Andyjr1515

I'm pleased you raised this - because it then made me wonder when that change was made. It turns out it was in 1972 according to www.flyguitars excellent timeline summary. And linked to that summary was a Series 2 circuit diagram that matches the switching system on this one! And as a few solder joints have failed...leaving the tone choke coil rattling around the control chamber...it is very helpful to actually have the correct circuit diagram to work from. Many thanks! I love working on old classics and this one is an icon. Eccentric, but iconic all the same

You know how 1950's American cars are often so extreme, break so many design and aesthetics rules, are often so darn ugly, that they become utterly beautiful? Well, I often feel the same about Gibson design and manufacture. It is often so, so wrong - on so many levels - that I can only stand back in absolute admiration. And when it comes to guitar and bass design, there are actually not many 'fixed' rules to break. Those elements that are, are generally linked to basic geometry, practicality and strength. Most of the other stuff is entirely down to the whim of the designer or builder and long may it be so. But ignore the basics and there are going to be difficulties challenges. But let's change the subject. Let's park all of that and talk about this little beauty - a friend's original had-it-from-new & gigged-for-decades & then-put-in-a-cupboard-for-more-decades 1974 Gibson EB-3, in the 'proper' colour: Should he get it refinished, he asked me, what with all the dents and scratches? "NNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! Absolutely NOT!" Could it be made to play OK again and the electrics sorted out? "Yes - almost certainly." And could I do something about the bridge...and the fact that the silks go over the saddles? "Ah...Gibson. What are they like, the little rascals? Don't you just love 'em? Challenging but probably!" And the other stuff? "Well...it looks broadly OK...hmmm...except...oh...hmmm... that's a bit odd... and, what's that doing there....and...OH....WHAT THE ???? " And so begins another exploration into the wonder of just how much you can break the rules, fix things by breaking other things and take the hardest way possible of solving a very straightforward problem...and still come out by being one of two or three makers in the world that many of us would sell our hind teeth for. It's genius. There's no other word for it. Genius!

I detest them. With the arthritis in my hands, the only way I can get them out is standing the bass upside down on its headstock and tackle it two-handed and police-style elbow headlock to stop the whole thing crashing onto the floor. Not a good look when you are trying to change instruments in the middle of a gig. Mind you, often gets more applause than my playing

And I think you will find that if you tap them, you will be amazed how much the tone has been improved!

Osmo Polyx is also an excellent finish and can be wiped on.

Nothing is OK. It will stain and dirty over time, but functionally will be completely unaffected. Wax is good. I finished a bubinga Jack Bruce Warwick tribute for our band's bassist entirely with wax. It looks just as good now...10 years later. I used Lord Sheratons beeswax from Sainsburys, but Briwax takes some beating, and you can get that in various tints.

It should be close to D. The tang (think rectangle DxE) should be a snug fit into the slot. The barbs, representing the E to F difference, are designed to cut into the wood - and notice that they sit lower than the top of the fretboard. So in fret fitting, those barbs first cut through the fretboard vertically and, once below the fretboard surface, move sideways under fresh wood. Clever, really... I've just measured my own fret-cutting saw and, as it happens, the kerf (width of cut) is 0.6mm

That is no problem...in fact that is how it should be The frets should be radiussed tighter than the neck (and you certainly will have that with a flat board) and that way they will end up locked in the fret slot. Assuming you will be initially hammering them in, this is generally regarded as the best sequence: - you first hammer one side and then the other side. - most of the barbs will now be inside the slot but the fret has a hump in the middle - then hammering in the middle - in your case hammering flat - does two things. First, the rest of the barbs go under the fretboard surface. Secondly (note the barbs on the tang finish before they get to the flange of the profile itself) flattening the hump forces the wire either side outwards and thus slides the barbs sideways under the wood, locking them in! This is why when you remove frets it is almost impossible to do without a few chips - because the barb of the tang is now under fresh wood and isn't designed to come out! - the splaying of the barbs on the tang basically does the same if you use a press.

For the tuner positioning, the first thing to do is to draw the string runs - as this is a 4 in-line, then it is the bass edge of the string width that is important. That done, the radius of the centre pegs gives you the drill centre positions: Then a double check that I have my spacings right and that the tuner paddles and bodies don't clash: So then it can go down to my mini drill press with a drill bit large enough for the top bushes: And done: There are all sorts of shenanigans going on in the Andyjr1515 household over the coming couple of weeks and so it is unlikely that I'll get back to this before the end of the month...but we're on the home straight. Should be pretty quick to finish off once I can get back to what really matters!

To the untrained eye, this looks JUST like the last couple of shots Trust me...it's different. The profile is now sanded and has passed the Andyjr1515 air guitar test Next job, hopefully later today, is measuring and drilling the tuner holes.

And so the good news... @fleabag has the neck And...let's think, there must be some other good news...ah, yes! With a judicious and expected scrape off of the extra finish thickness at the heel, the heel was a satisfyingly tight and accurate fit in the pocket. But it was a little high... It turns out that @Andyjr1515 's Fender-ish donor body with 'fender-size' neck pocket was deeper than @fleabag 's 'fender-ish' body neck pocket. OK - when I say a little high...hmmm...at least 2.5mm high Oh...mmmm....yes...the headstock finish which was, at last, glossy enough to call finished. Well...who would have thought that bubble wrap would leave octopus marks even after a week of curing Oh, yes..hmmm...and the other stuff But the good news, is that @fleabag has done a fantastic job of rectifying those issues Mind you...there's a bit of refinishing needed. So the moral of this story is: the wise sages are quite correct in saying that you should never try to make a neck if you don't have the body physically on hand to fit it to. And if you do, then make sure it's going to someone like @fleabag who has the skills and enthusiasm to put it right

Shhhh! - it's to our great advantage to keep quiet about this. While ever the market thinks that the more expensive basses are better, then the prices of the GREAT affordable basses (Squier; Epiphone; Yamaha to name but three) stay affordable In the guitar world, there is a fair bit of life-wisdom around that boils down to: 'If you want a Gibson Les Paul, then buy a Gibson. If you want a quality Les Paul, then buy an Epiphone' Oh - and I personally would always buy a Squier over a Fender for basses and guitars (much as I like Fenders including, actually, their build quality).

I agree with the above. I would sell as is.

So, what are the weight-reducing things that can be done. The ultra-slim body centre is something that evolved from 'Tom's African Bass' through to @TheGreek 's 'cross section of a contact lens' concept on his Psilos Bass through to @Len_derby 's Swift Lite Bass, that sought to get the weight benefits of a slim centre, with the playing, electrics and visual benefits of a more conventional depth of body at the sides: @Len_derby's bass, below, worked out at 6lbs 6oz playing weight with two pickups and fairly conventional timbers and hardware. @Happy Jack's will be an inch longer scale and 5-string...hence the design extra work to be done. Chambering can also be done within the remaining thickness, both in the back and top: You do, of course, have to remember that the back is carved too! Light timbers - swamp ash...great but more difficult to get hold of due to some die-back problems. Paulownia - lots of folks starting to use it. Used to be cheap bodies - now it's some of the 'better names' who have clearly been following my 'Why are basses so heavy?' threads It is cultivated, sustainable, good for the soil, soft but very, very light...but at the moment VERY difficult to get hold of as body-blanks. Light hardware - better and better choice Design - Thickness of the body, covered above, is critical but so is: getting the top horn as far forward as practical for on-the-strap balance; ditto the lower waist for over the knee balance; if you are going to have any heavier hardware, make it the bridge; putting the bridge as far back as you can get it. So all of that and more will need to be incorporated...

You know me - I'll have forgotten again which is going to be for which by the time I've even started cutting any timber so we can go to the safest option of 'I'll fit whichever neck you send me...' (thinks: I know Happy Jack's sense of humour...he's bound to send me a bass uke neck now... )

When I passed across @Happy Jack 's lovely Mike Lull P5 back to him, fitted with the new Andyjr1515 fretless neck, and watched him play it, I thought - no...we both thought - "that fretless neck ain't going to be swopped back for the original fretted one for a good while!" For those who followed the thread, you will remember that the idea was that the two necks were designed to be able to be swopped over quickly and repeatedly with minimum fuss or reset. Trouble is - and this is more to do with fretless necks rather than my skills - some fretless necks and their set up just 'have it', and some are playable but don't have that extra 'mwarr'. And, by luck, this one happened to have it in bucket loads. So Jack has a lovely Mike Lull 35" scale neck sitting gathering dust. And so stage two of the project has just begun...building a new body for the original fretted neck It will be a bit of a slow burn, but the idea is to build: - a lightweight body that balances both on the knee and on the strap. It's a fairly heavy neck (2.5lbs) and Jack was thinking in terms of trying for 7.5lbs playing weight. We may not get there, but I have suggested we try to see how close to 6.5lbs we can get. I know...but at the very, very worst case, we will get a lot closer to 7.5lbs if we are aiming for 6.5! - fitted with a Fishman Fluence 5 pickup (I'm quite excited by that) - (subcontracted) Shell Pink nitro spray finish. I've got some ideas of the best combination of techniques and materials to get the weight, play 'feel' and balance and are now exploring how to get hold of the materials I'd like to use (more challenging than you would think) but this is the kind of shape I'm thinking: I'm still pondering on some of the critical datum points, especially recognising that the neck is a 35" scale and so I have to allow at least a further 1/2" of balance-point critical items In some of my previous lightweight builds, I've incorporated: - light timbers (although my lightest used oak!) - ultra slim centre area of body - chambers - lightweight hardware For this build, I will need to use ALL of these...and more I'll keep you posted

Well, this seems to have taken for ever, but it's at last hotfooting it across the UK road and depot network to @fleabag as I type: Fingers crossed that he will like it

Yes - that is indeed exactly what you said and yes - it did make sense

So, pulleys at the very back, strings loop behind the back and double back on themselves and the tuner block faces the other way to normal? Hmmm...it doesn't even need to be pulleys - it could be brass channels... Blimey - your ideas are even crazier than mine...and most folks think mine are completely bonkers. Love it

I think I'm right that the string tension to tune to a particular note for the same scale length is the same, regardless of the extra string behind the bridge or in front of the nut. So your concept wouldn't affect the string tension. It's a neat solution whether or not double ball ends were used.

Yes, Jez. You were way ahead of the poor old fella wheezing behind

I confess, I haven't got my head around the pulleys yet

Yes - that's how jazz guitar bridges are and even Paul McCartney's Hofner violin bass is. You literally intonate them by sliding the bridge across the top.

It's a dog eats someone else's sausages world out there...

OK - I have a bit more time to explain where I'm coming from in terms of the double ball ends. Leastways, that's what I was going to do. Until I thought about it I'm sure most folks are ahead of me on this, but have a rest while the old fella catches up If you really want to use double ball ends** : - It's only the saddles that need to be multi-scale. - You could use standard headless tuners in or on a standard block - Fix that at the very back and square to the string runs - Take the saddles out - Set up individual floating saddles or a custom saddle block (3D printed with fret inserts...think Hofner Violin Bass "Extreme") incorporating the multi-scale Then the string runs are equal length and double ball ends can be used with same length strings (bear in mind, they will still probably be customs because of their length). **When I did @Jus Lukin's headless wonder, I timed how long it took me to fully string, including cutting to length, a new set of strings on the Nova system and bring them all up to pitch... ...2 minutes. Just sayin'