| Official Luthiers Forum! http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Solid Shell vs Abalam http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=12267 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Chansen [ Thu May 31, 2007 6:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well because of my limited hands-on experience, I am coming
So I guess my question is - what do you prefer and why? I'll post pics of the rosette in various stages soon, I have to finish sanding it down flush and I will be done. Thanks All! Christian |
|
| Author: | Cecil [ Thu May 31, 2007 6:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Christian, My preferance is for solid shell. Ablam is so homogenious that it just does'nt look natural to me. Solid shell takes more time to fit the small pieces but is well worth the effort. Cecil |
|
| Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Thu May 31, 2007 7:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
For me it is natural shell. Ablam is thin layers of natural shell laminated on top of each other. As long as you do not need to sand the thickness Ablam works great on flat surfaces. But on fretboard inlays you can get funky patterning because you have parts of many layers showing due sanding to the curvature of the Fb. Even on flat surfaces if you need to sand sometimes you get the top layer so thin that it is translucent and the layer below it will show through. These are the only reasons I do not use Ablam These are the only draw backs to Ablam. After all it is real shell just a buch of thin layers of it |
|
| Author: | Chansen [ Thu May 31, 2007 7:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Solid Shell: 2 Abalam: 0 Is the workability easier with abalam? I am positive I could have done a better job fitting the pieces together with the miters around the channel, but the stuff doesn't seem that hard to work. Websites that sell abalam always say things like "it breaks cleanly"... does that matter? |
|
| Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Thu May 31, 2007 8:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
yes ablam tend to have less wast due to bad breaks and or unseen worm holes. Yes abalone get parasite worms but once you learn to work reall shell the wast is not bad. |
|
| Author: | Rick Davis [ Thu May 31, 2007 10:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
OK, I'll be the odd man out. Abalam is perfect for flat surfaces, small or narrow pieces, saves shell, allows the use of more colorful shell that's too small for solid pieces (e.g. paua), is much quicker to inlay than solid due to the way it fractures, AND is perfect for CNC cutting. By the way, it also cuts easier if you're cutting your own. It is not good for curved surfaces (wide one-piece inlays on fingerboards), engraving (though Chuck's working on that), or some types of less figured shell (e.g. MOP, gold MOP) since the joins are more obvious. I use abalam for rosettes because of all the reasons I listed in the first paragraph and because I prefer the precision of good CNC cuts for this application. The rosette is typically too narrow for the joins in abalam to be a problem, unlike large inlays. If the channel is cut with some precision, using a good laminate trimmer rather than a Dremel-type tool, there's no problem with sanding through the upper layer of shell. So, why waste shell by unnecessarily using solid? This too is a limited resource and it behooves us to be as careful as we can! Rick Davis Running Dog Guitars |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|