Official Luthiers Forum!

Life just keeps getting in the way. I am out in the shop 3 days a week to keep up with work, and take a full load of accounting classes on tuesday and thursday. That and the fact that I got married last summer and I just dont have as much extra time for all the different forums and stuff. I do have some fun projects I am planning to post up here soon though. Its good to be back

_________________
~shad peters

http://www.flickr.com/photos/petersinstruments/
http://petersinstruments.blogspot.com/
http://petersinstruments.com/

Looks awesome! And fragile - no Pete Townshending on this ax kids.

Patiently waiting for a photo shoot!

_________________
"Talking about music is like dancing over architecture".
See the most insane first guitar build: http://www.virgilguitar.com
http://www.youtube.com/VirgilGuitar

Great work Filippo,

Really enjoyed watching your process. You've certainly exploited the greatest benefit of building your own to tailor a really unique guitar with features one would never find in an off the shelf model, and done so with a fit and finish to match it with the very best of them.

Well Done...

Cheers

Kim

Looking awesome Fillipo!

_________________
If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason. - Jack Handey

Is that the bridge that is bottoming out?

If so....is that the lowest it will go....as it sits in the pictures above?

Or is it bottoming out on the finished surface of the guitar?

One way or the other....have you considered whether or not one might be able to machine some material off the bottom of that bridge? The wat it looks in the pics...it's a definite maybe. The geometry might not allow it but if the amount of material is small to reach a functional point....you won't have to redrill the post holes as you may with a new bridge if you can get this one to work.

I'd be happy to help if this idea is possible.

That burl makes me jealous....btw.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

On my guitars, where the body meets the neck, there's an area that morphs from a curved contour into a sharp, 90 degree edge. I don't see how it's possible to force a veneer around that sharp edge. I'd have to redesign a lotta stuff to do it.

I'd always opt for epoxy on something like the burl veneer. Depending on the cure time, the long open time can allow for the vacuum to continue to flatten the material over the course many hours, which I think would be desirable. Then, any bleedthrough of the epoxy would be of no concern if epoxy is going to be used to seal it...which is how I'd do it. If you glue it and seal it with epoxy there won't be any possible discoloration issue.

I don't know how familiar you are with vacuum bagging as a molding process so forgive me if I'm being pedantic....but vacuum bagging typically employs a bleeder and blotter cloth above the molded article and below the bag. I could see the use of this in a veneer lamination as quite beneficial. The bleeder cloth is a thin, fine nylon woven cloth that will release from the molded part after it is cured. Under pressure, resin AND BUBBLES travel THROUGH the bleeder cloth and into the blotter cloth on top of it....DIRECTLY out of the laminate instead of having to be squeezed out to the edges of the part. The net result is a void free surface which I think would be pretty much the same thing that composite molders are trying to acheive.

You'd lay down a coat of epoxy, lay the veneer, work it flat, lay another sloppy coat of epoxy, and then follow up with a typical vacuum bag process used for composites. I think you'd find a nice, flat surface that was already 100% sealed at the end of a bleeder, blotter setup.

On the bridge I sort of figured as much. I have a general habit of not offering to help unless there is a low probability of actually having to give it.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

Really nice, Filippo!

Filippo, that is hot!

Glad too see you found a bridge that would work with the neck angle. What do you think of the baby grand now that you've played it?

That guitar is quite beautiful.

The bridge, after what you went through, couldn't have turned out any better. The baby grand look actually accentuates the contemporary look of the guitar...fortunate.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

Beautiful guitar,
and first time ever I have seen a baby grand bridge
to be a good fit, actually.
Only thing that I do not like is those little wood pieces
at the ends of the pick-ups, they look somewhat flimsy
to me, especially in the middle of that beautifully executed top veneering.

No I have not, Chris,
thanks for the tip, you are right,
just checked him out and he seems to make a good use of the bridge, too.
But what is especially surpricing in Filippo´s guitar is that how
well that bridge fits into that more conventional shape,
and I think it is those soundholes that ties it down so well
visually. And yes, I am not a big fan of that bridge in general.

Sorry,

I do not get that "attaboy" thing
english being my third language,
but anyway, I believe in "weakest link" theory in design,
and since the guitar is otherwise so beautiful,
then small detail that is lacking may grow proportionally bigger than
it actually is. And if there is something unconventional going
on in the same time, eye catches it so much easier.
I am not saying your trim blocks are not working,
just that the execution (workmanship and design) of that detail is IMHO not up to par
with your otherwise excellent work.

Well,
if you could hide the screws completely and make the inside
(the side towards the end of the pick-up) edge of the piece
follow the shape of the pick-up end, and maybe have some
sloping topology instead of being flat, I think you could end
up with something nice, what you think?
CNC would be helpful in that for sure...

The design rule I'd follow there is: if you can't match it perfectly with both texture and fit...match another entirely different design element instead.

I think if you hadn't made them out of wood...and just used polished aluminum...that would have worked better on two counts:

1. Making them from polished aluminum will draw the mind away from the fit. Silver instead of matched wood mitigates the less than perfect fit.

2. A little silver alongside of the black pickups will tie the silver bridge and the black knobs together aesthetically.

btw....it's not to late too try that.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

Beautiful work as always, Filippo! But since you seem to be looking more for criticism than praise, I'll leave the "attaboys" at that.

My thoughts on improvement:

-for the pickup mounts, switching to aluminum or another metal as Stuart suggested would be great. If you want to stick with wood, you could have bound the side pieces with the same binding as the body got. That would also distract the eye from any gaps since it would interrupt the continuous flow of the burl top into the burl of the mounts that you currently have going. Also, too many/too big screws there. Obviously you need some means of mounting everything, but the whole idea of that design is to avoid bulk (that you normally get with pickup rings).

-You have a plastic toggle switch! Come on, you're a wood purist! That's beneath you!

Very very nice.

Maybe some matching burl pickup mounts might blend a little better.

How does the transition on the neck feel when playing the higher frets?

Need to hear it wound out through a Marshall!

Nice! I did a similar thing but for a top. I had (and still have) a few pieces of maple with really nice flame figure, but only about 5.5" wide, so still too small for tops once resawed. So I added a strip of wenge in the middle:

Nice!
Mo' pics!
I was going to say "great shot"!

I'd say it turned out pretty nice!

_________________
http://www.CostaGuitars.com
PMoMC

Beautiful Fillipo
I would say there are so many things on this guitar that rock its hard to know where to begin... the veneered carved spruce top the neck and headstock - love the soundholes.... Ive been toying with making a PRSish hollowbody myself, and putting nice personal touches like that are very nice..
That must be graftifying to behold on its stand, even moreso in your hands -
Now I do like the bridge, but the heel looks to me as though it might dig in to the players hand if playing in the upper registers....
I dont mind the flatmount p/u idea but prefer mounting rings,,,,
All in all it pretty outta sight
Thanks so much for sharing - it really helps out someone like me who is lightyears behind alot (most?)of you guys!
Cheers
Charlie

Fillipo
I certainly wasnt trying to besmirch your guitar by the PRS comparison by any means - your guitaris a sexy beast -
Plus if anything, I think the designs that approach that particular body style in different ways are some of the nicest looking designs coming out these days.... its just that if someone were to compare yours to an existing brand/model it would be closest to the PRS design...IMHO
I myself am thinking of building more of a clone of a hollowbody 2 if I can get there... as close as possible anyhow - I dunno where someone could get a hold of those tuners...
I have owned 2 PRS & played a few PRS guitars - unfortunately neither of the PRS I owned was a hollowbody - one was a 22 10 top w/birds - one a 24 10 top w/dots
Having played a few PRS hollowbodies, I have to say they are fantastic - they never seem to stock semi-hollowbody PRS models at any of my local retailers unfortunately!! Id really like to get my hand on one to see how they go for me..
I have always felt that while the PRS 22 and 24's while excellent guitars just werent thick enough for me - so when they introduced the slightly thicker McCarty model I was thrilled - but it still didnt seem thick enough somehow even though it was approaching the original LP thickness (was it the complete thickness of a LP? I forget)
The other problem I had with PRS's Ive experienced was thier pu's always seemed too hot for me....
I am thrilled at the chance to take an already exceptional, embraced, and loved design such as the PRS standard body and redesign the problems I had with them ... based on my playing style and tastes as a player...of course..
I have small hands so the changes I would make to them arent at all what most players would want I think...
ANyhow the other thing I was saying about your model is that it seems like the heel might hit the side of the palm when the guitar was played high up on the neck.... perhaps this isnt the case at all - its just how it appeared to my novice eye..
Please keep posting your builds Fillipo I think I enjoy seeing your jigs and fixtures as much as seeing your guitars LOL
Cheers
Charliewood
PS cool story about visiting the old shop and seeing Paul and his company in its infancy... I guess back then when you had that first PRS it was a drool-athon when other players saw it huh? I remember seeing thier ads and just daydreaming about one back in the early 80's...
Cw

Filippo,

Have you played the guitar enough to form an opinion on the bridge?

Steve