Official Luthiers Forum!
http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/

Full height purfling
http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=14920		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Terry Stowell [ Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:39 pm ]
Post subject: 

I have previously installed purfling that was shorter than the binding. I'm about to use purfling that is the same height as my binding, 1/4". Reverse kerfed linings underneath. I assume it'll be nice to install that way. Any comments?

Author:  Terry Stowell [ Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:42 pm ]
Post subject: 

.150" combined thickness...


Which reminds me that my Stew Mac cutter set is not going to work on this. I need a .140-.145" cutter set up.
Author:  Terry Stowell [ Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

er.... .150" to .155"


 
Author:  grumpy [ Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm about to use purfling that is the same height as my binding, 1/4"

Why? And, why?
Author:  KenH [ Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm confuzed. Can you post a picture of what you are going to try?
Author:  Kent Chasson [ Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:29 pm ]
Post subject: 

Why? And, why?


I bet I can answer the first why. It saves a step. Only one rout. Charles Fox used to suggest doing it that way. It works well with narrow binding and purfling but if you are cutting .155", make sure your linings aren't getting too compromised and make sure you have enough glue surface, top to lining.
Author:  Colin S [ Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
If I'm just using a 0.6mm single line purfling then yes I'll use full height and glue it to the binding pre-bending. But, I'm still only routing about 0.085" tops. I would be wary of taking any more wood off of the sides, in fact I only ever go down to the linings never into them full depth. If I want any wider purfling on the top then I'll just rout a channel 1mm deep leaving at least 1mm of top full width on the linings.

Colin
Author:  Dave Higham [ Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
The LMI 'Bold' purflings are 6mm high (same as the bindings) and they show them mounted like that. Their 'fine line' purflings are .080" (2mm) high and they show them rebated into the top. Is this not the normal way to do it?
Author:  Hesh [ Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:05 am ]
Post subject: 
Charles Fox uses VERY substantial linings too and not the standard linings that are much thinner toward the bottom.

It would probably be OK with reverse kerf linings but I would not go beyond .150 though.  Stew-Mac does come with a .150 cutter and remember too that something like .005 of the channel will be glue, your bindings, if wood, may swell, etc.  It's a moving target......

Charles linings are essentially solid linings on the front face - VERY rigid, I know Paul Woolson uses them too and has made them available to us prior.
Author:  Terry Stowell [ Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:22 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ken,


Sorry for the poor pix, but here's the idea; BWB full 1/4" tall purfling and mahogany binding mockup. (Black and white ebony side scrap from zootman) I see no problem here...
Author:  JohnAbercrombie [ Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
Terry-
If your binding and purfs are 0.150", then it looks like the 'side' in your pic is about 0.135...is this accurate?

Anyway, in the pic you certainly have plenty of lining left.

John
Author:  FishtownMike [ Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
Your sample makes it more understandable.
Author:  Terry Stowell [ Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:27 pm ]
Post subject: 

Hi John,


In this mockup, the sides & top are both .100" When I glued the binding on, it stuck out a bit, cuz I didn't have the right cutter (topic of another thread...) The channel is only .120"
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/