Andyjr1515

...and by the magic of two pieces of mahogany, one piece of walnut, a thicknesser, a band saw and lots and lots of clamps, we have a neck blank ready for squaring up and shaping:

Which, thinking about it, is what @SpondonBassed says above Parallel would mean the radius at the top of the frets would be more than 7.25" so, if they used the same block, it would appear to be tighter

Me too - on some of the photos. The only thing....and it might be an optical illusion...is that on a number of them I've looked at, I reckon that the FRETS might be a tighter radius than the board. Doesn't it look the same to you? But bear in mind I have astigmatism and varifocals. Which is another reason you might want to disregard my comments...

Actually - I think you are probably spot on! And remember - on this subject, I REALLY don't know what I'm talking about

Mmmm - I think you are right, looking at those. So @rubis would be probably talking only one set of radii Looking just how thin that rhs fretboard is, I would be very surprised if the bottom of the fretboard had to be concave carved. Dunno - whether it could be just clamped?

Ah - OK. You are - and based on the quality and attention to detail of the body, of course you are - talking about recreating the original Fender 60's neck with a thin fretboard glued to a radiused neck. In which case disregard pretty much everything I said! And - in addition to the associated original method that Fender used of sliding in frets from the side - it's probably the only two aspects of necks I've never tried! Are you aiming for 7.25" radius or 9.5"? My understanding is patchy and maybe wrong - I'm sure yours is greater than mine. But to put forward some thoughts. I think that the original necks were: blank neck without fretboard radiused to 12" thin fretboard glued - probably using radius blocks - bending it to the 12" radius finish to final fretboard radius What I am absolutely not sure, is the "bending to the 12" " bit or whether the underside of the fretboard was concave radiused. Ignore most of what I say - but if I personally was doing it (but I'm a pragmatist not a perfectionist) I would consider the following: 1. Cheap and 'one-off' assuming it's a bent board Radius the top of the neck blank using a 12" radius block Thickness the fretboard to as thin as possible while retaining enough thickness to maintain decent edges with the increased radius of the final sand Glue the fretboard, using a series of 12" radius blocks as clamping cauls all along the fretboard length. We're talking serious G clamps here! And lots of them Radius the top of the fretboard using a 9.5" or 7.25" radius block 2. Cheap and 'one off' assuming it's a concave backed board Make up a simple rig of a line of 12" radius blocks, making up a length 6" or so longer than the fretboard length Turn the neck blank upside down and sand the neck on the static radius blocks Using the same radius blocks jig, make a 12" convex radius block using a suitable piece of pine or similar 3x3 timber Use the convex pine radius block to radius the back of the fretboard Glue - again using the 12" radius blocks as cauls Radius the top of the fretboard using a 9.5" or 7.25" radius block 3. Radius jig I would make a modified version of my home-built radius jig: The modifications would include: a set of end guides which curve the other way to be able to rout concave; a set of 7.25" ends (bear in mind that the radius of the guides is LESS that the finished radius because you have to allow for the length of the radius cutter too). You would still need to tidy up the radii with sanding blocks I would still radius the neck itself using blocks in any case - it's just too difficult in my view to clamp a neck as accurately as these types of jigs need to be. I would use the above jig, using the two sets of ends, for the fretboard blank, starting with the 12" concave, then flipping it over and doing the 7.25" top radius With some careful thought and a much bigger rig, you could actually use varying lengths of router bit projections to get both convex radii out of one set of ends...but that's too much thought for my little brain. Hope that helps get your head round some possibilities but, as always, feel free to disregard Andy

There's a lot of stuff here! To try to pin down the options, you could: Buy a quality built, radiused and fretted unfinished maple P bass neck for around £120 to £220. The £120 would be someone like Northwest Guitars. The £200 ish would be someone like Allparts UK, Fender-licenced and Made in USA or Japan (bought one very recently and it was SUPERB quality). Buy a second hand one on ebay. Anything Fender will be hugely overpriced. There are then good ones and there are bad ones. Build one yourself. Big, big learning curve if you haven't done one before but perfectly feasible with a Workmate and an array of tools to thickness, rout, carve, slot, fret. But we are looking at quite an array of tools... The simplest and cheapest way of radiusing a fretboard blank itself is a radius sanding block (wooden one £20 or so). It takes quite a long time and there are tips and techniques to keep everything even, but perfectly feasible. You can make a radiusing jig, but it would be a lot quicker to just sand a one-off with a block (even with a jig, you still need to finish off with a radius block). Slotting the fretboard, you need a decent saw - but then can, with care, get away with hand measuring and using the radius block clamped at each fret position as your 90 degree saw guide. But you can buy a ready slotted fretboard blank (David Dyke charges £10 to slot one of his unradiused blanks) I have photos and good experiences and bad experiences on all of this stuff, but of the above options, not sure which approach meets your needs. Let me know and I would be happy to expand on any of those aspects

That is VERY authentic looking. Greatcwork

I concur with what @Stingray5 says above - even the bit about finally being able to make time to sit down and listen to it! And easy listening it is too. Loved the Wal feature, @TrevorR (and, having worked on one once, love Wals. They are a cut above in many ways). Very informative! And also interesting and relevant discussion between Bo and Si. And yes - much better length. Excellent result, folks, for the herculean effort and time this must have taken for all of the participants and organisers. Well done and great stuff! Andy

Having got the fretboard basically done, that meant I could work out the neck angle - a touch over 1 degree. I squared up and ensured that the through neck blank was completely straight and level. Then, having rough cut the body slot in the neck blank on the bandsaw, I popped it onto my routing jig and packed up the back end of the neck blank to get the correct angle: This then gave me the slot that the back wings will sit flush with and the top will sit in: Having got that sorted, I now knew exactly where the back wings were going to sit and could trace round, slightly oversize, the top and cut out the shapes on my bandsaw: So, when they are ready to be glued, they will sit flush with the slot in the neck blank: And, although it is AGES off being finished, at least it's starting to look a little bit like a bass!

In fits and starts, I've been continuing progress on this. Quick catchup. I did the blocks in a similar fashion to @Len_derby 's: First, used my cobbled up radius jig - Then slotted - Then stuck the fretboard blank onto the G&W template - Then found the little pin table I built for @Len_derby 's build to fit on my press drill and fitted with a 1.5mm router bit - With care - that gave me the chambers - Then cut some non-cites ebony blocks to fit - While all this was going on, the maple/walnut/maple neck blank was being glued together, more of which soon -

Nice - I remember that now.

I think the bridge weight thing is pretty straightforward, to be honest: Two bits (three really, because the saddle block is a double-decker): versus one bit:

I'll PM you. Interestingly, in the 'Bass Guitars' section of the forum there's someone else looking to lighten a Stingray...

Been there, done that.... Actually, you can get up off the floor. Remember that there are three rectangles to cut out of the top - the pickup, the bridge base plate, the stop tail - and there are all the curves to carve. Because the top wood is SO heavy, then you get a disproportionate reduction of weight for each of these. Just how much lighter it's going to be, I don't know...but it will be lighter. Oh - and as you probably can see from the outline drawing of the chambers, the MASSIVE control cavity is actually going to get bigger so that will take a few more ounces out **Thump** ? Oh it's OK, folks - @eude 's just fallen on the floor again. Anyway - don't worry - it may be big but it's going to be beautiful. And with magnets I will actually be gluing the top fairly late in the build so I can keep checking weight as I go along. Just tidying up the present chambers has taken out another 3oz, so at the moment we are only 3oz heavier:

OK - my plan in this post is to scare the willies out of @eude - and then get him to fall off his chair So - this is the chambering plan. 10mm removal between the neck pocket and the pickup chamber and 20mm everywhere else I can. Here are the areas: ...and bear in mind, the last instrument I built was only 22mm to start with... OK. I think we probably have @eude 's attention And so out comes the press drill and so far we have this: So I suspect this above will have scared the c**p out of @eude And so now is time to get @eude to fall off his chair. Original stripped down body weight: 5lbs 3oz This above, plus the cut katalox top: 5lbs 2oz Yes - katalox is heavy. But there's a but... Original bridge: 8oz Warwick bridge: 15oz So total weight (including bridge) in spite of all this wood removed is, at the moment, 6oz HEAVIER Listen...did I hear a thump? Sure I did. Told you

Central America - South Mexico through to the north of S America. So yes - quite close to Moffat...

To everyone's relief, especially MrsAndyjr1515's, I can up front declare myself out of the running to help in any actual building or modding way - I have more projects on the go already than is good for me - but yes...all of the above are valid options. You can: Chamber under a pickguard (actually, doesn't take out a lot of weight) Chamber from the back and cover with a dummy control chamber cover (again, surprisingly doesn't take out as much weight as you would expect Chamber from the back or front and hide it under a veneer or paint refinish (you can get a decent amount of weight out but have a look at the above thread of Harry's Harley to see just how much wood has to go!) Have a new body built with lighter woods and chambering Take thickness off the back (some basses have unnecessarily thick bodies) and veneer / refinish. This can take out a quite a bit of weight Have a thru-neck slimline and chambered lightweight designed and built, asking the builder to replicate the profile of your favourite neck And yes - done pretty much all of the above, either for my own use, or friends, or basschat members and other folks so I know they are all feasible. The only thing I would say, though, is that a Stingray 5 neck is VERY heavy! I can't remember where the strap button sits on a Stingray 5, but if it is any further back than level with the 12th/13th fret, then a neck diving result is a definite possibility. Hope this helps... Andy

I'm actually wondering whether it was a P-Lyte he originally had, then. Were they around in the late 60s/early 70s?

Ah - maybe that's what I'm thinking. Now THAT was a nice bass

Yes - the whole thing will darken considerably with the finish. Having said that, it's definitely going to be in the reddish spectrum rather than the brownish. It's quite like a bubinga in many ways. Main thing is that it'll look fabulous! (providing I don't pink torpedo it up, of course )

Because the eyes on the 'right' side were less diffuse, and were slightly further away from the centre, they actually would have been cut out entirely at the waist one way round, or been at the very edges of the body the other way round and because the length of the blank wasn't much longer than the bass itself, I couldn't just move it up a bit to get them into the area where the body widens. It's why I always use a paper template to check - too many times I've ended up having to cut out the nice bits! This way round - which is actually a mix of the two sides, you have one eye in there from the 'right' side, but the second eye spreads out so more of it ends up in the visible area. If that makes any sense at all!

Hi Not a large tortuous thread, you'll be relieved to know. A 'mature' former professional bassist I know was bemoaning the sale many decades ago of his beloved 60's Fender Precision. The two things he remembered - different to the cheap and cheerful no-name P he'd recently bought - were the smooth feel of the neck, and the lack of a sharp heel where the neck abruptly meets the body. I said I might be able to help by building a cheapish 'bitsa' and doing a couple of mods. The first was the neck - straightforward. Bought a P-bass neck, tinted it with chestnut spirit stain and finished it with the tru-oil slurry and buff approach described in a number of my tortuous threads For sorting the sharp heel, I wanted to use a cutaway neck plate but I also wanted to use an old Washburn body bought for a song - and for time and cost reasons - didn't want to have to strip and refinish it. Here's the plate: In that my mate wanted function over form, I could have just filed the corner off, stained the bare wood and treated the hole as an object d'art. Instead, I decided that if you can't hide it then flaunt it! So I decided to drop a piece of contrasting wood in. First forstnered and routed a pocket at the back: Then set in a piece of figured dark wood from a previous project: Shaped that to remove the corner: Drilled through the three relevant existing holes and the new offset one, then a touch of finish: And I've got to say, wow - what a difference! I thought that you would still hit the heel with your palm, albeit not on a sharp corner, but in reality, you can play right up to the top frets and your palm doesn't hit the heel at all. My mate is over the moon. Clearly, the fact that the offset plates are readily available means that this is a regular feature on some basses but has anyone else tried a retro like this? I'll certainly be doing this on my own VM Jag!

It's a pity I don't have spray facilities - some of these recent 'poster paint' colour jobs look SO good. This looks fabulous

Lovely job