Official Luthiers Forum!

Howdy all,

I'm hoping to start in on this new venture after the holidays. I've been pondering and planning and came across an interesting question(to me anyway). I'd like to make my own bindings from maple. I want 3/16" (or so) on top, back and sides. No purfling. Nothing against it, I just like the look of plain maple binding. Here's the question:

Do I route a single rabbet to receive a single strip of wood? Seems like a single peice that dimension wouldn't bend very well. Or do I route a rabbet on the top/back to receive one half of the final binding then a second rabbet on the ribs to receive the second half of the binding?

Hopefully I didn't make the water to muddy with this long, convoluted and likely self - explanatory question! 

Thanks in advance,

J.R.

That is 3/16 tall or 3/16 wide? If wide you are right It will not be and easy bend at all. The typical binding thicknes is .08" less than half of what I think you are loking at if I read you right.

While this can be done it would be un-wise of me to not try to change your mind.

As far as how to cut the binding you want the grain to be going with the bend looking at the face side, not perpendicular to it. Thickness it to your un-wise thickness (sorry I could not help my self ) and cut to the height required. not much more to it than that.

binding that wide I don't think will work . You should make the binding in laminate form 1/16 thick , that may work the best do the binding and the top as a perfling at 1/16 square.
john hall

JR-
As Michael and John have suggested, it's probably better to use several layers of thinner material, if you want 'thick' bindings. I did this with padauk (which can be difficult to bend) bindings on a guitar and it worked well.

You should do a careful cross-section drawing to make sure you have enough lining material left after cutting your binding ledge. I think that's what John was getting at when he suggested making the inner layer only 1/16 deep.

BTW, if you are using a light-colored (spruce) top you might be happier with the result if you put at least one line of darker purfling between the top and the maple binding.

Cheers
John

Michael,

Thanks. I'm thinking 3/16" wide looking at it from top/back. And 3/16" tall looking at it from the side. I'm asuming that the best way to go about it is in two pieces set perpendicular to each other so that if you looked at a cross section of them they would form an upside down L. The top and back would be glued in first in a rabbet , then the rest in a rabbet on the ribs. Correct?

Thanks for helping me to clarify that.

J.R.  

[QUOTE=JohnAbercrombie]JR-
As Michael and John have suggested, it's probably better to use several layers of thinner material, if you want 'thick' bindings. I did this with padauk (which can be difficult to bend) bindings on a guitar and it worked well.

You should do a careful cross-section drawing to make sure you have enough lining material left after cutting your binding ledge. I think that's what John was getting at when he suggested making the inner layer only 1/16 deep.

BTW, if you are using a light-colored (spruce) top you might be happier with the result if you put at least one line of darker purfling between the top and the maple binding.

Cheers
John[/QUOTE]

Am I understanding you to say to make a single rabbet 3/16" square(if linings allow) then glue in strips 1/16"x3/16" until they're at my final dimension?

Thanks,

J.R.

[QUOTE=J.R. Hunter] [

Am I understanding you to say to make a single rabbet 3/16" square(if linings allow) then glue in strips 1/16"x3/16" until they're at my final dimension?

[/QUOTE]

If you decide on 'just binding' without purflings, yes- that's what I meant. Just layer them in...don't use a glue (like CA) that will leave prominent glue lines, and you should be fine. Do some bending experiments to enable the use of the thickest binding layers possible- it can depend a lot on the maple species and whether it has a lot of curl or not. You don't want a bunch of very thin layers- try for 2 layers of 0.080, as Michael implied.

The problems with using two (thinner) pieces in the 'upside down L' shape are:
1-It will be very difficult to bend the piece that is 'on the flat'
2- When you round over the edge of the binding, you could easily sand right through the binding.

A few drawings (to scale) will get this all worked out- there's a reason for a lot of the traditional ways of doing things (bindings+purfling, usually) - it may look decorative, but it is also done that way for structural reasons, and because it's easy to do as well.

Cheers
John

John,

Thank you,

That clears it up for me!