The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Build and Repair

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #106  
Old 10-06-2017, 07:00 PM
CabinetMan CabinetMan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 113
Default

I didn't like the end strip so I cut it out and put in a curly maple wedge.
Got the bindings installed and the frets installed and nipped flush.
I kind of dread scraping those bindings down because I left them thicker than I should have. I got them trimmed flat and sanded on the top and bottom.

20171005_095321 by Cabinet Man, on Flickr

20171005_161557 by Cabinet Man, on Flickr

20171006_190410 by Cabinet Man, on Flickr
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 10-06-2017, 07:28 PM
Truckjohn Truckjohn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,305
Default

You are doing a great job on this build. It looks very nice.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 10-06-2017, 07:40 PM
Neil K Walk Neil K Walk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SWPA
Posts: 6,327
Default

Great job on the wedge and bindings! At what temperature did you bend them? Did you pretreat the wood?
__________________
~ Neil (sofa player, shower singer and basement whittler)
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 10-06-2017, 09:26 PM
CabinetMan CabinetMan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truckjohn View Post
You are doing a great job on this build. It looks very nice.
Thanks. I appreciate that. I have truly enjoyed the build so far. I have to admit it's taken much more time than I ever thought it would. I have learned a ton and have a ways to go. Just gonna keep taking my time and enjoy it.

Last edited by CabinetMan; 10-06-2017 at 09:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 10-06-2017, 09:33 PM
CabinetMan CabinetMan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil K Walk View Post
Great job on the wedge and bindings! At what temperature did you bend them? Did you pretreat the wood?
Thank you.
I bent them at tha same temp. as I did the sides. Didn't pretreatment the wood. I was going to use chestnut for purfling but It too closely matched the hemlock top being such a small strip. I instead went with Cherry to offset the maple. Wish I would have paid more attention to the thickness of the bindings though. ALOT of scraping to do!

Last edited by CabinetMan; 10-06-2017 at 09:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 10-07-2017, 03:40 AM
emmsone emmsone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 517
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CabinetMan View Post
Wish I would have paid more attention to the thickness of the bindings though. ALOT of scraping to do!
Its looking good.
This happened to me almost exactly the same. on my first build i said "i'll leave the bindings slightly proud and scrape them down" left way too much sticking out, took waaay too long to scrape and then ended up with a few height inconsistencies. From experience i can tell you you won't leave so much proud next time haha


David
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 10-07-2017, 11:50 AM
CabinetMan CabinetMan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by emmsone View Post
Its looking good.
This happened to me almost exactly the same. on my first build i said "i'll leave the bindings slightly proud and scrape them down" left way too much sticking out, took waaay too long to scrape and then ended up with a few height inconsistencies. From experience i can tell you you won't leave so much proud next time haha


David
Man I tell you what. I've been scraping, and scraping and scraping and scraping...........
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 10-07-2017, 12:48 PM
Howard Klepper Howard Klepper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Earthly Paradise of Northern California
Posts: 6,427
Default

While a binding perfectly flush to the sides with no scraping would be ideal, the reality departs from that ideal pretty easily. It's actually better to leave the side a bit proud of the binding. That may go counter to the intuition that it's better to scrape the small width of the binding than the big width of the side, but there are two good reasons to go the other way.

First, unless you purposely made the bindings overly thick, you don't want them to be thinned--they won't look as intended on their top edge as seen from the front or back of the guitar..

Second, what you will tend to do when scraping proud bindings is try to scrape their bottom, where they meet the sides, because (a) that's where you can see and feel if they are flush or not; and (b) you are trying not to thin them on top (their outer corner) because that's the edge you look at from the front or back of the guitar. This attempt to scrape toward the joining edge results in a concave area on the sides adjacent to the binding that can be felt and seen.

If you bring the sides down to the binding, you will not thin the top edge of the binding; and you will make the sides slightly convex, which is neither seen nor felt.

So far as I know, this little tidbit is not to be found in any book or article on guitarmaking. But don't ask me how I learned it.
__________________
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."
--Paul Simon
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 10-07-2017, 01:08 PM
printer2 printer2 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,783
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Klepper View Post
While a binding perfectly flush to the sides with no scraping would be ideal, the reality departs from that ideal pretty easily. It's actually better to leave the side a bit proud of the binding. That may go counter to the intuition that it's better to scrape the small width of the binding than the big width of the side, but there are two good reasons to go the other way.

First, unless you purposely made the bindings overly thick, you don't want them to be thinned--they won't look as intended on their top edge as seen from the front or back of the guitar..

Second, what you will tend to do when scraping proud bindings is try to scrape their bottom, where they meet the sides, because (a) that's where you can see and feel if they are flush or not; and (b) you are trying not to thin them on top (their outer corner) because that's the edge you look at from the front or back of the guitar. This attempt to scrape toward the joining edge results in a concave area on the sides adjacent to the binding that can be felt and seen.

If you bring the sides down to the binding, you will not thin the top edge of the binding; and you will make the sides slightly convex, which is neither seen nor felt.

So far as I know, this little tidbit is not to be found in any book or article on guitarmaking. But don't ask me how I learned it.
After the first guitar I made I thought it makes more sense to have the binding the finished width for bending, a lot harder to bend a thicker binding. But then I just went along doing it by scraping the binding because that is what I saw done. I think I will scrape the sides on the next project.
__________________
Fred
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 10-07-2017, 03:51 PM
redir redir is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Mountains of Virginia
Posts: 4,972
Default

Just another note on bindings, make the channels like 1/64th deeper then needed because the glue line and expansion will always take up the space. The only time I ever got the bindings perfect, and I'm on instrument #57 now, was when I had to scrape down the sides rather than the bindings as howard mentioned. But I don't like thinning the sides any more then necessary. In the future I may consider making the sides a bit thicker to accommodate.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 10-07-2017, 05:16 PM
CabinetMan CabinetMan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Klepper View Post
While a binding perfectly flush to the sides with no scraping would be ideal, the reality departs from that ideal pretty easily. It's actually better to leave the side a bit proud of the binding. That may go counter to the intuition that it's better to scrape the small width of the binding than the big width of the side, but there are two good reasons to go the other way.

First, unless you purposely made the bindings overly thick, you don't want them to be thinned--they won't look as intended on their top edge as seen from the front or back of the guitar..

Second, what you will tend to do when scraping proud bindings is try to scrape their bottom, where they meet the sides, because (a) that's where you can see and feel if they are flush or not; and (b) you are trying not to thin them on top (their outer corner) because that's the edge you look at from the front or back of the guitar. This attempt to scrape toward the joining edge results in a concave area on the sides adjacent to the binding that can be felt and seen.

If you bring the sides down to the binding, you will not thin the top edge of the binding; and you will make the sides slightly convex, which is neither seen nor felt.

So far as I know, this little tidbit is not to be found in any book or article on guitarmaking. But don't ask me how I learned it.
Thank you for the reply,
I did end up with a little bit of a thin binding in a spot or two, especially in the shoulder of the upper bout where my tape must have stretched some before the glue dried and it left a slight gap between the body and binding. I took some superglue and cherry sanding dust and filled it in, should have used maple instead. It would have make the binding look thicker and would have been a lot less noticeable.. I will know next time.
It didn't take me long to figure out that you can create a concave area if you scrape just the joining edges.. But at least I figured that out and only on a very small spot and didn't do any more. Got it straightened out though.
I now totally agree with what you are saying about bringing the sides down to the binding. That's what Ill do next time.
Do you normally leave your sides slightly thicker than normal to allow for this?
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 10-07-2017, 05:21 PM
CabinetMan CabinetMan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redir View Post
Just another note on bindings, make the channels like 1/64th deeper then needed because the glue line and expansion will always take up the space. The only time I ever got the bindings perfect, and I'm on instrument #57 now, was when I had to scrape down the sides rather than the bindings as howard mentioned. But I don't like thinning the sides any more then necessary. In the future I may consider making the sides a bit thicker to accommodate.
Thanks, Great information here. I'm thinking like you on my next one; Ill do like Howard said and scrape the sides next time. Makes much more sense, will just have to stay aware of the side thickness.

I'll try to post some pics after while if time allows. If not I'll do it tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 10-07-2017, 05:28 PM
CabinetMan CabinetMan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by printer2 View Post
After the first guitar I made I thought it makes more sense to have the binding the finished width for bending, a lot harder to bend a thicker binding. But then I just went along doing it by scraping the binding because that is what I saw done. I think I will scrape the sides on the next project.
Me To!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 10-07-2017, 05:40 PM
Neil K Walk Neil K Walk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SWPA
Posts: 6,327
Default

Interesting. Perhaps leaving the sides a little thicker would help. That way you can rout the binding/purfling channels a little deeper and also any issues concerning cupping of the sides. On my first build I spent a lot of effort trying to hide some pretty deep grooves in the sides. Maybe that was a good thing; my #1 came out very lightweight.
__________________
~ Neil (sofa player, shower singer and basement whittler)
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 10-07-2017, 08:53 PM
BlmJn BlmJn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 46
Default hardness of wood

Apple at 1730 on the Janka scale is significantly harder than Red Maple, aka soft Maple, and Cherry. Red Maple is the most common of the soft Maples to be lumbered.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > Build and Repair

Thread Tools



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=