanding after pore filling. just wipe it off really well with burlap and you're good to go ahead with finish.

[johnP-90]

Originally Posted by nuance97

Body binding = 2mm
Neck binding = 1mm
(+/-)

Originally Posted by alk-3

Yes, body should be about 2mm, and neck is about 1mm give or take a little bit.

Thanks for that nuance97 & Tom for clearing that one up.
Just ordered some 2.3mm for the body that should scrape down ok, and some 9mm high x 1.5mm for the neck. Close as I could get in UK, the extra height should help with nib forming but probably overkill. Gives me some extra width to work with. Bless yers.

[ordenes10]

Originally Posted by alk-3

You shouldn't need to do any sanding after pore filling. just wipe it off really well with burlap and you're good to go ahead with finish.

Tom, isnt it to oily for the lacquer without sanding?? It looks great with the cherry red filler, but i am not shue if the lacquer can goes directly on the oil based filler. Thanks

[alk-3]

Sorry, I should have been more clear, you have to let it dry properly. Usually at least 24 hours.

[Blackdog]

Originally Posted by alk-3

First I drill the holes for the tailpiece. I start by measuring the tailpiece studs. These are studs that are vintage correct. They have all the correct tooling marks in the metal, and are lightly aged. They are the correct length, and I use them to determine how deep the holes need to be drilled. I want them to bottom out in the hole.

Hi Tom,
I don't know if it has been asked before, but what are the dimensions of the vintage correct bushings ?
The length I presume is 1", but what is the diameter ?
Thanks.

[SirLes]

Hi Tom,
I was just wondering if you have any plans to offer the 'full kits' again in the near future?

I am a big fan of your maple tops, but a full kit would give me the comfort of knowing you have matched up the top and body for tone, as well as benefit from your first class build skills

[Ron Worley]

Guys,

I copied all of the thread and stripped out the non-technical commentary (congratulations, repeated pictures, etc). I also took the ongoing technical information post replies that related to various stages of the build and inserted them into the appropriate sections of Tom's original posts.

Unfortunately, the file is rather big (~13M), and cannot be attached to a post. If someone has a download site that I can put it onto, I will do so and allow any and all to have it. It really does clean up the reading of the entire thread!

Ron Worley

[silverkw]

Originally Posted by Ron Worley

Guys,

I copied all of the thread and stripped out the non-technical commentary (congratulations, repeated pictures, etc). I also took the ongoing technical information post replies that related to various stages of the build and inserted them into the appropriate sections of Tom's original posts.

Unfortunately, the file is rather big (~13M), and cannot be attached to a post. If someone has a download site that I can put it onto, I will do so and allow any and all to have it. It really does clean up the reading of the entire thread!

Ron Worley

Maybe 4shared.com - free file sharing and storage

[daiku]

Originally Posted by Ron Worley

Guys,


Unfortunately, the file is rather big (~13M), and cannot be attached to a post. If someone has a download site that I can put it onto, I will do so and allow any and all to have it. It really does clean up the reading of the entire thread!

Ron Worley

I would be interested in this. Could you make it available via a Dropbox Account? Accounts are free and at this point mine is over 3gb, so it might be a good option. I think you get a GB to start. If you want to do this temporarily, I can help with finding a more permanent solution. Since Mobileme goes away in a few days, better sooner than later! All those pictures will disappear with their original link

Thanks,

jim voos
Furniture Builder, Les Paul enthusiast and pretty poor guitar player!

[tag2]

Another possible option would be to convert it into a PDF file and then reduce the file size. I use this quite a bit, but I am not sure if you would be able to get it small enough. PDF files do shrink quite nicely.

[alk-3]

Hey Guys. I spent this morning updating this whole thread. I went and took all the photos, uploaded them to a photo bucket account, and then changed all the links in each post to point at the new pictures. it took me many hours of prep, and a while to actually execute, but now the pictures should remain even after Apple drops all it's mobile me customers in a day or two.
now I just have to hope and pray that Photobucket doesn't decide to drop off the planet.

[cooljuk]

That is an IMMENSE amount of work. Thank you!

[Ron Worley]

Originally Posted by tag2

Another possible option would be to convert it into a PDF file and then reduce the file size. I use this quite a bit, but I am not sure if you would be able to get it small enough. PDF files do shrink quite nicely.

I tried that, but it's still something like 13 MB. I will look at the suggested upload sites to see if it's simple enough.

[Ron Worley]

OK, gents, I have uploaded it and you can access it at the following link:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/89191122/ML...werLite%29.pdf

Let me know if there are any issues and enjoy!

Ron

[HRMTop]

Thanks for everyone's time spent on this. Invaluable!

[HRMTop]

Hi Tom.
You said earlier, "The body is a direct tracing from a 59. Slightly
different from the body shape on the plans I sell, but it is direct from an original 59."

Could you possibly explain how and where the original differs in shape from your plans?
Thanks

[alk-3]

Originally Posted by HRMTop

Hi Tom.
You said earlier, "The body is a direct tracing from a 59. Slightly
different from the body shape on the plans I sell, but it is direct from an original 59."

Could you possibly explain how and where the original differs in shape from your plans?
Thanks

The tracings I have taken are very different from one another. I have a few now from 58's and 59's and from the smallest one, to the largest, they are nearly 3/8" different in the lower bout, but differ all the way around in every case.
The main differences are the cutaway, and the base of the guitar, where the plans have a slightly flatter tail end, and a sharper cutaway at the fretboard.

[silverkw]

Originally Posted by alk-3

The tracings I have taken are very different from one another. I have a few now from 58's and 59's and from the smallest one, to the largest, they are nearly 3/8" different in the lower bout, but differ all the way around in every case.
The main differences are the cutaway, and the base of the guitar, where the plans have a slightly flatter tail end, and a sharper cutaway at the fretboard.

Tom, did you observe some sort of trends in terms of the dimension changes?

I'd imagine some sort of trends if the tools got worn out, etc.

Another possibility, there are so many "58" and "59" out there nowadays, and it might be possible that some of those are actually replicas / conversions themselves? Kind of reminds me the story Bruce told where they counted more 59 for sale at a guitar show than originally sold by Gibson.

[Dutch LP]

This doesn't deserve to be a sticky, this deserves to be a book titled: how to build a Les Paul!

[alk-3]

Originally Posted by silverkw

Tom, did you observe some sort of trends in terms of the dimension changes?

I'd imagine some sort of trends if the tools got worn out, etc.

Another possibility, there are so many "58" and "59" out there nowadays, and it might be possible that some of those are actually replicas / conversions themselves? Kind of reminds me the story Bruce told where they counted more 59 for sale at a guitar show than originally sold by Gibson.

no, i tried to make some sort of pattern out of the differences, but they are random. i think you're right, the tooling wears out etc etc. but some of the differences were very large, considering how many (or few) of these were made, i would not have thought the tooling would wear so much. i think a lot has to do with sanding and the hand built nature of these old gibson's.
I would not consider a conversion, or a replica at all in taking measurements, and i would not take any measurements of a guitar i was not 100% sure about. so far i have not seen any replicas (in person) that would pass as a real burst under close inspection.

[silverkw]

Originally Posted by alk-3

no, i tried to make some sort of pattern out of the differences, but they are random. i think you're right, the tooling wears out etc etc. but some of the differences were very large, considering how many (or few) of these were made, i would not have thought the tooling would wear so much. i think a lot has to do with sanding and the hand built nature of these old gibson's.
I would not consider a conversion, or a replica at all in taking measurements, and i would not take any measurements of a guitar i was not 100% sure about. so far i have not seen any replicas (in person) that would pass as a real burst under close inspection.

Thanks for the info! Could more than 1 set of tooling be used back then at the factory that could contribute to the differences? I guess really need to ask the Heritage folks.

[alk-3]

Originally Posted by silverkw

Thanks for the info! Could more than 1 set of tooling be used back then at the factory that could contribute to the differences? I guess really need to ask the Heritage folks.

yeah, as far as I know, the body shape was never really set in stone as such. I've reverse engineered a burst, very carefully recently, and was surprised to find things I had overlooked in the past. Some things on bursts are shockingly consistent, and now I know why. the body shape was not one of them

[Garrincha]

Originally Posted by alk-3

so far i have not seen any replicas (in person) that would pass as a real burst under close inspection.

Joe Ganzler used to say more or less the same. But I always wondered why that is though.

I mean luthiers like you, Bharak, Gil and a few others have analyzed Bursts to every minute detail and every nut, bolt and screw. Save the pickups and the tuners pretty much everything is (still) available today. And even for the PUs there are people like Jon Gundry who go into the last detail, use the same machines and materials. The only difference would be the label on the baseplate...

But having followed this thread and reading how close you replicated a Burst I really wondered what it is that makes experts like Ganzler and you saying they could still spot a difference.

Is it a certain tooling that would be needed and nobody can get anymore? I know the plastics can be a problem (And easy to spot) but if somebody would retrofit 50s hardware and original PAFs to one of your Les Pauls, would Joe Ganzler or Lou Gatanas still know the difference?

[alk-3]

Originally Posted by Garrincha

Joe Ganzler used to say more or less the same. But I always wondered why that is though.

I mean luthiers like you, Bharak, Gil and a few others have analyzed Bursts to every minute detail and every nut, bolt and screw. Save the pickups and the tuners pretty much everything is (still) available today. And even for the PUs there are people like Jon Gundry who go into the last detail, use the same machines and materials. The only difference would be the label on the baseplate...

But having followed this thread and reading how close you replicated a Burst I really wondered what it is that makes experts like Ganzler and you saying they could still spot a difference.

Is it a certain tooling that would be needed and nobody can get anymore? I know the plastics can be a problem (And easy to spot) but if somebody would retrofit 50s hardware and original PAFs to one of your Les Pauls, would Joe Ganzler or Lou Gatanas still know the difference?

Well, I don't think it's impossible to build a perfect replica, but I've never seen one in person. I have not seen that many replicas though.
I think Joe has a whole bag of tricks he uses to authenticate a burst.

[alexanderja]

Originally Posted by Garrincha

Joe Ganzler used to say more or less the same. But I always wondered why that is though.

I mean luthiers like you, Bharak, Gil and a few others have analyzed Bursts to every minute detail and every nut, bolt and screw. Save the pickups and the tuners pretty much everything is (still) available today. And even for the PUs there are people like Jon Gundry who go into the last detail, use the same machines and materials. The only difference would be the label on the baseplate...

But having followed this thread and reading how close you replicated a Burst I really wondered what it is that makes experts like Ganzler and you saying they could still spot a difference.

Is it a certain tooling that would be needed and nobody can get anymore? I know the plastics can be a problem (And easy to spot) but if somebody would retrofit 50s hardware and original PAFs to one of your Les Pauls, would Joe Ganzler or Lou Gatanas still know the difference?

For example ...... even the best ageing, still doesn't actually look genuine 100% 50 years old ,.... if you know what you're looking for.
some things just are what they are ..... and some things are VERY close..... but they too, are just what they are.

ok, that makes no sense .....

[RAG7890]

...........could I be so bold as to say that IMHO there are only two Luthiers on the face of this planet that know what they are doing when it comes to building a Replica.

One lives in lives in Canada & one lives in the UK (& that one is not Bharat).

Bharat's real expertise is building fine stringed instruments...........Violins, Violas etc.

My 2c FWIW.