First try at building

[murrmac123]

Roger, I gotta say that that inlay on the back doesn't do it for me ... it would have looked much much better if you had made it with a border of birch purfling, and a solid square of rosewood inside. I do like the diamond concept, but the two contrasting adjacent rectangles just don't work aesthetically.

IMHO, YMMV etc etc ...

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by murrmac123

Roger, I gotta say that that inlay on the back doesn't do it for me ... it would have looked much much better if you had made it with a border of birch purfling, and a solid square of rosewood inside. I do like the diamond concept, but the two contrasting adjacent rectangles just don't work aesthetically.

IMHO, YMMV etc etc ...

Ditto.

If it were mine, I'd saw the two haves apart, re-joint while removing the inlayed area so that it is back to what you started with and originally intended. I'd use it as a lesson that it is very difficult to repair white-colored lines and have them seamlessly blend into the un-repaired portion. Dust and glue do not make white. Most of us have attempted the same sort of repair - light-colored sawdust and glue - with the same result. You'll be aware of this when it comes time to fit and glue the purfling. When you get there, you might want to ask folks how they accomplish no-gap white purling joints.

[rogthefrog]

Thanks for the input.

I was actually wondering about the color scheme. I might redo the inlay with just rosewood.

I do like the wide back strip, though, so I think I'll keep that.

[charles Tauber]

If you do decide to re-join the back, I'd consider joining the outside edges to take advantage of the curl/flame, if you like the look of that. Otherwise, most of the curl/flame will be outside of the finished guitar and cut off (i.e. scrap).

Just my opinion, but the diamond simply doesn't belong with the rest of what you have, regardless of just rosewood or as you have it now. It looks to me like just what it is: a patch. If you wanted to repeat the diamond shape up and down the center seam as part of a motif, that's a different issue, particularly if integrated into/with the center seam and purfling.

For a first instrument, in an impromptu shop, keeping the instrument simple will likely improve its outcome.

[rogthefrog]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

If you do decide to re-join the back, I'd consider joining the outside edges to take advantage of the curl/flame, if you like the look of that. Otherwise, most of the curl/flame will be outside of the finished guitar and cut off (i.e. scrap).

Just my opinion, but the diamond simply doesn't belong with the rest of what you have, regardless of just rosewood or as you have it now. It looks to me like just what it is: a patch. If you wanted to repeat the diamond shape up and down the center seam as part of a motif, that's a different issue, particularly if integrated into/with the center seam and purfling.

For a first instrument, in an impromptu shop, keeping the instrument simple will likely improve its outcome.

I really like the idea of repeating the diamond shape along the center strip. Thanks for that idea. I made a few diamonds in various sizes and it looks pretty good just sitting on the wood.

I do like the flame, but it's very faint and there's some weird discoloration and gnarly sap wood as well. I'd have to remove a fair bit of that (1/4" on each side) just for the sap wood, and there would still be discoloration. The set came with an outline laid out the way I joined it. I looked at it with the flame in the center, and it didn't work quite as well--it makes sense the way the seller drew the guitar outline.

I agree the guitar should be simple. That said, a big part of this project is for me to figure out what I like to do in guitar building, and what I have some aptitude for, if anything. Is it the carpentry? The voicing? The neck shaping? Inlays? Etc. So there will be a number of odd things in or on the guitar that eventually comes out

[rogthefrog]

I spent much of last night and today learning about rosettes. Spatial visualization isn't my forte; I find it impossible to look at a rosette and imagine how it was made, or conversely, to look at one of those more modern jaggedy rosettes like this one by the McKnights and imagine how they'll turn out once cut and installed.

But after some thinking, I had an epiphany about how to make a rosette last night, and did a proof of concept with birch and rosewood offcuts. I cut a bunch of little triangles on the bandsaw (rough, not even trying to achieve evenness--this is a mechanical POC for my feeble brain) and laid them out with double-stick tape. It looks terrible, but it proves that it's a viable method.



So next week I'll measure and cut my triangles properly out of some pretty sample sticks I got from MacBeath, and I'll do the real rosette.

[printer2]

You can always cut a piece of paper with the rosette size and place it on the work of art.

[rogthefrog]

Originally Posted by printer2

You can always cut a piece of paper with the rosette size and place it on the work of art.

Sorry, I don't follow.

Today I cut some scrap the way I intend to do the rosette, and I made a sled for the table saw that will let me cut my triangles accurately. The band saw may be better for that, but the blade and tensioner are a bit off, so I'm only using it for cuts with wide tolerances that I can fix later. For the rosette, the triangles must be exactly the same, and the table saw with sled is a better option for me. As Charles described it well, it's an impromptu shop, so one makes do.

[rogthefrog]

Today, using yesterday's sled, I cut triangles for the rosette out of lacewood (I think) on the table saw, and started laying things out.

Then I made a circle cutting jig for my router, which performs well on scrap pine (yay). The rosette channel just became feasible. Whew.

Finally, I tuned up the band saw a bit and rough cut the top and back out. The main goal of this was to get a top offcut for a back reinforcement strip, and potential rosette diamonds from the back.

It was a little stressful as I have less than 2 hours' experience on the band saw and I really didn't want to mess up, but they came out ok. Except at the very end of that operation, the blade broke. I guess this was prophetic:

Originally Posted by rogthefrog

the blade and tensioner are a bit off

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by rogthefrog

Except at the very end of that operation, the blade broke. I guess this was prophetic:

Sounds like you were using too wide a blade for the curves you were cutting. What width blade were you using?

[rogthefrog]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

Sounds like you were using too wide a blade for the curves you were cutting. What width blade were you using?

I think it was the factory 1/4", 6 TPI blade. I don't have it here to check but I'll measure it. What size blade is typically used for this? 1/8"?

[hat]

You may have had the tension too tight also. You should be able to cut out a top or back with a 1/4" blade with no issues. 1/8" would be better though.

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by hat

You may have had the tension too tight also. You should be able to cut out a top or back with a 1/4" blade with no issues. 1/8" would be better though.

Agreed. I use a 1/4".

[rogthefrog]

Confirmed, it's a 1/4" blade.

Too much tension on the blade is entirely possible, as I adjusted it before cutting the top and back. Thanks for the input.

[printer2]

Originally Posted by rogthefrog

Sorry, I don't follow.

Today I cut some scrap the way I intend to do the rosette, and I made a sled for the table saw that will let me cut my triangles accurately. The band saw may be better for that, but the blade and tensioner are a bit off, so I'm only using it for cuts with wide tolerances that I can fix later. For the rosette, the triangles must be exactly the same, and the table saw with sled is a better option for me. As Charles described it well, it's an impromptu shop, so one makes do.

Put the pieces on a flat surface and cover them up with a piece of paper with a rosette sized hole in it.