Official Luthiers Forum!

Newby quetion of the month but I did search the archives first.

First off I have never liked binding on electric guitars or on the necks. Most of it looked like cheap plastic even on a Les Paul and I would likely pay more for a Les Paul Studio (which retail for less) just to avoid the binding.

I prefer the wood of the instument to take center stage and not flashy hardware and tend to stick to the black harware on electric bass guitars with nice wood. I am definitely more of a simplified elegance "Mission Furniture" design asthetic than anything overly ornate but I always admire and appreciate fine craftmasnhip.

That being said acoutic guitars are completely different creatures construction wise and I have seen some very nice wood binding accents in figured wood or otherwise pleasantly contrasting woods.

My acoustic "jazz guitar" bass project will be my first acoustic build which finaly brings me to my original question.

Is the binding process on the front and backs where the top meets the sides an asthetically functional necessity of joining two thin pieces of wood at right angles along a curve i.e way too tricky to pull off with out glue lines and seam imperfections galore?

Would not using them be feasible but too time intensive to be worthwhile in production?

Or are they for the most part purely decorative in nature?

Prehaps they provide some protection to the seam or glue joint of the edge of the instrument if it were struck against a hard object?

Does it functionaly strengthen the seem?

I think for my first build I would prefer to skip binding the body but then I don't seem to recall seeing any acoustic guitars without some form of binding on the body so now I am thinking it has a serious function role as well.

Hey at least I am never afraid to admit my ignorance when learning something new.   

The first B-20'S guitars made by Norman in Quebec were made without binding/purflings and looked good but not great, it was a signature of the company back then but ever since the company was sold the bindings and purflins came back.

Pretty hard to get a quality seam side to top or back in my opinion. I have an old guitar with no binding on the back just a seam. Some of the experts will chime in on many of your points, I have some opinions, but would not want to lead you astray.

Why not bind with the same wood vs. a contrasting wood or color commonly seen?

Good luck

Mike
White Oak, Texas

Some of the top Jazz guitar makers(Bennedetto included) offer models whithout any bindings.
I don't believe they give you a credit when you buy one,though...

Hard to get a tight seam ??? Use spool clamps or a go bar deck, its not that tough - the two issues I see with non bound acoustics is the sealing of the end grain of the top and back, moreso on the top, and then the ability of the soft top wood to resist denting from small knocks the edge may suffer during the guitars life. In general, binding is always a hard wood, or plastic, which helps the guitar survive the perils of life with humans. I wouldnt build one without it. As for fretboards, I dislike the look of exposed fret ends that are usually seen on unbound FBs. Bind the FB in the same wood, and you get all the benefits without adding any flash !!!

_________________
Tony Karol
www.karol-guitars.com
"let my passion .. fulfill yours"

Yes, I have seen the body binding be the exact same wood as the back/sides and it looked great. The only aesthetic was a thin, colored fiber in the sandwich and it was slick. In fact, I may do that myself one day.

Ditto what was said earlier, it not only hides the endgrain of the top/back, it adds structural rigidity and a safety margin for whacks/dings on the corner that might otherwise crack the endgrain.

It's a must from what I've seen, but could be hidden quite well if the understated look is what you crave.

_________________
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

Have you ever dropped a guitar or had it fall over? I have, more than I care to admit. In more cases than not, it seems the guitar will make contact on an edge. And in some of my worst cases, if it wasn't for the binding taking the brunt of the impact, I shudder to think what would have happened to the back or top sans binding.

So, yeah, to me, binding plays an important structural role. Regarding a bound neck, well, to each his own. About half the electrics I own have bound necks, and I like 'em just fine. But if I bound my classicals' necks, I can tell you this -- I wouldn't be selling very many.

Best,

Michael

_________________
Live to Play, Play to Live

Hesh that does indeed look very nice.

Do you guys cut your own binding then when using the same wood?

While I have a planer, table saw, a couple routers and a drill press I don't think I could cut a thin enough or uniform strip for binding.

Perhaps there is a tutorial you coudl point me to if you roll your own?

Scooter,

I cut all my binding. I build classicals, whose body depth is scarcely ever more than 4". Usually the sides I buy are oversized enough where there's enough left after cutting them down to a 4" width that I can get enough binding for the whole guitar.

You really need a bandsaw for this, imo. That's what I use. You'll lose too much from a table saw's kerf, unless you have a fret slotting blade mounted. Dunno if I'd recommend using a fret slotting blade anyway.

I mount a fence on my bandsaw's table to make sure I'm getting a reasonably straight cut. You can then sand the saw marks out of the gluing face with a sanding board. I also have a drum sander and use it for this. I stack the binding pieces against each other and hold onto them so they stay upright as I feed them through the sander.

Best,

Michael

_________________
Live to Play, Play to Live

Tony

A friend of mine has one of the Martin guitars without binding, has a gap, could have been bumped or dropped. I played one at a store (think it a Martin also) in Kansas City as well, had a gap, also could have been dropped. I have never attempted a build without binding, but getting a seam that will hold and stand up is what I based my statement on. Meaning that binding protects, sorry I was not clearer on my post.

Mike
White Oak, Texas

Not sure how martin does theirs, but save for the braces notched thru, like Todd mentions using a bowl to sand the rim, and the gobar deck to glue the top or back on, I find it pretty easy to get the whole joint tight. If it doesnt, in reality you have messed something up (like a brace is not seated in its notch all the way), or havent sanded the rim to a smooth curve. If I am not mistaken, some of these guitars dont have kerfing, possibly the baby taylors ?? - they really solely on the rim surface to attach the top/back to. IMO thats a bad idea (no binding, little glue area)just waiting to separate from a knock.

_________________
Tony Karol
www.karol-guitars.com
"let my passion .. fulfill yours"

I have a les Paul and I think it would look bare without the binding. I personaly dont like the studio look. To naked for me. On acoustics I like the natural look of wood bindings over the plastics. Binding serves a purpose of protecting the edges. You can use contrasting woods to really add to the look of the guitar. There is a lot more choices for wood binding then there is plastics. Probably hundreds more.

Hesh I love the look of that guitar. I never thought of using the same wood for the binding. Great look

Like Michael said, there are many choices to be made with wood combinations and it helps develop your design skills with all the different colors that exist.