Andyjr1515

I've spoken about the finishing oil Osmo Polyx 3044. In case you missed @TheGreek 's Psilos build thread, this was a version of Osmo I found when we were looking for a finish that wouldn't darken the wood too much. It aims to try to leave the finish closer to sanded cleaned wood than the 'wetting' effect almost all oils and varnishes do to timber. It worked great on Mick's. Based on that build, @scrumpymike asked me if I could use the same oil to see how it fared with the walnut, which I was happy to do. As the Osmo isn't really intended for use with darker woods, it was uncertain how well it would work. The great thing, however, is that - because I use a tru-oil slurry and buff now as a sealing and filling process before sanding it all off to then apply the intended finish coats, I could do an absolute A/B comparison of Tru-Oil vs Osmo Polyx 3044. And here it is: A/B Comparison of Tru-Oil vs Osmo Polyx 3044 In both cases, the body has has a single application of oil, slurried with 400 grit wet and dry and then immediately wiped off Tru Oil: Once fully dry. This was all sanded off, leaving the body in the same pre-oil state. Osmo Polyx 3044: Quite different - especially in the darker figuring areas where the tru-oil (and water does the same) turns the figuring grey to almost black. The Osmo, on the other hand, retains the light brown. The lighting is about the same in both shots. If it's a bright enough day tomorrow, I'll repeat the shot with the same background as the tru-oil - it actually shows the contrast even more. In real life it looks lovely. Also, once it's had a few more slurry and buff coats, the silky satin feel has to be experienced to be believed Here's the back with the Osmo - DON'T PANIC, MIKE - THE DISTORTION IS THE CAMERA LENS (trust me - everything is straight and true! Honest ) The edges of the hatches still need tidying up but this is basically how they will look: The matching up of the sapele grain and the walnut grain, by the way, is total coincidence... And this is the 'fan who is getting too up close and personal' 's view:

I know what you mean - but actually quite a bit of extra precision work and if the tiniest bit out of true would look very poor indeed. The jack socket plate is even worse because it's going round a curve at the same time. I can see why it's not done in general terms. Talking about precision work, getting gap-free hatches is also a challenge. I'm getting better at this. The rebates aren't at the full depth yet, but here are the basic hatches before fitting and sanding: The hatches are cut from offcut of the walnut top (they will contrast nicely once the finish has been put on) and will be held with neo magnets. The main hatch has been bent on my acoustic sides heat bending pipe to follow the contour of the body (you can see the pressure lines in the pic above - these will sand fully out):

I was going to...certainly I have no issue from a t/mark point of view as it is a genuine Fender neck and bits - or is it the visual? I'll check with Mike - ferrules would be just as easy

One of the things Mike asked me to put in was access for adjusting the truss rod without having to take the neck off. A bit of chisel-work and we have it Finish shaping and sanding complete: Next job (this afternoon, with any luck ) is slicing some walnut for the hatches, routing the rebate and bending / fitting them. In the meantime, the Osmo Polyx 3044 is on its way to me, as are the captive nuts and machine screws for securing the neck (another request from Mike after talking about a similar thing I did for a replacement Wal neck). All of a sudden, this is getting quite close....

Pretty much finished the carve and sanding has started. I've taken the arm relief up to the wenge but not cut through for the full 'sucked lozenge' effect. You still see the layers nicely from the edge view, but the front on view is pretty much Precision Lyte still: Clearly there's sanding to be done at behind the pickup chamber and also I may take a touch more bulk out of the lower waist relief: The S curve slimming seen from the top is pretty much how I wanted it to be (I know....pure chance ) And here's the edge of the arm relief: Tomorrow will see the finalising of the sanding and then tackling those challenging hatches! I can feel a new bandsaw blade coming on....

No point in trying to take a photo because it's too dark, but the carving is just about done. Should be able to do the last carve / weight relief tweaks tomorrow and start the final sanding... It's heading towards 1lb lighter than the Rascal. Doesn't sound a lot but it will make a tangible difference to the feel.

No apologies needed. The signwriter is already on with the new version, which is equally magnificent incidentally. It's going to be 8 feet x 12 feet, fixed to the front gable of the house and is going to be MrsAndyjr1515's Christmas surprise

Thanks for posting them, Silvia. Here's to next year's

Main decorating tasks are done I've done the 'S' carve and that has taken out a decent amount of weight (around 10% of the body weight compared with the Rascal) Still a more opportunity to take out, and this is still at very rough carve stage, but this is the general idea: From the front it looks much the same (although there is one variation I will bounce off Mike): ...but you see the more aggressive carving at the back: You will see that I've expanded the size of the main control chamber to take a little more wood out (again, this in the bulk wood removal state) but it also gives a bit more room for the wires and connections.

Posted in the wrong thread

Just to close a well and truly pink torpedoled thread, the guitar went to Tim yesterday evening. Here's the 'goodbye old friend' picture: I'm pleased to report that he is VERY pleased with it He's a great player too - and in his capable hands it sounded absolutely fantastic. Not an easy build at all but probably on my shortlist of favourite results

Oh.....oooops......

Don't worry, folks. The absence of progress photos, allowing the thread to drift a little off topic, is simply MrsAndyjr1515, reasonably but firmly, reminding me I was going to paint the kitchen before Christmas . Normal service should resume very shortly and we can get off materials and back to what a jolly good bodger builder I am

That's my boy !

I make enough of a mess with wood. Can you imagine the mess I'd make with composites

That looks really good, Andy

Watching with great interest, @Jimothey We all have those scary 'Oh c**p' moments, by the way. I've learned to force myself to turn a body round and always look at what's on the other side purely on the basis of the number of times I've routed into fresh air when I was expecting to be cutting wood chips!

A few mm once I've bent the tabs on the standard one, Jez. To be honest, it's not a big issue - it's just more a comment on how conservative the guitar and bass industry (and maybe buyers too) tends to be. As Mike says, the spec was always to transfer the electrics as is. It spurs me on to pursuing the slim and light design exploration. Apart from anything else, us old gits are starting to find heavy instruments verging on an impossibility

So, I've had a think and - I suppose you wouldn't expect anything different - I'm going with the more difficult of the various options As one of my fellow band members says (in this case about my sax playing), "What I like, Andy, is that you're always on the very, very edge of disaster!" This is what I'm going to do: But hang on, Andy, I hear you say....that means your hatch has a double bend in it. Yes it does......bring it on!

I'll have to have a proper think about this - that internal chamber is probably too close for me to do what I was originally considering. This is the fun part of the hobby . Especially if I don't pink torpedole it up.

Now this is where I have to be creative. If I was normal in the head, I'd carve it like this, sort the hatches and finish it: But I'm not normal in the head and two things would bug me. The first thing goes back to the 1950's. THAT'S OVER 60 YEARS AGO, FENDER!!! And because the Fender 5 way switch is 1.5" deep, then this surprisingly deep chamber is still only just deep enough ( and that includes bending the contacts down out of the way for the hatch to fit) : and that gives me the second thing that would bug me. That means a 1.5" body which, despite the chambers and the carving, will end up pretty much the same weight as the Rascal - and Mike would like it lighter. So my thoughts are this - but this will take a lot of thought and PM discussion with Mike. I'm thinking back to the 'wraparound' feel of @TheGreek 's Psilos. So if the front was slimmed down to more like the pencil line... : The central hatch needs to be flat to get a sit-in cover to fit so one option is to start that slimming from the neck side of the hatch (ref the fine pencil line on the top horn here): Or flat taper from the neck side of the small control chamber Or a really fancy carve from the tailstock end of the central chamber (and remembering there's a hidden weight relief chamber there somewhere! ) If it can be done, this last one has a number of advantages: I takes lots of weight out of it exactly where you want to lose it It will have that Psilos wrap-around feel (has to be experienced to believe it, eh, Mick?) It will still look like a Precision Lyte from the front - but look like anything but from the back Bet you can't guess which one I'd like to have a go at seeing if it can be done

Normally there would be a fairly hefty volume difference because generally the humbucker would be series and so you would be losing 50% of the signal when you split the coil). However, the MM humbuckers are generally wired in parallel with the dual coils providing the classic MM tone and the pre-amp adding the volume. And, as you say - assuming the Norstrands have been wired up like MM's in parallel (also worth double checking) then I'm guessing there normally would be a tonal difference but not a major volume drop if you dropped one of the coils out of the circuit. I'm sure there will be much more knowledgable folks than me on hand soon, but if I was doing it myself (I added a P-pickup to @PaulS 's EB Stirling and converted it to passive a year or so back) I would be looking initially whether the humbuckers are wired in series (because some of the MM substitutes are) or if the singles switching has been wired out of phase (usually cured by swopping two wires around). But as I say, there is bound to be someone here soon who can either confirm or refute that assumption

Have you tried swopping the hot and finish wires for one of the single coils of a pair? Just wondering if they are inadvertently out of phase in the paired single coil settings?