Question about installing new Waverlies

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by Ned Milburn

I am by no means endorsing Martin Guitar's construction techniques. I am simply pointing out that your statement, "There is no one hole that is correct." (your words, not mine) is a fallacy since there are literally thousands and thousands of guitars that are in existence working fine (and will be able to exist for many decades) with the single diameter tuner post bore plus a ferrule.

Absolute statements should often be avoided because they can either set oneself up to be a hypocrite or they can be blatantly wrong.

That said, I repeat, for this type of tuner, I like the double diameter hole size idea.

A fallacy is a logical error in drawing a conclusion from premises. My statement is neither a fallacy nor false. I took the word "correct" from your own post about "one hole, the correct size," and reapplied it.

I do not use "correct" to mean nothing else will work OK. I use it to mean the best practice. That is what I assume is your goal and that of the OP.

Please don't take my comment as a personal criticism because it was contrary to what you had said. We all get contradicted here at one time or another, and disagreement about a building or repair practice is not personal criticism. But there is some irony in you now saying it is wrong to use the word "correct" when it entered the discussion in your own statement.

[PhilQ]

Thanks for all the great input, as usual, gents.

A final question: Is there an optimal headstock thickness to use with the Waverlies? 15mm ok? 16?

[Ned Milburn]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

A fallacy is a logical error in drawing a conclusion from premises. My statement is neither a fallacy nor false. I took the word "correct" from your own post about "one hole, the correct size," and reapplied it.

Blah blah blah... Saying a lot about semantics of usage of "correct" and "fallacy". But I used correct talking about choosing the right (correct) size drill bit so that you don't have to drill small then ream. Whether doing a 2 diameter hole or a single diameter hole, this advice is "correct" and it doesn't negate other people's advice. And regarding fallacy, here is a definition from dictionary.com:

1. a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.:

I stand by my usage of the word fallacy in reference to what you stated, Howard.

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

I do not use "correct" to mean nothing else will work OK. I use it to mean the best practice. That is what I assume is your goal and that of the OP.

Okay, so you have arbitrarily decided to use the word "correct" not as "correct" or "right", but as "best practice". Just like I tell my wife, I can't read your mind and don't know what you are thinking. That is why we humans have language.

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

Please don't take my comment as a personal criticism because it was contrary to what you had said. We all get contradicted here at one time or another, and disagreement about a building or repair practice is not personal criticism. But there is some irony in you now saying it is wrong to use the word "correct" when it entered the discussion in your own statement.

My first post on this forum was in attempts to dispel or "correct" some incorrect information that was given. I don't care so much about personal criticism, I just don't want future readers to be led into false beliefs.

Your statement "There is no one hole that is correct" is IMHO a poorly phrased statement and is inaccurate and a fallacy (as stated above), no matter how much you rip apart my grammatical and semantic usage of the word "fallacy". Perhaps better would have been if you had stated, "An even better way of doing it is with a double diameter hole." That is all.

[donh]

it all depends on what the definition of "is" is
.

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by Ned Milburn

Blah blah blah... Saying a lot about semantics of usage of "correct" and "fallacy". But I used correct talking about choosing the right (correct) size drill bit so that you don't have to drill small then ream. Whether doing a 2 diameter hole or a single diameter hole, this advice is "correct" and it doesn't negate other people's advice. And regarding fallacy, here is a definition from dictionary.com:

1. a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.:

I stand by my usage of the word fallacy in reference to what you stated, Howard.



Okay, so you have arbitrarily decided to use the word "correct" not as "correct" or "right", but as "best practice". Just like I tell my wife, I can't read your mind and don't know what you are thinking. That is why we humans have language.



My first post on this forum was in attempts to dispel or "correct" some incorrect information that was given. I don't care so much about personal criticism, I just don't want future readers to be led into false beliefs.

Your statement "There is no one hole that is correct" is IMHO a poorly phrased statement and is inaccurate and a fallacy (as stated above), no matter how much you rip apart my grammatical and semantic usage of the word "fallacy". Perhaps better would have been if you had stated, "An even better way of doing it is with a double diameter hole." That is all.

I was not clear enough; probably because, knowing how many people take offense at being corrected about some factual claim on the internet fora, I softened my statements to make them sound less absolute. But I see now that this has led to confusion about the answer to the OP's question. Thank you for letting me know that I left some ambiguity that ought to be cleared up. As you say, it is important that future readers not be drawn into false beliefs.

So: A single diameter hole is the wrong way. A counterbored hole is the right way. This is not just repair aesthetics. Doing it the wrong way can impair tuner function.

Thanks again for pointing out the need for clarity. And personal best wishes.

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by PhilQ

Thanks for all the great input, as usual, gents.

A final question: Is there an optimal headstock thickness to use with the Waverlies? 15mm ok? 16?

16 maximum. The posts are not as long as those of some other brands.

[John Arnold]

I like to use 1930's Martin dimensions. Those headstocks measure 0.570" thick (14.5mm). That is 1/2" for the mahogany, and 0.070" for the rosewood overlay.

[PhilQ]

Thanks a lot John. Much appreciated.

[PhilQ]

I'm doing tests on scraps, and am a bit puzzled. With a 11/32 hole, the ferrule fits perfectly, but isn't tight at all. If you flip the piece upside down, it almost wants to fall out.

Using an 8mm bit, the hole is too small to even press the ferrule in. and my reamer is a hair too small to make the hole bigger.

On the Stew Mac website, they mention 11/32 as the correct size, but how do you guys end up using a hammer or any kind of press? At that size, it slips in and out by itself for me...

[John Arnold]

I generally use a 21/64" (0.328") bit and taper ream the counterbore, or use a letter drill. Size 'Q' is 0.332".
My reamer for the counterbore is a general purpose tee handle reamer (1/8" to 1/2" with six flutes) that is available at most any good hardware store.
I sawed it off at 5/16" diameter, using a tungsten carbide hacksaw blade.
I originally made the reamer for banjo fifth pegs, but it works fine for tuner bushings.
I ream until the bushing drops in about 1/3 of the way, then press it the rest of the way in using a C-clamp.

[PhilQ]

Thanks again John. Now to find a 21/64 bit in a store locally. Fingers crossed!