Andyjr1515

I agree, if that Warmoth diagram actually is a 206, it isn't very clear how it works. Do you actually have the bridge? If so, it should be straightforward to see how it works. As @Dan Dare says, there will be: - the 4 intonation adjustment screws at the back, screwed into the backs of the saddles. - The pair of small grub screws at the top of each saddle to adjust the height - there is also a single locking screw at ghe top of each saddle to lock it down on the plate once the height and intonation has been adjusted. What isn't clear on the diagram is how the string spacing is adjusted. But it should be clear when you look at the bridge. It is probably that loosening the clamp screw allows the saddle to move side to side but a bit of a play with it should reveal how it actually works.

Nice save

Trussrod slot cut and headstock plate area flattened. The angle of cutaway at the nut makes it look like the headstock is going to be at an angle to the fretboard - but that is just an optical illusion - it is parallel to the top of the neck. The headstock plate itself will be 1.5mm wenge constructional veneer as will be the pickup rings. Last thing before bandsawing the neck outline shape is to cut the body joint. Quadruple checking before I do that!!!

Tom has some Hipshot tuners and their new screw-adjust single saddles on order. In the meantime, I've started on the neck and fretboard. After lots of checking, and double checking and triple checking, the fretboard has been tapered and the neck blank cut to length and headstock angle cut: Next job - while all of the straight sides are still there, it to route the truss-rod slot and then I can start cutting the neck profiles and heel cutouts

This probably illustrates it more clearly? : The fret positions for each string is fixed mathematically, appropriate to each scale - in this example, the G at 31", the E at 33" and the other two strings at their respective intermediate scales. But where the E scale and the G scale start and end is up to the builder. They could both start at the same place at the nut (top example) and the whole 2" difference will be seen at the saddles Or the G could start 1" inset at the nut, (like the middle example), which will mean that the saddle will be 1" inset too Or the saddles could start in the same place at the saddles (like the bottom example) and so the whole 2" difference taken at the nut Or multiple combinations in between or beyond! In the case of Pete's Piccolo, I decided to have the nut almost perpendicular and take the bulk of the offset at the saddles: And so the slant of the lower frets was pretty modest but it gets steeper the further up the scale you went. In this case, the perpendicular fret was probably the 2nd fret. But it was only a 1" difference between the E scale and the G scale so the angle at the upper frets and saddles were still acceptable. The E saddle is pretty much 1" further to the back than the G saddle, representing the two scale lengths. Doing it like this, most of the frets are angled in the same direction. In Tom's case, I have a 2" scale difference so if I had made the nut perpendicular, then the upper frets and saddles would be very angled indeed. So I decided to position the G string nut such that I would have the same angle at the nut as at the bridge, albeit in opposite directions. To do this, I positioned the G string nut 1" towards the tailstock compared with the nut position for the E. The bridge saddles line isn't marked here, but it will be the same angle as the nut, albeit in the opposite direction, with the G saddle being 1" offset towards the headstock compared with the E saddle. So here there is an angle change and - where the change happens is the mid point, which is at the 12th fret in both cases: For someone who likes building necks and fretboards there could be many a happy hour making all the variations to see which felt best to the player or which gave advantages or disadvantages relating to pickup positioning. Happily, that someone won't be me

Looking good. Really interested how that bridge performs. I forget, are you replacing the black one fitted or will the new ones be on a second build?

It's the 'usual' arrangement where the fan is equal between the nut and the bridge - same angle but mirrored. On that basis, where the angle changes from +ve to -ve will be in the middle of the scale, ie the 12th fret. But it doesn't need to be. You can start a more acute or less acute angle at the nut and adjust the angle at the bridge accordingly.

Great info, @Stub Mandrel

Hi, John I found that after around a year of playing, the backs of the necks on my own guitars and basses would sometimes start to feel slightly rough to the thumb in the heavily used areas . Only needed a brief rubbing with micro-web to return to its silky smoothness but I talked to a few folks who use the same slurry and buff technique but with a decent quality Danish Oil (like the Liberon you use) and they find that it tends to resist this 'feature' a touch better. So far, I think it probably does, but I think it does depend on the Danish Oil being used. The other time I would use it is with very light woods where I find that the Danish doesn't tint the wood quite as much as Tru-oil. But it's fine - tuning...Tru-oil remains my choice for most other tasks

Going thinner, as long as it's not crazy thin, won't affect either the tone or the structural integrity in my view.

I finally invested in a router table last year so mine will be a little more straightforward this time round. Up until then I did it much the same as you. Like a lot of things, after a few goes, you start to get a feel of where and hold the router and how to keep the guide firm against the neck side. Like all things to do with routers, I cut no more than 2mm depth at a time.

Yes - you can build Tru-oil up but, as you say, it will give a completely different finish. After 20 or so coats it will start off pretty glossy but settle down closer to a glossy-satin over time. And yes - the finish will harden but only relatively. The slurry and buff method produces a completely different finish. I know @honza992 did quite a bit of experimenting and I'm sure will be able to add to the discussion.

In my experience, much of a muchness. BUT they only do this if you are building up a layer of the varnish itself - and with this technique you are not doing that. If you read @honza992 's excellent run through of the process you will see that, in effect, all the oil is actually wiped and buffed off. So what you are effectively left with is oil-impregnated wood. Which is why the finished result feels not only silky smooth (due to the oil, sawdust dried and polished fill) but organic, because it is the wood you are actually touching, not a layer of oil or varnish on top of the wood. In the experiments I have done myself, I have found that you can apply this same technique to a number of oils and varnishes. And, actually, for necks, nowadays I tend to use Danish oil myself, although for bodies I still tend to use Tru-oil. But the application is identical.

I suppose my first thought would be to take off any sharp edges, dirty up the wood a touch and treat it as 'mojo' . Let's face it, some makers do this on purpose and then add a premium to the price! If not, then I personally would use clear epoxy resin, such as z-poxy and mix it with some resin-tint - black and brown from, for example, a set like this: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RESIN-TINTING-PIGMENTS-SET-7-COLORS/184122418202?hash=item2ade8d241a:g:qg0AAOSw7ypeGKQH Reason I would use epoxy is that nail varnish, etc, takes many many coats to build up that kind of thickness and then continue to shrink for ages after. And the reason I would use the resin tints with epoxy rather than other stains is that they resin tints are designed to be fully compatible with epoxy resins. Other products (enamel paint, etc) MIGHT work but some will affect the resin curing - and as you will see, you want to let the resin cure properly. After a few trials to match the colour and get familiar with the speed it sets, etc, I would mask the area off, then apply some mixed, tinted epoxy with an old credit card or similar, removing the excess before it set. I would do it over a few applications to build up without too much over-fill. Once it was totally set (at least overnight even for a '30 minute' epoxy), I would use a small sanding block, starting with around 200 grit and going up to, say 320 until it was level and starting to take away the masking tape to merge with the surrounding sound varnish. Then I would take the masking tape off and use the wonderful micro-web sanding cloths (you can get a small mixed pack off ebay quite cheaply), again with a small sanding block, running from 1800 to 12000 grit at which stage it should be pretty shiny. You can finish off with glossing it up with a decent auto-polish if necessary. I did this that way: It had a 2cm x 3cm piece of lacquer completely missing down to the wood from the headstock plate. I think you would struggle to say where

Yes - it's a bit iterative. I personally cut the slots to around 4mm on a board that has been initially thicknessed to 7mm. I then lose getting on for 1mm along the spine through the radiusing, and up to 3mm at the sides of the untampered board from the radiusing process. Usually, this leaves the lower frets still deep enough once the board has been tapered and thus the radius effect is less. For the upper frets though, depending on what radius is being cut, then the sides can indeed end up too shallow, so I deepen them with my fretsaw angled from the centre to the edge so that I'm only deepening where it's needed - that is a pretty quick and easy job. If you fret once it has been glued to the neck, you can cut the slot deeper to start with, but nowadays, I fret the fretboard before gluing it to the neck and therefore need a decent amount of wood still below the slot so the board doesn't break when hammering in the frets. Cutting an initial 4mm slot in a 7mm board blank gives me 3mm meat underneath for most of the fret slots which is usually enough. I use a thin piece of metal with a couple of depth marks on to ensure that the slots are clear of dust and deep enough along their whole lengths before inserting each fret.

I always agonise over investments in tools and facilities, but having decided that hand radiusing hardwood fretboards is the road to insanity, I built myself a radiusing jig a few years ago. While it worked well, it was a bit inconsistent and quite difficult to setup. So last year I bit the bullet and went for the G&W (Guitar & Woods) unit with a couple of extra radii formers. And boy, am I glad I did! It does the job quickly and efficiently - but more to the point, accurately. Took 30-40 minutes total to get the router out, tape the fretboard with 2-sided taped to the jig, set the router to the correct height and do the job. Then 10 minutes of finish sanding with a sanding block to get rid of the router lines, a quick initial wipe with tru-oil and here we are: Not sure how well it comes out in the photos, but while being very wenge-like, the panga panga has some orange in it which is perfect to tone with the body wood. I'll check with Tom what nut width he wants, cut the taper and then I can start on the neck.

Spent most of the day on the fretboard. First job was to plane the sides straight and level. Panga panga really is very wenge-like : There is a mystique about multi-scales but the only complicated bit (unless you have some VERY fancy kit) is that you have to cut the frets the 'old fashioned' way - that is, with a perpendicular block, some clamps and a fret saw. This is because at the angles you need to get to, you generally can't use a standard carpenters or luthier mitre-block. Basically, you mark out the fret positions of the longer scale at one side of the board, mark up the fret positions of the shorter scale on the other side of the board and just cut your slots between each pair of marks So first I stick a long steel rule to the fretboard with 2-sided tape, and use the Stewmac calculator to give me each position relative to the nut and then press a tiny indent into the board with a sharp-ended punch: I then reposition the rule to the other side of the board, inset it by an inch and repeat using the fret spacings of the smaller scale Next, I clamp a perpendicular block with it's square face lining up with each pair of indents, ensuring that the sawblade, when pressed against the block face EXACTLY bisects each indent: I start off the slot gently, holding the saw blade against the wood block. Once I have the start of a slot - enough to hold the blade in position, I can be a bit more energetic. The perpendicular block has been cut to a height so that the spine of my saw rides along it once I've reached the depth of slot I'm planning to go to: Then I unclamp, move the fretboard forward, align the block between the next pair of indents, reclamp and repeat. Three done, 21 to do And continue until they are all done! And by the magic of mathematics, if the fret positions either side are correct, then the fret positions of anywhere across the fretboard are going to be correct, whether that is 4 strings, 5 strings or 6

I can answer that. Yes - using Tru-oil as the lube.

Have continued to be a bit distracted by home jobs (latest being Storm Ciara which dumped a months worth of rain down our chimneys, swamping the cooker extractor fan that blew the electrics to the cooker and everything around it...that was fun ) BUT finally got round to updating the drawing with a 33" to 31" multiscale just to see how extreme it looked. Looks OK to me (clearly, the headstock will need to shift a touch to the right): Being a bit of a 'bitsa' build, I dug out a couple of pickups that might do OK. Pretty sure they are both Artec Alnico V's - a standard bridge humbucker and a neck mini-humbucker. Hard coupled could be interesting... I'll talk to Tom and see what he thinks. So I think I'm getting close to cutting some wood...

Beautiful.

It is indeed. However, they do need a bit of fettling. @Jabba_the_gut used them on one of his and did a great job of cleaning up the threads and lubricating. I actually used two (they are as cheap as chips) and made up one good one from the best components of the two. The resulting 'good one' was perfectly OK, though, and works great.

Hi It's difficult to see from the photo, but is it a bow, or is it just a very high action, or a bit of both? Which fret is it at 12mm and what is the gap at, say, the 21st fret with the strings tensioned up? In terms of the 'standard' measurement of neck relief, with strings held down to the frets at the 1st and the 18th frets, what is the gap at the 7th fret? When the neck is off the bass, is it possible to induce any back-bow at all? If not, then it sounds like the rod is out of adjustment or faulty, or that the neck has 'relaxed' over time into a bow that is too large for the trussrod to correct. With the strings off and the trussrod loosened, what was the gap in the middle of the fretboard? If you can get some back bow with the strings un-tensioned, it's worth trying starting off like that and then adding the string tension. If, with the strings off there is decent effect from the trussrod, but nevertheless a remaining substantial gap in the middle of the fretboard with the trussrod fully loosened, then you are probably into a defret, relevel and re-fret (I had to do one recently with exactly that issue) or, worst case, consider a replacement neck. Clearly, if the bow itself is controllable with the truss rod, but the overall action is still very high, then a shim at the rear of the neck pocket will get it back to normal adjustment range.

Another fan of Laklands here. Look forward to seeing it at the next Bash!

Probably because they've seen some of my other builds

Beautiful job.