Hide glue for the whole construction for '59 replica or other glues

[bosnialove]

My name is going onto the headstock anyway, so even when I want I won't be able to sell it.

 

[Manton Customs]

The problem with hide glue is that EVENTUALLY, the joint will disasemble itself whether you want it to or not. When it completely dries out, it basically turns to dust.

Glues such as original Titebond I can be disassembled, but won't cause self-disassembly like hide glue does.

I reserve hide glue for instruments of the violin family.

What!? So it's ok for violins to disassemble themselves and also all antique violins, cello and double basses have all self destructed at some point in their lives? Oh and all the furniture dating back 100s of years we have in antiques shops are also doomed?

If there is one glue which does not fail over time and has been truly tested by time, it's hide glue.

 

[ajory72]

Sorry, but that's just not true. Other than the Gibson name and logo and the shape of the headstock, and (arguably) the truss rod cover, Gibson has no surviving IP rights in the Les Paul at all.

Personally I think imitation is the greatest form of flattery, so copies are displaying much respect.

As for glues we mention hide glue and titebond, the later I've used with good results. I'm wondering though if the are other glues like hide glue? Theres fish glue apparently, is that good for join's???

 

[Pete M]

I'm going to give you my unvarnished opinion. The guitar you're having made for you is not an LP, it's a copy, a knockoff, a clone. And it may be, depending on how close it is to the original design, an illegal product that infringes on Gibson copyrights registered worldwide. It's pointless to try to be authentic to the vintage spec because it's not an authentic instrument. So there isn't ANY reason to use hide glue. Use modern glues that are BETTER.

To extend upon my opinion, and possibly generate some bad vibes among this community, I will say that I have seen many people making more or less faithful copies of classic LPs, some being more faithful to the original than others, and in the case of the most accurate copies, you are basically telling Gibson that you have no respect for Gibson's intellectual property rights, which I find ironic and amusing since you seem to have so much respect for the guitar design itself. You respect the guitar, but by going to great lengths to copy it in every smallest detail. you are completely disrespecting the company that made it and owns the exclusive legal rights to make it.

I consider making clones to be a waste of a luthier's skills. Be original. If you're good enough to make an accurate clone, you should be able to come up with something that hasn't been done already, maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of times.

Making one or two as skill builders seems to be pretty much a standard practice for luthiers who are learning how to do it. That's fine, I've done it myself. But it seems that there are people who try to make a career out of repetitively copying a product that they have no legal authority to be copying, and to me that is just wrong and unethical. Change SOMETHING about the guitar under construction that marks it as being identifiably different from the original. I may do fairly close body shape copies of PRS guitars, but I change around enough things that you would not mistake my guitar for PRS products. Even then, I'm trying to come up with new designs that are even farther away from the PRS shapes without getting out of my aesthetic comfort zone.

Gee, let me know when you get your head out of your arse. Maybe you can come back and offer someting useful?

 

[Barnaby]

While I totally support your right to express an opinion, your comments re the rights & wrongs of Replicas are totally off topic. You're not really adding anything to help answer the questions B has asked help on...we are not here to debate the legalese. We are here to discuss the merits of various Glue options.

Indeed. It's a perfectly valid opinion to express if the question of replica propriety is the topic under discussion, but only serves to derail the current thread.

On glues, I have read that the '59s used a radio-cured phenol formaldehyde for attaching the tops. Therefore, if looking to be accurate, one would want not only to replicate the glue, but also the method of curing, surely?

I've often wondered whether the 'nuking' of maple tops had some sort of effect on the moisture properties or cell structure of the wood. It was probably too brief and low-power to cook the maple or change things in any meaningful way, but I genuinely don't know for sure. I know of at least one luthier who has a large microwave used for drying out backs and sides for acoustics, and that may do something.

 

[Spotcheck Billy]

I know of at least one luthier who has a large microwave used for drying out backs and sides for acoustics, and that may do something.

As Barnaby has pointed out, in a manner of speaking, the guitar is a complex system and the effects of any one construction element or process can often be impossible to quantify. I think what we strive for or look for is the gestalt of the instrument.

Many have commented on particular guitars that seem to come alive in their hands despite the guitar's construction not conforming to some subjective ideal in regards to materials used or construction techniques involved. Other guitars, despite their faithful representation of these aspects, do not have that same mojo.

If hide glue or any other material is what you feel the need to use in order to sleep soundly at night, by all means use it. If not, use what fits into your construction process best and hope that the guitar emerges as one of those that has a singing soul.

 

[cmjohnson]

Actually, all instruments made with hide glue (including all members of the violin family) do require maintenance and regluing from time to time as the hide glue DOES dry out, weaken, and eventually starts separating at the seams. There's not a 300 year old violin in the world that's still intact that hasn't had glue joints redone. It's routine maintenance.

I've made enough of a study of violin construction and repair to be quite sure of this. There's simply no doubt about it.

Gibson retains active IP rights to the body shape of the LP as well, incidentally. Have you noticed that if any company starts making faithful LP body shapes they soon get a C&D from Gibson? That's because Gibson has maintained their trademark rights to the LP.

Somebody suggested I should get my head out of my arse. Well, I'm not the one making copies that infringe on Gibson's active IP rights and I only suggested that if you're good enough to make a good copy of an LP that you should make use of your respectable skills to innovate something new rather than just be another copycat.

If everybody with a paintbrush decided that because Van Gogh's "Starry Night" is the coolest painting EVER and decided that they should paint their own copies of it, because, you know, it's the coolest painting ever, don't you think it'd be kind of lame to have everybody copying the same painting?

Well, it's kind of lame that so many guitar builders CONTINUE to copy guitars they have no legal rights to AFTER they have learned to copy well enough that they should exercise some individuality and creativity and start trying to create an original model.

If you're making a career out of making replicas, no matter how good they are, you're wasting your talent and skills. Be original. That's better!

I'm not criticizing the talent and skill that is required to make a good replica. Quite the contrary, I see copying as a very good way to build your skills and I'm all for it. But when you're making copies TO SELL THEM, that infringe on a company's legal design rights, you're doing it wrong. If you're knowingly violating IP laws to make a buck, your ethics need adjustment.

That's my final statement on that subject.

 

[Manton Customs]

Actually, all instruments made with hide glue (including all members of the violin family) do require maintenance and regluing from time to time as the hide glue DOES dry out, weaken, and eventually starts separating at the seams. There's not a 300 year old violin in the world that's still intact that hasn't had glue joints redone. It's routine maintenance.

I've made enough of a study of violin construction and repair to be quite sure of this. There's simply no doubt about it.

Sorry but that's just not true. There are plenty of pieces of fine furniture on estates in the UK which haven't been touched in 100s of years and the glue joints are just as strong as the day they were made. I know this because I'm actively involved with them, not to mention plenty of antique instruments. What you are seeing is either improperly prepared joints, improperly prepared glue or mistreated instruments.

Your point is moot anyway as you can not offer a suitable alternative which is guaranteed to hold up over 100s of years, as Titebone, PVA or Epoxies simply haven't been around long enough to be tested in the way which Hide Glue has. It seems completely bizarre to me why you would be against using the only glue which has been tested over 100 if not thousands of years and comes out on top in a number of different uses while standing the tests of time....and a lot of it!

At the end of the day the glue is not particularly important (within reason), it's the joint.

 

[bosnialove]

Is there any admin availible to give this fool a ban, or at least give him a warning and tell him to take his story somewhere else?

Do these 7ucking people don't have anything better to do?

I recommend cmjohnson from now on to stop commenting about things that are not relevant regarding to this topic, or I will report you to the admin.

 

[bosnialove]

Anyways, how are those old violins put together, fully with hide glue?

 

[Freddy G]

Anyways, how are those old violins put together, fully with hide glue?

Yes.

 

[RAG7890]

Sorry but that's just not true. There are plenty of pieces of fine furniture on estates in the UK which haven't been touched in 100s of years and the glue joints are just as strong as the day they were made. I know this because I'm actively involved with them, not to mention plenty of antique instruments. What you are seeing is either improperly prepared joints, improperly prepared glue or mistreated instruments.

Your point is moot anyway as you can not offer a suitable alternative which is guaranteed to hold up over 100s of years, as Titebone, PVA or Epoxies simply haven't been around long enough to be tested in the way which Hide Glue has. It seems completely bizarre to me why you would be against using the only glue which has been tested over 100 if not thousands of years and comes out on top in a number of different uses while standing the tests of time....and a lot of it!

At the end of the day the glue is not particularly important (within reason), it's the joint.

Excellent point. + 1,

We have to wait for another 100 years + to see how all the Titebond etc. Glue Joins fair.

You are spot on in your last statement............the join itself is the critical thing here not the glue. You want a perfectly mated join IMHO. The Glue just provides security.

 

[bosnialove]

OKay, since those +100 years old violins are fully put together with hide glue; would it be possible to put a LP together with hide glue? By that I also mean glueing the inlays, binding, dots, etc. using hide glue?

 

[pshupe]

Sure why not. The thing about hide glue is that it has to be heated when applied and then you probably want to heat the mating surfaces so that the work time is extended a little bit. If you are not going for vintage correct, just use titebond 1. I can see why the luthier doesn't want to use hide glue as it is a pain in the butt. Having said that, I think most of the vintage LPs used hide glue for most of the joints. Tops, necks, fret board, and ears. I have heard they used fish glue for the frets. Binding was just acetone, I believe. Someone else could confirm that. Side dots, I would use CA glue, inlays CA glue if they fit perfectly and coloured epoxy, dye or sawdust, to fill any gaps if they do not fit perfectly. Someone may want to comment on the vintage ones as well. I have seen fairly large gaps in vintage inlays but could have been attributed to shrinkage to some point and then not real tight pockets as well.

Cheers Peter.

 

[bosnialove]

I think i'll choose for hide glue and acetonebfor the little stuff.

 

[marijnsloth]

I think i'll choose for hide glue and acetonebfor the little stuff.

Just to be clear... Acetone isn't a glue. It can be used to melt certain types of plastic which will then kinda glue themselves onto the wood.

 

[Ole'Lefty]

I would keep your mind open to fish glue. I dries like hide- clear and hard and it even shares appearance with hide at the finished joint. It is much easier to use than the "HOT" hide glue because it has greater open working time. Like hide, it will come loose with the use of water and mild heat.

A great many fine acoustic guitar builders I know have gone from hot hide to fish glue. It shares sound transmission qualities with hide. It is just an excellent compromise and it is hard to find negatives.

 

[Ole'Lefty]

Just a week ago I bought two bottles of the Stew-Mac fish glue and I hope to try it out fairly soon. If and when, I will report. I grabbed those nifty tiny loop CA glue applicators that fit into the standard X-acto knife and they are great . You can deliver a "tiny tear" of CA anywhere with very low risk of it dropping at the wrong place and you can introduce down into cracks. Very clever- clean with a quick burst from a Bic lighter.

 

[gevalt]

I repaired a headstock break with Fish Glue, and the moisture from my hand eventually opened it back up within a month.
Titebond, ditto.
Hide glue has been soaking up sweat and staying strong for 2 years, and I didn't do anything else differently.

 

[martin H]

I'm going to give you my unvarnished opinion. The guitar you're having made for you is not an LP, it's a copy, a knockoff, a clone. And it may be, depending on how close it is to the original design, an illegal product that infringes on Gibson copyrights registered worldwide. It's pointless to try to be authentic to the vintage spec because it's not an authentic instrument. So there isn't ANY reason to use hide glue. Use modern glues that are BETTER.

To extend upon my opinion, and possibly generate some bad vibes among this community, I will say that I have seen many people making more or less faithful copies of classic LPs, some being more faithful to the original than others, and in the case of the most accurate copies, you are basically telling Gibson that you have no respect for Gibson's intellectual property rights, which I find ironic and amusing since you seem to have so much respect for the guitar design itself. You respect the guitar, but by going to great lengths to copy it in every smallest detail. you are completely disrespecting the company that made it and owns the exclusive legal rights to make it.

I consider making clones to be a waste of a luthier's skills. Be original. If you're good enough to make an accurate clone, you should be able to come up with something that hasn't been done already, maybe tens or hundreds of thousands of times.

Making one or two as skill builders seems to be pretty much a standard practice for luthiers who are learning how to do it. That's fine, I've done it myself. But it seems that there are people who try to make a career out of repetitively copying a product that they have no legal authority to be copying, and to me that is just wrong and unethical. Change SOMETHING about the guitar under construction that marks it as being identifiably different from the original. I may do fairly close body shape copies of PRS guitars, but I change around enough things that you would not mistake my guitar for PRS products. Even then, I'm trying to come up with new designs that are even farther away from the PRS shapes without getting out of my aesthetic comfort zone.

I don't think you're quite legally correct. There is almost nothing about the shape and configuration of a Les Paul that is a copyright-able element. The distinctive features, at best, are considered trade dress or trademarks, and fall under a completely different set of laws and legal precedents from copyrights, ( primarily, the Lanham Act.)

Gibson tried the trademark argument in Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Paul Reed Smith Guitars, LP, 423 F.3d 539, 548 (6th Cir. 2005) and lost badly.

Further, you cannot be guilty of a trademark infraction without actually putting allegedly infringing goods into the stream of commerce or otherwise using the trade mark in commerce. A home builder can build any damn thing he want. as long as he doesn't try to sell it, and, if he doesn't put Gibson on the head-stock, he probably can sell it.

In the PRS case, Gibson argued that PSR singlecuts infringed on their trademark because, despite being labeled PRS on the headstock, they could be mistaken for a Gibson at a distance. The court did not find this theory viable. ("We have determined as a matter of law that initial-interest confusion, post-sale confusion, and Gibson's “smoky-bar theory of confusion” cannot be used to demonstrate infringement of the trademark at issue in this case.")

To my knowledge There has never been a successful trademark prosecution against an individual for making an instrument for their own use, and likely never will be because it likely does't fall under the commerce power that is the basis of trademark enforcement.

I agree that the moral issue is entirely different, and a replica that is good enough to pass for the real thing is a dangerous vehicle for fraud once it leaves the hands of the maker, and its the best practice is to indelibly identify such things. But making you own replica is not truly a copyright or trademark issue.