Official Luthiers Forum!

Hi all. I've come to realize that I've been taking more credit than I'm due on this jig. In my eyes, I was taking credit for the "improvement" of the jig, that being the bolt on the end. But I've realized that in outsider's eyes, it looks as though I designed the whole thing, and furthermore made it look substandard by saying it needed this "improvement". That was not my intent at all but it came across that way so I need to do the right thing here.
I thought I had mentioned that what I did was a design change to Charles Fox's jig but I couldn't find that anywhere so it's been burried enough that I need to readdress the issue and make it more clear.
Charles Fox brilliantly designed this jig. He uses it pretty much daily in both his guitar production and his school. Without the bolt on the end, he encorporates the paddle to flatten the upper bout and set the proper string projection. One time when I did this with the paddle, it rendered a top that was too thin so I thought "there's got to be another way", which is where the adjustable bolt comes into play. My good ideas are few and far between so I wanted to share this with the commuity that I hold so dear. The whole time thinking that it was this "improvement" that I was taking credit for when indeed it looked like I was taking credit for Charles' original design.
Charles has been gracious enough to let us use the plans but let's keep in mind that it is indeed HIS idea for the major concept of the tennon jig.
So I don't want to start a big thread here. I just wanted to publicly say I'm sorry to if I have deceived you and to set the record straight. Thanks P

Integrity is such a wonderful virtue,