Andyjr1515

If you already have a neck pocket, then you know where the 12th fret is going to be, depending on the scale length of the neck you're going to use. Double that distance and that's where the bridge HAS GOT to be placed. It's mathematical. I don't fix the bridge until the neck is fully fitted and then use a long steel rule to make sure I can place it very accurately. I personally put the bridge at the scale length of the g saddle, moved fully forward, and then make sure there's at least 3mm rearward movement of the other three saddles for intonation. Does that make any sense?

Possibly. Certainly it's the same principle. What I do is pop a strap on the back button, sling it over my shoulder and literally hold the other end of the strap, supporting the bass at the various position options (being careful not to drop it!) and decide the best one to go for. It won't be exact, but will give you a decent idea of how the bass is going to sit on the strap. For my own, I sometimes actually try them in two or three positions for real - at worst you have a couple of extra 2.5mm holes in the heel/horn but you also have a d****d well balancing bass @W1_Pro 's custom, a beautiful bass that had sat in its case for many, many years unplayed started out with the button here (actually pretty standard ES335 position): And, through a mirror, you see how it hangs and note it is UTTERLY unplayable. This is my longest reach! : So I moved the button to here: And this was the result (same camera angle etc,etc): In this particular case, just putting the button on the end of the heel actually wouldn't have worked so well - but it just depends. Hence the advice to try the 'half attached strap approach' above. Did I think this would help? Yes Did I think that we could get a bass that had been unplayable for over 20 years, fully playable in 10 minutes? No - I was as gobsmacked as Stuart ( @W1_Pro ) And here's the proof that there is no camera trickery. Here it is fixed: ...and just hanging on the strap: So in summary...the strap position can make a BIG, BIG difference. And therefore I would have thought at least one of those two positions - mine above or yours from your website search - would allow you to go 34" on the Tele

I'm pretty sure the neck pocket (assuming it is made to Fender/Squier dims) is the same regardless of the scale lengths. You may well have balance issues with a 34" scale - just look how far forward the bridge is. Simple check is to work out which fret the top horn button will line up with. For a long scale, anything higher than the 13th fret is going to be in amber territory and looking at where this button is, I reckon it would be more like the 15th fret or higher...definitely into red territory. There is more choice nowadays of lightweight tuners, so that is one option - but even those will struggle if the button is so far back. An alternative is to put a button on the 'wrong' side of the heel - this is my gigging 6-string electric: I know it looks odd, but it balances perfectly even though it lines up with the 17th fret. And look at the where the 'normal' button is - lined up at the recommended 13th fret. And they both balance (in horizontal terms) the same What it does do, though, is change the sit of the guitar (or bass) in two ways: It swings the whole instrument to the player's right. This brings the nut closer to your fretting hand - making it feel like a short scale from a comfort point of view It makes the instrument sit a bit more upright from the vertical point of view (generally you see the fretboard edge on - side dots are useful!) This is why I now do this for all of my own guitars and basses - it means that when fretting, your wrist is much less twisted round...and if you have creeping arthritis in your hands, this make a BIG difference....but it's a more comfortable position for many players If you are interested in this as a possible solution for going full scale on the tele, shout and I'll post the 'before and after' shots on @W1_Pro 's custom semi Andy

Second coat looking good:

Well, I think I'm on the home straight for this one. The finishing proper has started. Having used tru-oil slurry-and-wipe as my general grain and void filler, I've then lightly sanded that and now applied a very thin wipe-coat of Osmo Polyx 3011 Gloss, just using my usual choice of dirt-cheap microfibre cloth: I will let this dry overnight before applying the second coat. One of the reasons for me being patient (and it's a strain!) is that, while I've have great success with the Osmo satin and also their whitening 'RAW' version, I have had an issue the one time I tried their gloss. On the second coat it wrinkled and orange-peeled. Now, to be honest, I have no patience with finishes that are super sensitive - it's why I keep away from many of the more traditional guitar finishing products. Life's too short. Having said that, I'm pretty sure my problem with the Osmo gloss was that I simply applied the second coat too soon. The satin and matt versions were not at all reactive. It would be nice to get a modern very low VOC gloss that actually works and can be wiped on....hence the patience

I'm sure a spacer plate is the way to go. Schaller provide them on some of their bridges as standard - so the principle is utterly sound. Do you remember this same problem with @W1_Pro's beautiful Mockingbird? In the end, I had to fit 3 (!) spacers to get the bridge high enough: Anything that is hard and cut to the right size will do. It will be in compression only so, providing is isn't crushable it will work and if it is hard wood or plastic it will tranfer the vibrations just fine. Maybe some cuts from an ebony headstock plate or similar? You could prove it out with some plywood first to see how thick it needs to be....

Before I start routing out the bottom of the control chamber, I like to drill at least a couple of the pot holes just to give myself a second check of thickness in addition to the rather splendid Crimson caliper measure. The only concessions so far on electrics ref the very thin body is going to a barrel jack and a switchcraft angled toggle three-way. The chamber will be plenty deep enough for the pots and the mini toggles. Both the 3-way and the barrel are on order so I won't drill all the holes until I have them here, but at its most basic, this is what I'll have (conventional 3-way in the photo): Almost certainly, I will add a second volume pot to go: vol; vol; master tone; split neck; split bridge. Looking at this and the specs of the parts on order, it should all fit fine I was happy to drill the holes for the first two pots to give me that extra reference point for thickness before getting out a bearing-bitted router out to deepen the chamber: This leaves me with 3mm at its thinnest and 5mm at its thickest. I could go a touch thinner for most of the area, but I shouldn't need to - so won't until and unless I do need to. And that brings the finished body weight - including the hatch - to just a touch over 4lbs

For 6-string electrics, having splittable humbuckers is becoming 'almost standard'. The reason I'm doing it on this one is: It's dead simple to wire It can be useful on a 6-string electric because of how much treble is lost when running through a PA (even with a DI box). Generally when I'm practicing through a guitar amp, I would have full humbucker, but usually on a gig (we run everything through the PA) I would tend to use both pickups together, with the neck at full humbucker and the bridge split (and sometimes the other way round). That way I find I can retain the breadth of tone without sacrificing volume. The buckers split on their own (with the exception of P-Rails on the P-90 setting) generally tend to be too weedy and not in a good 'proper' single-coil way.... I don't really have an informed opinion with a bass but would expect the benefits to more limited.

So next challenge is fitting in the electrics. Or should I say 'getting electrics to fit'! I have quite deliberately started with the depth I wanted and then moved on to how I am going to get everything to fit rather than starting with the 'conventional' switches and plugs and then moving on to how slim I can get to Yes - madness, I know. In terms of jack, I know that I'll be looking at a Switchcraft mono barrel jack. Even the Switchcraft ones aren't foolproof but there are loads of electrics and acoustics out there fitted with them - and this is for my own use - so I'll just make sure I've always got a spare guitar if I get round to gigging this one. In terms of pots, they will fit (standard ones will - push pull won't). The three way might have to be a mini - but I'll check first the dimensions of the rightangled Switchcraft right angled ones - they might fit. I will be splitting the humbuckers but will probably use mini toggles

Hi, John The camphor-laurel is pleasant smelling when sanded - I suppose hence the 'camphor' bit of its name (true camphor has a very strong and relatively pleasant smell). I agree - amazaque (which I think is the same as ovangkol?) smells rank. In this particular build, it is the small amount of purpleheart that stinks the most - it is as equally dire as amazaque! The swift inlays are just standard white mother of pearl. Abalone can be quite brilliantly coloured but I prefer the more staid MoP look generally.

Swifts are now in flight : And also started the tru-oil slurry and buff - at this stage more to show up better the lumpy bits, sandpaper scratches and dinks to get rid of in the final sanding. The dinks and scratches on the sapele here are all but invisible on the sanded wood. See how much it shows all the aberrations up: I also use tru-oil slurry and buff nowadays as the gap filler and grain filler all in one. The body will be finished in gloss Osmo Polyx (with which, unlike the semi-matt and satin, I've had some problems with before, although pretty sure it was me and not the Osmo...). I'm amazed how well the slurry and buff has filled the VERY hole-y camphor-laurel! In the meantime, final sanding has now started, getting rid of the above dinks and scratches and also rounding off some of the sharp or bumpy edges: I've set myself a target of end of next week for the basic build to be finished, with a week or so on top of that before the final polish... ...provided, of course, I don't make any last minute c**k-ups!

Certain I can make it. I'll bring: Kert's Camphor Single Cut Pete's EB3 Tribute Pete's Piccolo bass My 6-string electric version of the piccolo (which will be finished by then ) ...and of course, @scrumpymike will have his Rascal

I am going to use the same template for the headstock as I used for Tim's Alembic-esque build. First job is to add a couple of wings from offcut from the neck: I then coaxed my bandsaw to cut a couple of thin slices from some camphor-laurel offcut for the headstock plate and the control chamber cover: This is basically how the whole thing will look:

I like this very much. Very classy look to it and the build quality looks tip top

Thanks! And the present weight, by the way for anyone counting, is 4lbs 4oz.

To be honest, it's more about knowing your capabilities and when to, or not to, wade in with the size 12's Especially when you take what would be a perfectly acceptable neck and then do THIS with it! But, with a bit more work, it became this: Then, with still a bit of fine-tuning to do, it started getting to where I think I was trying to take it: I could cut deeper than this, but to be honest, from a playing point of view, this gets me up to the 22nd fret with not the slightest feeling on the fretting thumb that I've reached the body . I'm going to classify that as 'objective met'

Not really, I suspect, Mick I'll post a shot of the work-in-progress shortly - even when I squint my eyes I can't see any swifts

The nice thing about building a guitar for your own use is that you can experiment and test out concepts. If you remember, the primary objective of this guitar was for it to be light, and yet look fairly conventional and play well. Presently, it weighs 4lb 5oz which, for a 25" through-neck, isn't too bad. The upper fret thumb transition at the heel is also better than many comparable designs, simply because of the slimness of the body. But I'm hoping for a little bit more. I want to take Tim's Alembic-esque back carve a touch further. If you remember, Tim's is like this: It aims to give clearance to the hypothenor (?) - the bit of your palm opposite your thumb joint...think old fashioned karate film clips - when your left hand is trying to reach the upper frets. With this build, I'm going to go one stage further. Do you remember on Mick's Psilos bass where I partially continued the fretboard radius into the top horn of the bass (always an issue with a single cut bass)?: Well, I'm going to try to combine those two concepts by continuing the neck profile carve of the lower cutaway up to the 22nd fret itself: This lower one will be quite deep at the neck. The carve will be matched with a shallower version on the upper cutaway, for more visual rather then functional reasons: I don't really have the perfect carving tools (or the talent!) to do this - and I'm hopeless at pre-imagining what the shapes will do all around -and so will take it very slowly. Probably will take me the rest of the day. One quite pretty BBQ log coming up!

Love that! Great job

Yes - for flat surfaces you do need to bend them to create a smaller contact area for cutting. Hence me having the same problem. With the convex curve of the neck, however, you naturally have a point contact so don't need to bend it. And yes - goose neck's are b******s to re-burnish!

Actually, for a neck you generally don't need to bend it. I certainly don't - just use it straight. However, if I'm using the scrapers for flat surfaces I find them a bit more problematic for the same reason and tend to use a jack plane where I can. I've never tried the (Veritas?) scraper holder - but it looks good and IIRC allows setting the curve with a thumbscrew like the old fashioned scraper-plane's (which are also worth having a look out for on ebay).

When I build guitars and basses for other people, I get them to send me the profile measurements and shapes for their favourite neck. While every guitar has its own feel, the objective is to at least create a familiarity in the playing of the new one. With my creeping hand arthritis, this is particularly important for this guitar, which is being built for my own use, because I have guitars now that I can no longer play. So out comes my most comfortable neck and my £2 Wilko carpenters profile gauge and a bit of old notepad cover and I have my profile templates : Each to his own, but for neck carving, my preferred tools are spokeshave for rough bulk removal and the humble cabinet scraper for the main carve: You can see the size of the shavings from the spokeshave - brutal stuff. So that really is, for me, just about taking the corners off. Many of the experienced builders use cabinet scrapers, but if you never have: Buy a set (a few £'s in Homebase, B&Q for starters) Learn how to re-burnish them (they will come already burnished for initial use) Try it! They act like a mini plane. These are the type of shavings from this morning: They can remove wood remarkably quickly - but very, very controllably. This avoids every neck-carver's nightmare - taking too much off! You can literally creep up to your target shape and size. Final tool I use, just for the awkward bits round the volute and neck/body join is a fine curved micro-plane blade (mine comes from Axminster). Wearing gloves, I use the microplane two-handed, a bit like a scraper. This gives me maximum control: I will spend the rest of the day finishing this off, but between washing up the breakfast pots and coffee time - and including re-burnishing the cabinet scrapers - the neck went from a 3-4mm oversize rectangular block to this: As always, thanks for looking

Yup - I'm in Basschat calendar updated.

Great! If I work out ways of improving it, I'll post the changes

Rather than do the documentary-makers favourite ploy of artificially creating drama with the 'and all was going well....and then they hit a serious problem!' yawn approach, let's just say: It worked The snakewood was fine There were, however, a couple of builder and user errors in the live trial. As a precaution, I worked out that with the thickness of the snakewood I would be able to try two or even three passes, so I deliberately started on the thickish side rather than trying for finished thickness first go. Good job I did! First I tried routing lengthways and indexing at each pass. Very easy VERY quick But unexpected groove steps at the edge of two of three of the passes (didn't take a photo!! ) Wasn't sure why that was happening. Second go, I changed to routing the radius and indexing manually each pass along the length. Took a bit longer but still very easy But.... "Hmmm...that's odd" : Perfect at the sides but digging in in the middle?? Then realised that the two unexpected results were linked:- Basically, the two radius templates are probably not quite identical. One of them is higher in the portion at the top of the radius. Result - the carriage will therefore tip and so the router bit is now angled and hence it digs in along one edge. It's easily fixed and was acually less serious than it looked - 10 mins with the sanding block gave me this: The second issue was pure rooky operator error. Once I got into the joy of each of the 100 passes of 'zip, index, zip' I forgot. I forgot that this, of course, is still a satanic router! And instead of slowing my cut feed right down at the far end (which normally I would do) - I just zapped past the finish mark at the same speed as the previous 100 passes. And *PING* ...the very last cut of the very last edge pinged off a 15cm sliver of snakewood off the side. Luckily , this was an un-slotted fingerboard and so this became the nut end. Could have been a disaster and I should have known better! But, with a couple of tweaks of the jig itself on the radius templates and some self-flagellation for being an idiot, I declared the rig a success! And a couple of days later, this was what the fretboard blank looked like - whereas, before, I would have still been sanding! :