Members GuitarNoobie Posted December 22, 2009 Author Members Share Posted December 22, 2009 Originally Posted by nevermind from the center of the neck pickup route to the line the bridge mounts on it is an angle of 1.2 - 1.3 degrees. BTW, before taking that as gospel I'd ask for some of the guys who have built them to verify. that makes the most sense so far... thanks Brian... still researching it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nevermind Posted December 22, 2009 Members Share Posted December 22, 2009 http://www.mylespaul.com/forums/memb...rved-tops.htmlpost #14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GuitarNoobie Posted December 22, 2009 Author Members Share Posted December 22, 2009 Originally Posted by nevermind http://www.mylespaul.com/forums/memb...rved-tops.html post #14 you da man !!! thanks dude !!! EDIT: that's one of the guys who owns Bartlett Guitars where I bought the carved top, templates, plans and holly veneer. Tom is his name, good guy !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nevermind Posted December 22, 2009 Members Share Posted December 22, 2009 Originally Posted by GuitarNoobie you da man !!! thanks dude !!! lol, well it took me a few minutes to realize what i was looking at. Basically what you will be doing is flattening out the extra distance you had to carve at 4.4*. The distance you should have carved the neck angle is roughly right in between the pickups (6 1/4" roughly), so with no other carve the neck pickup would be sitting at a steep goofy looking angle to the strings when they finally go on. Also, it would look like the top had a huge hump in it. So doing some searching I found the pic. Then doing the math, I roughly figured the angle. Was nice to find that thread to verify I was close to right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GuitarNoobie Posted December 22, 2009 Author Members Share Posted December 22, 2009 Originally Posted by nevermind lol, well it took me a few minutes to realize what i was looking at. Basically what you will be doing is flattening out the extra distance you had to carve at 4.4*. The distance you should have carved the neck angle is roughly right in between the pickups (6 1/4" roughly), so with no other carve the neck pickup would be sitting at a steep goofy looking angle to the strings when they finally go on. Also, it would look like the top had a huge hump in it. So doing some searching I found the pic. Then doing the math, I roughly figured the angle. Was nice to find that thread to verify I was close to right. what you said there makes sense, the neck pickup would be at a crazy angle otherwise... i just had someone point this out... post 1, 16 and 17 http://www.mylespaul.com/forums/luth...e-opinion.html Goocart is the other partner in the Bartlett business and John Catto is the dude who created the drawing I am currently working off of... those guys say neck angle plane 3.5 to 4.4 and pup plane 2.12 to 2.5.... so there is some difference in what Tom posted VS. these two guys... hmmm..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nevermind Posted December 22, 2009 Members Share Posted December 22, 2009 Keep in mind the distance we are talking about for this plane, from the center of the neck pickup to the center of the bridge is just 6 1/8". Also keep in mind all you are really trying to accomplish is to re-flatten the area the pickups will sit on, and at the same time not have to do it in a manner that removes the total height of the top at the point the bridge mounts. They are talking about less than a degree in 6 inches, or in real measurements less than 1/10 of an inch one way or the other. Also, notice he marked a "blend area", which indicates his measurements didn't come out perfectly when he CNC'd the top. I understand trying to hit exact numbers, but there is a point where hand measurements and working will not allow any noticable difference. I would say they decided to go with the 1.21* angle on the production tops to eliminate the blend area. To be honest with you the amount of material you will be removing will be so little it would probably be just as quick to draw the lines on the top that are on the picture I posted and block sand the top until it is flat. Remember there is perfect perfect and then there is human perfect, and you ain't no robot. Have fun dude EDIT: Also remember, even the originals were hand built, hand fit, hand sanded, hand finished, hand buffed......no matter what you come out with for a pickup plane angle I guarentee you there is an original out there somewhere that has the same angle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members meandi Posted December 22, 2009 Members Share Posted December 22, 2009 Cool thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ihavenofish Posted December 22, 2009 Members Share Posted December 22, 2009 the angle of the pickup plane is arbitrary. cut your neck pocket. then measure the location of the end of the fretboard and the bridge trebble side post. then simply conect the dots. the cg "cut in half" image uses a thicker top than a 59 did, so it may not have the same angles. as far as the sanding, no, you dont sand the binding channel, you use a template to sand the perimeter. my comment on the binding channel was that the sanding may be of no use if you need to route the binding channel - risking tear out anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members linusâ„¢ Posted December 22, 2009 Members Share Posted December 22, 2009 this is a great thread. thanks guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GuitarNoobie Posted December 22, 2009 Author Members Share Posted December 22, 2009 Originally Posted by ihavenofish the angle of the pickup plane is arbitrary. cut your neck pocket. then measure the location of the end of the fretboard and the bridge trebble side post. then simply conect the dots. the cg "cut in half" image uses a thicker top than a 59 did, so it may not have the same angles. as far as the sanding, no, you dont sand the binding channel, you use a template to sand the perimeter. my comment on the binding channel was that the sanding may be of no use if you need to route the binding channel - risking tear out anyway. well no wonder i was confused. i kept thinking you were talking about the binding channel now it makes perfect sense, duh.... as far as the pickup plane i am finding that there is a range, but not one specific angle... so now i have anywhere from 1.21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nevermind Posted December 22, 2009 Members Share Posted December 22, 2009 i needed to order some parts from stewmac anyway, so plans coming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ihavenofish Posted December 22, 2009 Members Share Posted December 22, 2009 Originally Posted by nevermind i needed to order some parts from stewmac anyway, so plans coming so, the 3d model i posted was based on a supposedly accurate plan of a 59 lp. ive tried several of them now, and i have seen a very specific trend. the scales are all wrong. this one for example was 15" wide. if i scale it down however, its seemingly perfect. i think its deliberatly done this way to avoid copyright infringing. its been the same with the sg plans, and junior plans ive looked at. the fender plans are all scaled corectly. so just a warning to anyone who might use one of these drawings found online (and possibly in books or purchased plans). check the scale before using. an LP should be 13" / 330mm wide at the bottom bout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Burningleaves Posted December 22, 2009 Members Share Posted December 22, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ihavenofish Posted December 22, 2009 Members Share Posted December 22, 2009 just read the notice at the top of the site. make sure you archive all this so you can repost if it goes away on the new HC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members linusâ„¢ Posted December 22, 2009 Members Share Posted December 22, 2009 i know i'm getting ahead of myself here, but will you be able to post clips of this when done? i'd just be geeked if your home depot wood guitar sounded awesome . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ihavenofish Posted December 22, 2009 Members Share Posted December 22, 2009 Originally Posted by linus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BarfLender Posted December 22, 2009 Members Share Posted December 22, 2009 Seriously awesome guitars in here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GuitarNoobie Posted December 22, 2009 Author Members Share Posted December 22, 2009 Originally Posted by nevermind i needed to order some parts from stewmac anyway, so plans coming i've read the stewmac plans are slightly off, but their neck plan is good. i placed an order with Stewmac last night, you don't even wanna know how much I spent It was parts for two guitars and a lot of tools I will need, but DAYUM !!!!! the plans i ordered from the carved top guys, Eastern Maple Carved Tops, http://www.bartlettwoodworking.com/body.html are supposed to be the most accurate out there. before those plans people were using the catto body plan and stewmac neck plan... sent ya a PM... Originally Posted by ihavenofish so, the 3d model i posted was based on a supposedly accurate plan of a 59 lp. ive tried several of them now, and i have seen a very specific trend. the scales are all wrong. this one for example was 15" wide. if i scale it down however, its seemingly perfect. i think its deliberatly done this way to avoid copyright infringing. its been the same with the sg plans, and junior plans ive looked at. the fender plans are all scaled corectly. so just a warning to anyone who might use one of these drawings found online (and possibly in books or purchased plans). check the scale before using. an LP should be 13" / 330mm wide at the bottom bout. the catto drawing i posted early in this thread shows the body width at 13". Originally Posted by ihavenofish just read the notice at the top of the site. make sure you archive all this so you can repost if it goes away on the new HC. i heard that was gonna happe, how do i archive ???? Originally Posted by linus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GuitarNoobie Posted December 22, 2009 Author Members Share Posted December 22, 2009 Originally Posted by BarfLender Seriously awesome guitars in here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members igge Posted December 22, 2009 Members Share Posted December 22, 2009 I'm sure it'll sound really good. For best results it should obviously be played through a DIY tube amp. They're always the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ihavenofish Posted December 22, 2009 Members Share Posted December 22, 2009 Originally Posted by GuitarNoobie i've read the stewmac plans are slightly off, but their neck plan is good. i placed an order with Stewmac last night, you don't even wanna know how much I spent It was parts for two guitars and a lot of tools I will need, but DAYUM !!!!! the plans i ordered from the carved top guys, Eastern Maple Carved Tops, http://www.bartlettwoodworking.com/body.html are supposed to be the most accurate out there. before those plans people were using the catto body plan and stewmac neck plan... sent ya a PM... the catto drawing i posted early in this thread shows the body width at 13". even he catto drawing was off. the written dimensions are correct, the print scale is wrong. so in my case, just brining it into cad, it was oversize (maybe its a buckethead sig ). ive read a few sources saying this was deliberate for copyright reasons. the proportions are correct though, so i simply scaled by 0.88 and it was all good. i heard that was gonna happe, how do i archive ???? no idea. just save all the text and links in a text file maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members GuitarNoobie Posted December 22, 2009 Author Members Share Posted December 22, 2009 Originally Posted by igge I'm sure it'll sound really good. For best results it should obviously be played through a DIY tube amp. They're always the best. ha, ha... let me put that on the list next... Originally Posted by ihavenofish even he catto drawing was off. the written dimensions are correct, the print scale is wrong. so in my case, just brining it into cad, it was oversize (maybe its a buckethead sig ). ive read a few sources saying this was deliberate for copyright reasons. the proportions are correct though, so i simply scaled by 0.88 and it was all good. no idea. just save all the text and links in a text file maybe. did you print the catto version #10... it was to scale unless i am missing something... i guess i will try to do a little saving on this thread somehow or another... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ihavenofish Posted December 22, 2009 Members Share Posted December 22, 2009 Originally Posted by GuitarNoobie ha, ha... let me put that on the list next... did you print the catto version #10... it was to scale unless i am missing something... i guess i will try to do a little saving on this thread somehow or another... i dont know which version it was. ive ammassed a pile of these plans in digital format over the years, every gibson one was off almost predictably. theres a number of jpeg(images) plans that may be correct, but id have to trace them and scale them anyhow (thats what im doing with some genuine fender factory plans). mind you, im only using ones ive found for free. ive not purchased any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nevermind Posted December 23, 2009 Members Share Posted December 23, 2009 The Catto version I have (not sure which) doesn't have any dimensions at all other than the legend. So yeah, if you didn't know better and it didn't print to scale it may be badddddd. My only issue with it is the body outline isn't smooth continuous curves. I have never used it for anything though, it just hangs on the wall behind my desk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ihavenofish Posted December 23, 2009 Members Share Posted December 23, 2009 Originally Posted by nevermind The Catto version I have (not sure which) doesn't have any dimensions at all other than the legend. So yeah, if you didn't know better and it didn't print to scale it may be badddddd. My only issue with it is the body outline isn't smooth continuous curves. I have never used it for anything though, it just hangs on the wall behind my desk. the drawing i used wasnt smooth either, i remade it with a smooth spline. i cant re export it though cause its 3d now and this program is a demo that wont export. i need a friend to help me convert it back to dxf. ill pm you if i get this done (may be after xmas). ill put the disclaimer on it though that "may not be a precise '59 anymore" though i didnt deviate much except making the horn a little smoother and the bottom rounder (modern style). this is the outline only, no neck poket or pickups or control as my kit version is going to be different in that regard. anyhow, remind me in a few weeks if you want the outline since this thread will be eaten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.