Want to start a Les Paul component weights database. Seek help of Luthier-builders.

[reborn old]

I want to catalog weights of all Les Paul components into a useful
quick reference chart and seeking assistance of luthier-builders that see the value in this, to provide preliminary top, back or neck weight data.

The chart might prove helpful to anyone installing different hardware, equipping a bare Les Paul, or planning one within specified weight ranges,
or any other quick weight related inquiries.

Because the biggest weight variable will always be a Les Paul back,
with a completed chart, you could conceivably calculate
weight and/or density of backs on finished guitars with reasonable accuracy, because other part weights will be more or less constant by comparison (using averaged weight data and discarding extreme high/low values, other than back values).

Success depends on one or more luthiers with accurate weigh scales, supplying top cap, neck or back weight measurements.

It would be important to note all variances from a finished product on your parts samples, such as cutouts that are not cut, neck profiles (58 to 60), and back slab thickness in millimeters (important because thickness related weights can vary by up to 8% or 1/2 pound). I can weigh cutout wood samples and subtract them from your weight samples, if you don't want to.

Hardware, plastics and electrics values will be collected from anyone with spares willing to weigh them, after we have weight data for main guitar body components.
I have a fair number of hardware parts values weighed already.

If anyone cares to post or PM preliminary weight data,
here is a preliminary list:

Top cap: (please state what is unrouted, ie pickup cavities, neck channel)

Back: Please state what is unrouted, ie - pickup cavities, neck tenon channel, wiring channel, switch cavity, control cavity, and thickness, in milimeters. (This is very important as back weights can vary 8% or more based on thickness alone)

Neck: (please state neck size 58-60, with or without fretboard, headstock overlay and/or tuners)

Fretboard only: with or wo frets, (fret board species, if ebony, thin or thick frets)

Weights can be in ounces/lbs or grams/kilograms, posted or below or PM'd if you wish to remain anonymous.

Thanks.

 

[reborn old]

Could anyone give me a weight for a mahogany neck or maple top cap, perhaps ? An anonymous PM would work.
I would rather not have to resort to buying a kit to get the info.

Thanks for your help !

 

[Barnaby]

Over the next month or so as I work on my current build, I should be able to give you neck and back weights for Honduran mahogany. The top and fingerboard will not be traditional LP materials, however, so are probably of little use.

I also have a very few vintage parts that I can weigh for you if you like.

 

[Penny Dreadful]

Near the back of BOTB they have specs on alot of historics.

Maybe I'm out of line here, but you are selling Japanese Les Pauls.
Are these specs that you seek for good or for evil?

 

[Blackdog]

I can give you some info I worked out that might help your statistics.

A LP back following Catto's plan, shaped, with the controls and covers cavities and wire channel routed has a volume of 4284cm3 or 0.1513 ft3.

The 5/8"top, right after the ExNihilo's template treatment (without the neck and pickup plane angles) has a volume of 1081cm3 or 0.0382 ft3.

Just multiply by the density of the board you plan to use and you'll get the expected weight for these parts.

I still have to model the other parts better, but in the last couple of builds the final weight of the guitar was the weight of the above two parts plus around 1.1Kg or 2.4 lbs (mahogany neck).

Say you're using honduras mahogany of 530Kg/m3 (that's not so heavy) and some maple of 720Kg/m3 (around average) you're looking at a finished LP of around 4.1Kg or 9lbs.

Hope it helps.

 

[reborn old]

Over the next month or so as I work on my current build, I should be able to give you neck and back weights for Honduran mahogany.

Weight of a Honduran neck and back would be very much appreciated, especially because Honduran density ranges are much narrower than other mahogany sources. Hardware + plastics are less important at this point, except perhaps estimated volume or weight of glue used and/or estimated edge binding weight.

Thanks, and good luck with your build. !

Near the back of BOTB they have specs on alot of historics.
Maybe I'm out of line here, but you are selling Japanese Les Pauls.
Are these specs that you seek for good or for evil?

Thanks for the BOTB reference.

If you re-read the title and first 2 lines of my original post,
I think you would be hard pressed to find evil intent. The data should benefit many.

Yes, I am selling a Japan made Greco I own to thin my collection, not a vendor, or in any way involved in the manufacture of fakes. If you guys are concerned about such a chart falling into the wrong hands, I can PM chart data to members requesting it, rather than posting it publicly. I doubt a Chinese forger would benefit from weight info however.
They are mainly concerned with how a guitar thumbnail pic looks on a website, and probably use a different pic if or when it doesn't present well.

I can give you some info I worked out that might help your statistics.... Hope it helps.

Thanks Blackdog, volumes will certainly help in estimating weight ranges of various backs and tops.
I was actually thinking of building boxes to sit a Les Paul into, to calculate back, top and neck volumes (subtracting volumes of fine sand). You saved me a fair amount of work !

 

[Blackdog]

Reborn old asked me a few questions by pm. It's probably better to reply here, so just to clarify:

-The volumes I detailed above for back and top do NOT include the pickup cavities.
-The pickup cavities can probably be calculated, but that will depend on how deep people want to route them. I may give it a try...
The volume lost when routing the neck and pickup planes is more difficult to evaluate, but again, I'll give it a try.
The 1.1Kg I estimated is for the complete neck (w/tuners) plus the rest of the hardware, but it is an approximation just to get an idea of the final weight.

Cheers.

 

[Blackdog]

Weight of a Honduran neck and back would be very much appreciated, especially because Honduran density ranges are much narrower than other mahogany sources.

Certainly not my experience... I am currently working with a piece that is 531kg/m3, but I also have some blanks in the order of 650Kg/m3 and one is even 750Kg/m3. This last one would make a great Norlin replica !

 

[Daniel]

Near the back of BOTB they have specs on alot of historics.

Maybe I'm out of line here, but you are selling Japanese Les Pauls.
Are these specs that you seek for good or for evil?

I'm thinking you meant Chinese...

If the Japanese ever get into building Les Pauls again I'll by two... No three.

 

[Blackdog]

One last piece of info. Adjusted value for the maple top.

The 5/8"top, after the ExNihilo's template treatment (now WITH the neck and pickup plane angles routed) has a volume of 1000cm3 or 0.0353 ft3.

Calculating the volume/weight impact of the pickup cavities is a bit more complicated because it involves the maple and the mahogany. It can certainly be done, but I don't think it's really that important. The values I calculated were intended to give me an early indication of the expected weight of the finished product, and to evaluate the need to chamber or swiss-cheese the body (and how much), and for that I think they are more than adequate.

 

[reborn old]

I think I'll be able to measure a few neck volumes using a sand displacement method of measurement.
I guess I'll need the weight (or try to approximate the volume) of an unmounted Les Paul fretboard at some point,
if anyone with a scale has an unmounted one laying around,
since they are almost always going to be denser than mahogany.

Thanks again for measuring what I could'nt Blackdog.

 

[Reverend D]

I think its a cool idea, I think you'll get a average weight at best due to humidity (unless thats a measurement as well, some may be about to provide it, others probably not), wood types and other variables. But I do like the concept of your idea. At least people can go ok, this wood with this neck (profiles considered in the variance) with this hardware would give me a ballpark guitar of x number of lbs, or kilo's or stones or whatever ). Good luck with it.

Best regards,

Don

 

[reborn old]

Thanks Don. I hope it will be useful to some, or at least more telling than total guitar weight comparisons.

I'll put together a preliminary parts list once I have a few more volume measurements, that everyone can add data to.
I'll post it in the main Les Paul forum.

I think we have to assume moisture equilibrium, although this might vary a little in various climates.

I think it will be more practical to focus on volumes for backs, tops and necks, rather than weights, like other components, because volumes will be the most consistent measure of the three with wood, but I will include weight ranges for commonly used wood species based on density chart ranges (or submitted weights).

Densities will have to be estimated from final guitar weight (minus all other component weights) and density ranges of various wood species (unless you are a builder and happen to have rectangular stock of the same wood on hand, where volumes + weights would easily yield density.

 

[bruce bennett]

while I understand your thought process here..

this idea has very little merit as applied to the construction of a Great sounding Les Paul..

now if you were corelateing the tap tone frequencies as well. then maybe it would be truly useful infomation.

its not the weight.. its the TONE of the material that counts.

 

[reborn old]

I agree tap tones are definitely useful prebuild, as is putting your ear to a guitar in various places
while strumming certain notes, postbuild or just playing it unplugged.
I don't expect builders will share their taptone experiences or secrets.

Tonewood density does affect resonance qualities however, and I'm not limiting chart value to
"great sounding Les Pauls" or prebuild purposes.
I posted here because only luthiers and builders have access to individual wood component weights and volumes.
Even if it doesn't tell the whole story, having access to more acurate density values, weights and volumes does have merit.
A chart displaying such weights and volumes would be a useful reference tool.

Factors that would make measures more accurate than just weighing a completed Les Paul include:
1- subtracting all hardware, plastics and electrics weights (which remain pretty constant, but parts vary from guitar to guitar),
leaving you with acurate wood volumes and weights for the specific guitar being evaluated.
2- using volume adjustment multiplication factors for different back thicknesses. A few mm more or less than 1.75" (44.45mm) can acount for almost a 9 % difference in volumes at both extremes. (pic below) 5" Vernier calipers are available for under $10.
3- using volume adjustment multiplication factors for different neck profiles ('50's to '60), which may vary by up to 9 % also.

I don't know how often neck stock is from a different source than back stock for mahogany density purposes. When you can assume mahogany densities are close to the same, as in prebuild, the only variable remaining would be the top cap, which acounts for 1lb 8 oz of total guitar weight +or- a few ounces.
Question: Other than similar grain character, could a wood moisture meter be used in the neck pickup cavity to confirm similar neck and back mahogany origins for density purposes on completed guitars perhaps ?

There are methods for calculating specific top cap volumes, even on finished guitars, but they might be considered invasive
and/or time consuming, and averages might suffice in most instances.
I'm hoping others will find value in such a chart, be it luthiers, customizers, or just about any Les Paul owner, if only for comparison or evaluation purposes.

 

[bruce bennett]

I agree tap tones are definitely useful prebuild, as is putting your ear to a guitar in various places
while strumming certain notes, postbuild or just playing it unplugged.
I don't expect builders will share their taptone experiences or secrets.

Tonewood density does affect resonance qualities however, and I'm not limiting chart value to
"great sounding Les Pauls" or prebuild purposes.
I posted here because only luthiers and builders have access to individual wood component weights and volumes.
Even if it doesn't tell the whole story, having access to more acurate density values, weights and volumes does have merit.
A chart displaying such weights and volumes would be a useful reference tool.

Factors that would make measures more accurate than just weighing a completed Les Paul include:
1- subtracting all hardware, plastics and electrics weights (which remain pretty constant, but parts vary from guitar to guitar),
leaving you with acurate wood volumes and weights for the specific guitar being evaluated.
2- using volume adjustment multiplication factors for different back thicknesses. A few mm more or less than 1.75" (44.45mm) can acount for almost a 9 % difference in volumes at both extremes. (pic below) 5" Vernier calipers are available for under $10.
3- using volume adjustment multiplication factors for different neck profiles ('50's to '60), which may vary by up to 9 % also.

I don't know how often neck stock is from a different source than back stock for mahogany density purposes. When you can assume mahogany densities are close to the same, as in prebuild, the only variable remaining would be the top cap, which acounts for 1lb 8 oz of total guitar weight +or- a few ounces.
Question: Other than similar grain character, could a wood moisture meter be used in the neck pickup cavity to confirm similar neck and back mahogany origins for density purposes on completed guitars perhaps ?

There are methods for calculating specific top cap volumes, even on finished guitars, but they might be considered invasive
and/or time consuming, and averages might suffice in most instances.
I'm hoping others will find value in such a chart, be it luthiers, customizers, or just about any Les Paul owner, if only for comparison or evaluation purposes.

again, I grasped all of that immediately.. your thinking is completely logical.. its just that its all been done before. and it produced nothing of any real value.
and if your not interested in only the "great sounding les Pauls" then the inclusion of any "questionable sounding les pauls" invalidates the entire database.
who wants to know what the weights/density is of a crappy sounding guitar? these measruments of yours need a scale of reference to be measured against. and the "tonal outcome" of the build... IS the whole reason to bother collecting this data. IMHO.

I maintain that the resonant freq. is the one true measurment of any piece of material that a musical instrument is to be made from.. not just of each piece individually, but of the entire assembled part.

and weights or density just doesn't tell you much about a piece's grain structure,
which is what has the largest effect on a given pieces resonant freq.
and while you maybe able to calculate material densities from these numbers. they still can't account for any grain annomalies that will surely alter the R.F. or how the whole assembly works togther or how it DOESN'T work together.

all this data has been collected dozens of times by Gibson and independant luthiers.. its never proven helpful. in fact, when it was applied to the Gibson "Mark Series" acoustics.. its proved to be a huge waste of time, money & materials.

but I wish you good luck with your project.

 

[Blackdog]

I agree tap tones are definitely useful prebuild, as is putting your ear to a guitar in various places
while strumming certain notes, postbuild or just playing it unplugged.
I don't expect builders will share their taptone experiences or secrets.

Tonewood density does affect resonance qualities however, and I'm not limiting chart value to
"great sounding Les Pauls" or prebuild purposes.
I posted here because only luthiers and builders have access to individual wood component weights and volumes.
Even if it doesn't tell the whole story, having access to more acurate density values, weights and volumes does have merit.
A chart displaying such weights and volumes would be a useful reference tool.

Factors that would make measures more accurate than just weighing a completed Les Paul include:
1- subtracting all hardware, plastics and electrics weights (which remain pretty constant, but parts vary from guitar to guitar),
leaving you with acurate wood volumes and weights for the specific guitar being evaluated.
2- using volume adjustment multiplication factors for different back thicknesses. A few mm more or less than 1.75" (44.45mm) can acount for almost a 9 % difference in volumes at both extremes. (pic below) 5" Vernier calipers are available for under $10.
3- using volume adjustment multiplication factors for different neck profiles ('50's to '60), which may vary by up to 9 % also.

I don't know how often neck stock is from a different source than back stock for mahogany density purposes. When you can assume mahogany densities are close to the same, as in prebuild, the only variable remaining would be the top cap, which acounts for 1lb 8 oz of total guitar weight +or- a few ounces.
Question: Other than similar grain character, could a wood moisture meter be used in the neck pickup cavity to confirm similar neck and back mahogany origins for density purposes on completed guitars perhaps ?

There are methods for calculating specific top cap volumes, even on finished guitars, but they might be considered invasive
and/or time consuming, and averages might suffice in most instances.
I'm hoping others will find value in such a chart, be it luthiers, customizers, or just about any Les Paul owner, if only for comparison or evaluation purposes.

I think you're thinking too much...
I'm with Bruce in that is not really a matter of weight even what makes a good sounding guitar.
I have a Heritage Series 80 that weights almost 11lbs, and it sounds anmazing. I was considering buying another one that was much lighter (9lbs), but didn't get it because it did not sound anywhere near as sweet as the one I already have.
It's in the woods, but not necessarily in the densities.

I made the exercise only to help me evaluate pre-build if a given piece of wood was suitable for a fully solid build or how much chambering/swisscheesing was required.

I think that's the limit of the use of all this analysis. YMMV