Homebuilt guitar take two, critiques welcome!
- Thread starter metalhead28
- Start date
muttley600
Banned
Turn the light on!
You have no idea how hard it is to take decent snaps of a guitar. Those aren't bad. If you use too much light it bounces all over the place even on a semi gloss. With those we can see the detail. You could run them through photoshop to set the balance and contrast a bit but as pics go they are fine.
I don't know exactly what colours you have in that flame but something like this would be about right from my limited experience with the stuff.
Not picking on you by the way ZB, please don't flame or neg me, please please please.
Attachments
Zaphod B
Raccoons-Be-Gone, Inc.
Hahaha, no, I know how hard it is. Every time I try to get decent pictures of any of my guitars it turns out to be a real struggle unless I'm lucky enough to catch the time of day when I have a lot of bright indirect sunlight in my front room.
Not only that, but what looks good on your monitor may look like total crap on someone else's.
Just harassing Metalhead!
muttley600
Banned
Thats looking good fella.
If I could point out a few things more to get you thinking about it than critisism.
When I talked about the arching earlier I can see a few things that you may want to look at next time. Not slagging here, I hope you can take it as constructive and feel free to justify, explain or defend if you feel the need.
The recurve on an archtop is critical. Yours is very.."sudden" for want of a better word. The curve from the top should flow into the recurve in one clean move. Much as light was saying about the curves in the outline, you don't want to see two curves that just kind of join. Also you can run that recurve right up to the edge or binding if you have any. I know some of it is probably down to the lighting but thats one good way to check on those archings, shine a light right across it or turn the lights out and just use a window as a light source. You'd be amazed what you miss if you work under just one light source, and what you notice if you look at your progress under a different light.
A nice touch on an arch like that is to flow the point where it stops around the horns a bit more slowly so you can't see that the recurve has stopped. I have in the past even put a very shallow curve right up to the point of the horn. Thats where cabinet scrapers are handy.
The curve round the waist is looking good, maybe a little less "pinched" that has a kind of PRS feel to it those I find are very stop, start. As I said it's the detail so not quite as critical as getting the curves to flow from one to another seamlessly. I'll try and find a pic to illustrate what I'm talking about.
As a matter of interest what is the arch hight and how deep have you cut the recurve?
How thick is the fingerboard? I ask because the binding looks quite substantial. Not a critisism again just that a standard neck binding might not be that wide or thick. Personal choice again but with a f/b radius of 12 to 14" the binding would end up about 6mm + any banding lines. Yours also seems to be wider at the nut than the 5th fret? Is that a camera illusion?
Like I said these arn't picking holes it's meant to give you some things to think on for the next one. When I learned these things I was lucky to have some seriously good violin makers and the like to look to for help. Have a look at the cruves on violin tops and backs. That is an art in itself.
What have you done with that bridge saddle? Is it recessed? Any reason for that?
I'll leave it at that for now as people will just think I'm being picky.
Stick at it you have a fine instrument to be proud of and the confidence to get building again I'm sure.
If I could point out a few things more to get you thinking about it than critisism.
When I talked about the arching earlier I can see a few things that you may want to look at next time. Not slagging here, I hope you can take it as constructive and feel free to justify, explain or defend if you feel the need.
The recurve on an archtop is critical. Yours is very.."sudden" for want of a better word. The curve from the top should flow into the recurve in one clean move. Much as light was saying about the curves in the outline, you don't want to see two curves that just kind of join. Also you can run that recurve right up to the edge or binding if you have any. I know some of it is probably down to the lighting but thats one good way to check on those archings, shine a light right across it or turn the lights out and just use a window as a light source. You'd be amazed what you miss if you work under just one light source, and what you notice if you look at your progress under a different light.
A nice touch on an arch like that is to flow the point where it stops around the horns a bit more slowly so you can't see that the recurve has stopped. I have in the past even put a very shallow curve right up to the point of the horn. Thats where cabinet scrapers are handy.
The curve round the waist is looking good, maybe a little less "pinched" that has a kind of PRS feel to it those I find are very stop, start. As I said it's the detail so not quite as critical as getting the curves to flow from one to another seamlessly. I'll try and find a pic to illustrate what I'm talking about.
As a matter of interest what is the arch hight and how deep have you cut the recurve?
How thick is the fingerboard? I ask because the binding looks quite substantial. Not a critisism again just that a standard neck binding might not be that wide or thick. Personal choice again but with a f/b radius of 12 to 14" the binding would end up about 6mm + any banding lines. Yours also seems to be wider at the nut than the 5th fret? Is that a camera illusion?
Like I said these arn't picking holes it's meant to give you some things to think on for the next one. When I learned these things I was lucky to have some seriously good violin makers and the like to look to for help. Have a look at the cruves on violin tops and backs. That is an art in itself.
What have you done with that bridge saddle? Is it recessed? Any reason for that?
I'll leave it at that for now as people will just think I'm being picky.
Stick at it you have a fine instrument to be proud of and the confidence to get building again I'm sure.
32-20-Blues
New member
Thats looking good fella.
If I could point out a few things more to get you thinking about it than critisism.
When I talked about the arching earlier I can see a few things that you may want to look at next time. Not slagging here, I hope you can take it as constructive and feel free to justify, explain or defend if you feel the need.
The recurve on an archtop is critical. Yours is very.."sudden" for want of a better word. The curve from the top should flow into the recurve in one clean move. Much as light was saying about the curves in the outline, you don't want to see two curves that just kind of join. Also you can run that recurve right up to the edge or binding if you have any. I know some of it is probably down to the lighting but thats one good way to check on those archings, shine a light right across it or turn the lights out and just use a window as a light source. You'd be amazed what you miss if you work under just one light source, and what you notice if you look at your progress under a different light.
A nice touch on an arch like that is to flow the point where it stops around the horns a bit more slowly so you can't see that the recurve has stopped. I have in the past even put a very shallow curve right up to the point of the horn. Thats where cabinet scrapers are handy.
The curve round the waist is looking good, maybe a little less "pinched" that has a kind of PRS feel to it those I find are very stop, start. As I said it's the detail so not quite as critical as getting the curves to flow from one to another seamlessly. I'll try and find a pic to illustrate what I'm talking about.
As a matter of interest what is the arch hight and how deep have you cut the recurve?
How thick is the fingerboard? I ask because the binding looks quite substantial. Not a critisism again just that a standard neck binding might not be that wide or thick. Personal choice again but with a f/b radius of 12 to 14" the binding would end up about 6mm + any banding lines. Yours also seems to be wider at the nut than the 5th fret? Is that a camera illusion?
Like I said these arn't picking holes it's meant to give you some things to think on for the next one. When I learned these things I was lucky to have some seriously good violin makers and the like to look to for help. Have a look at the cruves on violin tops and backs. That is an art in itself.
What have you done with that bridge saddle? Is it recessed? Any reason for that?
I'll leave it at that for now as people will just think I'm being picky.
Stick at it you have a fine instrument to be proud of and the confidence to get building again I'm sure.
I think it looks great. I'm not gonna say a bad word about it because 1) I'm not really sure what I'm talking about
, and 2) it's a million times better than I could do.Might the recessed bridge might be because there's not sufficient angle on the neck to have the bridge mounted in the normal way?
muttley600
Banned
I think it looks great. I'm not gonna say a bad word about it because 1) I'm not really sure what I'm talking about
You could do it mate, I'm sure, you've done kits haven't you?
Thats kind of why I asked and harks back to my earlier posts about the benefit of careful planning. The string length centre line and break angle are the very first things you decide on at the design part. Everything else flows from them. The string length in particular. The reason why I make these points after 30 years of doing it is because I can remember being there myself. Kind of been there, done that, made that mistake, we all have.
There may of course be another reason. Like the tone and volume are recessed, why not the bridge. Nothing to stop it working that way.
Light
New member
Kind of been there, done that, made that mistake, we all have.
Well, not me.
Of course, only because I had my dad standing over my shoulder going "NO! Fix that you idiot!" All the time. (Just kidding
- sort of.)I think all of the things we are both talking about here come down to pretty much the same thing. You need to work on your transitions. This is perfectly normal, and is usually the last thing most new builders get down. Well, aside from getting a really great finish. I know guys who have been doing it for ten years who haven't got that part down yet. Just keep working on it. The real trick is to actually pay attention to them, and think about how to make them right.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
metalhead28
Hates Raymond
Thanks for the feedback everybody.
This was my first carved top ever, and to be honest I just totally winged it.
The top is 5/8 thick and the perimeter is a little over 1/4" thick. I don't know exactly how deep I went with the carve at the deepest point, but I'm thinking around .100" deeper than the outer edge.
During my original planning I figured for a 1/2" thick top. When I had the top planed I told them to only clean it up instead of telling them to take it to an exact thickness. I wasn't sure how the carving was going to go - that's why I did that. Turns out that once I started carving I really didn't take anything off in the center and I just didn't think about getting down to 1/2".
Boneheaded, I know. But at that point I was liking the shape of the top so I decided to recess the bridge instead of recutting and recontouring everything.
The only thing I had to go by for the contouring was looking at pictures on the internet of similar guitars, and the only carved tops I've ever really checked out with my hands are the PRS guitars and just a few others, but I felt like I wanted something a little more pronounced perhaps. I actually liked some of the more abrupt lines at the time, but your advice certainly makes sense and I can see that I sort of threw convention out the window. Alot to think about before I start number two. I don't want to be too conventional, but I still want to make shapes that everybody likes.
I've actually decided that I will probably not be doing this body shape again. I want to make the body a little larger in the rear area and change the shape of the horns a little. I may stick with a 5/8" top but I will definitely go after the contouring a little differently next time...a little more planning.
And with the pictures, it was pretty bright in the room believe it or not. When I turned the flash on, you couldn't make out any detail on the guitar at all, everything was just all washed out...
I am even much less of a photographer than I am a luthier!
This was my first carved top ever, and to be honest I just totally winged it.
The top is 5/8 thick and the perimeter is a little over 1/4" thick. I don't know exactly how deep I went with the carve at the deepest point, but I'm thinking around .100" deeper than the outer edge.
During my original planning I figured for a 1/2" thick top. When I had the top planed I told them to only clean it up instead of telling them to take it to an exact thickness. I wasn't sure how the carving was going to go - that's why I did that. Turns out that once I started carving I really didn't take anything off in the center and I just didn't think about getting down to 1/2".
Boneheaded, I know. But at that point I was liking the shape of the top so I decided to recess the bridge instead of recutting and recontouring everything.
The only thing I had to go by for the contouring was looking at pictures on the internet of similar guitars, and the only carved tops I've ever really checked out with my hands are the PRS guitars and just a few others, but I felt like I wanted something a little more pronounced perhaps. I actually liked some of the more abrupt lines at the time, but your advice certainly makes sense and I can see that I sort of threw convention out the window. Alot to think about before I start number two. I don't want to be too conventional, but I still want to make shapes that everybody likes.
I've actually decided that I will probably not be doing this body shape again. I want to make the body a little larger in the rear area and change the shape of the horns a little. I may stick with a 5/8" top but I will definitely go after the contouring a little differently next time...a little more planning.
And with the pictures, it was pretty bright in the room believe it or not. When I turned the flash on, you couldn't make out any detail on the guitar at all, everything was just all washed out...
I am even much less of a photographer than I am a luthier!
metalhead28
Hates Raymond
Oh yeah, and when I look at the images, I really think that the reflections seem to make the transitions look a little more extreme on the top than they look in person. Hard to say.
Also, there is a 12" radius on the board and the board itself was 5/16" in the center, with just enough removed to get the radius on there. I'm sure it's still close to .300" thick. I think the binding appearing to get thinner away from the nut is a illusion of the photograph, but that does look wierd.
Also, there is a 12" radius on the board and the board itself was 5/16" in the center, with just enough removed to get the radius on there. I'm sure it's still close to .300" thick. I think the binding appearing to get thinner away from the nut is a illusion of the photograph, but that does look wierd.
DrewPeterson7
Sage of the Order
Nothing to add here, save that 1.) that's a nice lookiing guitar, especially for a first effort, and 2.) I've really enjoyed reading Muttley's (and Light's, in the other thread) input on how to make the next one any better.
Thanks for posting this up, metalhead.
Thanks for posting this up, metalhead.
metalhead28
Hates Raymond
I wasn't looking forward to that, and to be honest that's the main reason I decided on the oil finish. I need alot more practice before I commit to any fancy finishes.
Light
New member
I have to say, I disagree with that idea. Why work so hard to get the woodworking right, and the when you finally have it down you start learning finishing? Why not get the experience in finishing when you are still learning the woodworking? I mean, it would be a shame to finally get to the point that you feel your woodworking is everything you want it to be, and then ruin the instrument when you go to finish it. The only real trick to getting a great finish is sanding. Lots and lots of sanding. Sanding until your arm feels like it is about to fall off. You can't even imagine how much time I spend sanding. I wouldn't be surprised if I spent as much time sanding as every other task involved in building guitars.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
Light
New member
One last thing. That is a very thick fingerboard. Mine are 7/32" or so (±about 1/64"). Even this is thicker than old Fender fingerboards (even the slab fingerboards), but it's about the same as most guitars. Any thicker and you start to have problems with the fingerboard resisting the truss rod, and at least on acoustics it messes up the geometry of the neck angle. I also worry that there won't be room enough for the truss rod to be placed as deep as I like it.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
metalhead28
Hates Raymond
I have been practicing a bit, but it's been on scrap stuff more or less. It's all been spray can stuff so far too. (The spray can Nitro from StewMac). A decent spraying setup may be in my future.
However, I didn't necessarily think I was shorting myself with the finish I did. I like a naural looking oil finish just as much as anything really. After doing this guitar that way, I'm not sure I would prefer anything else.
thebigredhotdog
Banned
Wow! That's a very nice guitar, I must say. This is the very first guitar you've built? I am really impressed. You should be proud. I don't see how your next guitar could be better. It would have to be really amazing to top this one.
Truly,
The Big Red Hot Dog
Truly,
The Big Red Hot Dog
acidrock
GO PACKERS!
I think everything you've done is wrong and horrible.You can send the guitar to me when it's finished and I'll save you the shame and embarrassment of owning it.Don't worry I'll just tell everyone that I made it and you'll be totally in the clear.
Just trying to help out a fellow forum member.
Just trying to help out a fellow forum member.
muttley600
Banned
Have you used Tru Oil?
Ignore the name. Its more of an oil varnish than an rubbed oil like tung. It's made from Linceed and polymer additives. More like a traditional violin varnish and an excellent choice for finishing your first few instruments.
As light has mentioned, the real trick to finishing is the prep work, more so with tru oil. Sand down to 2000 grit minimum, don't cut corners ad do a solid job grain filling.
Tru oil was developed as a gunstock finish.