Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Luthier's Corner' started by alk-3, Jan 18, 2011.
My Gawd, that is amazing!!!
where is the order form
Tom, back when your discussing the dye finish, did I read correctly that you don't add laquer to the yellow and burst sprays? You only add the laquer at the end for a top coat with some amber dye? Just a bit confusing the way it reads along that section. Edit: Ok, got that part straight now! Misread a few things there......
Also when you laquered the back to keep the dye/filler from getting everywhere, did you also light spray the top?
I'm attempting this this weekend and more questions keep coming up in my head......
hey Shannon, you must add some lacquer to the mix, or the dye will just be sitting on the surface and not locked into any film.
Yes, i sprayed the whole guitar with each step. you basically want to keep the build of lacquer the same on the whole guitar.
Are you using both oil soluble (back/grain filler) and alcohol soluble dyes (burst)? If so is there a particular reason? Is the alcohol soluble dye easier to control as far as fading goes or something?
Hi Tom, I have been wondering about this and I think you've inspected enough bursts to know the answer: Do the inlays actually shrink or were they shoddily fitted to begin with? Are the inlays routes all consistent or do they differ from guitar to guitar? Do you think they were done using a template back in the day? Well I guess that's 3 questions, oh well! Thanks in advance!
Hey Josh. I use both oil and alcohol soluble dye, depending on the colour I am after, but to be frank, I almost always use oil for everything these days.
The inlays do indeed shrink! I have many many sheets of this inlay material that I ordered from the same manufacturer as gibson used in the 50's. The sheets have all curled up as the solvents off-gas from them, and shrink.
The inlays routs are extremely consistent. I am sure they used a jig (or a dedicated machine) to cut the inlay routs because they are so consistent, and have a curved bottom. I have seen some routs slightly too deep and gibson would fit a piece of maple beneath the inlay to bring it up flush with the top of the board.
I'm going to order JE MOSER's oil soluble dyes, to mix with Mohawk grain filler.
Could someone tell me what is the color that Tom mix with the filler ? Is it Cherry red ?
The filler doesn't look as pink as when the aniline dye is mixed with the nitro...
Thank you ! (sorry for my bad english )
Okay another question for Tom:
There's been some talk of 10 inch raduses (radii? radioserouses?) on bursts lately. How many bursts have you measured with a 10 inch radius? Were there ones that had 12 inch also? Any difference in years? thanks.
I wonder if the scraping of the binding in between the frets (creating the nibs) could account for this? If you start with a 12" radius and a heavy-handed scraper goes to town scraping binding and removing wood with it it could exaggerate the radius. Obviously, this would only affect the wood and theoretically could make the wood between frets appear to be a 10", but the actual frets would stay a 12".
I'm not sure where the 10" radius idea is coming from. If you look on page 7 of this thread tom says the 50's boards are 12" radius.
PS - I know nothing about this stuff, other than what I have read here, and mostly just from Tom.
I do recall Dan Earlewine mentioning in a video that some LP Customs will leave the factory wit a radius measuring real close to 10". He attributed it to the large pearl inlays clogging up the sand paper in the center if the board causing the overradiusing of the board.
He also mentions it in his "Make your guitar Play Great", book.
Good question though Greco: How many bursts' have you measure with 10 - 12" Radius', Tom.
I think I got confused with the other thread where someone said Toms most recent plans had a 10" radius, but as far as I'm aware it was a mistake by the OP. Dan Erlewine's comments though have always puzzled me ever since I first got that book. Doesn't he say 9.5" radius or something? Plus Scotts latest build had me puzzled too.
This is my first post here.
I am going to build a 1959 les Paul replica and this thread gives lots of precious information.
I have a question regarding body thickness, for which I didn't found answer here.
On the Bartlett's plan that I have purchased, the overall (body + top) is 49,21mm.
I have compared it with the data provided in the book Beauty of the burst: the thinnest body is 47,5mm and the thickest body is 48,8mm.
Do you have any idea to explain the differences?
I think you didn't read the plan exactly or I misunderstand you .....
49,21 mm is the height of the body including the binding. The maple top is much thicker.You can find the overall thickness on the very left of the plan.