Freeman Keller

I just buy a piece of maple with the grain running the right direction from LMI for 3 bucks - its like kerfing and back reinforcing and a bunch of other small wood items that I could make but it just isn't worth it http://www.lmii.com/products/mostly-wood/inside-the-box/bridge-plate Note that they sell spruce for classical guitars but then of course classical guitars don't have string balls. It would be interesting to see what you are doing but I'll be absolutely honest - I don't have a clue what people are doing with voicing. When I started building (ten years ago) I was all smart-assed and thought I knew what voicing was all about - I read Siminoff;'s book (and attended a lecture by him), met Carruth and looked at his glitter plots, sat in a seminar with Grevin and listened to him tap plates. Granted, I've never bought Ervin's book (or for that matter, Gore's) but those aren't the style of guitar I want to build (and the books are damn expensive). So, my first few guitars I pretended I understood voicing and most people think they sound pretty good. My last few guitars I admit I don't understand voicing and most poeple think they sound pretty good. I'll bet yours will too

I know lots and lots of great builders use rosewood for bridge plates and I bow to their expertise. My one experience is that I own two Martins from the "over built" '70's and both have had the large rosewood bridge plates replaced with smaller maple ones. Both guitars benefited from the change - when my D18 came back from having the work done my wife said "you are playing louder". I didn't think I was doing anything different. I would really question the idea of using spruce, remember that the bridge plate's function is to keep the balls of the strings from destroying the top.

This is the part where I say that I find his sig offensive, but then I figure that explains a lot about the poster.

Neck looks really good, Neil. I've been enjoying watching the build, keep up the good work.

I have found that scraping abalone instead of or after sanding will restore the luster. The finish will also. Use a box cutter blade, put tape on most of the edge and scrape with the exposed part. I just did some big block fretboard inlays that had to be sanded to the radius of the board. Scraping at right angle to the way I sanded brought the shine back and removed all the little sanding marks. Otherwise, looking good, keep on keeping on.

Glad to see you are building again, I find it helps to have a project.

Well, this is an old thread and I don't think Scottdcol is around. The one authoritative reference on old Dobros is this one http://www.guitarhq.com/dobro.html as I mentioned before - you might be able to contact the mod and get more information. As I also said earlier, tracing old 'bros can be difficult.

Pretty much what Mikeo says, the Dobro name was bought by OMI and then Gibson (or maybe different order). Besides the Hound Dog I don't think Gibson is doing much with the brand today but it would be worth checking with them. I know that older Dobro serial numbers are a bit of a can of worms to find anything out about them. I happen to own a 1932 and a 1980 OMI Duolian. Most traditional dobros were spider bridge and had 12 frets but they did make a few biscuits and 14 fretters. Also most dobros were woodies but again, they built a few metal bodies. We tend to thing of National and NRP as the manufacturer of metal bodies biscuits but obviously yours is the exception. There are a couple of resonator specific discussion forums - here is one http://www.resohangout.com/ and you might contact the guy who runs this site http://www.guitarhq.com/dobro.html

I like the rosette - looks good with the fingerboard. Its not uncommon to be that thin on the top and many people thin it more as it approaches the sides. I think you'll be fine

Re: spoke shaves http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=46768

I have a spoke shave that I think I bought at Grizzly Tools but I've never mastered it. http://www.grizzly.com/search/?q=(spoke+OR+shave) I have better luck with a combination of chisels, planes, rasps, a sanding drum for a drill and my belt sander. One of the things that is very helpful is to make a couple of templates of the shape you want and keep working it down until they fit. I also have a hard time taking enough off - a couple of my necks have ended up pretty chunky - in one case I stripped the finish off and shaved a bunch more wood off. Grizzly also sells a cool little tool that lets you duplicate curves but I can't for the life of me find it in their catalog. I think it was called a "molding duplicator" or something - you can press it against a guitar neck and transfer the shape to a piece of paper to make a template. Find a guitar that you really like the neck, measure both width and depth and take a curve with this thing.

Can't tell you exactly how much I cut off but this is what it looks like now I can get the center part (with the nail) to about 1-1/2 inches - that lets me cut the soundhole on everything I do as well as rosettes Its been a while since I modified it but what I remember doing was to cut as close to the little tabs that hold the bars and again as close as I could to the center part (I think I used a band saw but it could have been by hand). Cleaned up the joint, put the bars in place and clamped everything flat with some epoxy in the joint - the glue has held up fine over quite a few uses. The plunge part of the router is pretty sloppy and the whole thing has too much play for my satisfaction, but it does get the job done. Hope this helps

I have one of these plunge router things for my dremel and yes, it didn't make a small enough diameter circle. I cut part of the base off on and glued the little brackets back on with epoxy to allow it to go smaller. It does work OK (I can just barely do the soundhole with it) but its still pretty Mickey Mouse. Every time I use it I think I should get something better.

Couple of tricks you probably already know - paint a little shellac around the area where you'll cut the purfling - it helps keep the spruce from tearing out. And I use a crappy little circle cutter for my dremel - as long as I go slow and use a sharp bit it does OK. Cut all the grooves for rosette and purfling, then cut the soundhole last. Good luck, I'll be thinking of you.

Good to see you building again, Neil.

Rumor has it that the QC is pretty bad on Keller guitars. I'd stay away from them if I was you.

I was pretty unimpressed with Gibson's little ebony debacle a while back and there are some things about their construction that I don't care for (headstock truss rod adjuster, the way they bind fretboards) but if I was in the market for a jumbo I would certainly consider them.

What I have heard is that the "Norlin era" ('70's and maybe 80's) was the low point in Gibson's quality (but that was true for other brands including Martin and (OMC). The other thing that I hear is that acoustics built at the Bozeman Montana facility are supposed to be the best. Personally I've never been impressed with new Gibsons that I've played - I have played a couple of vintage ones that were outstanding however. (And I am partial to their electrics and semi hollows) What specific model(s) are you interested in? Do you have the option of trying them and actually evaluating them or are you internet shopping?

CT, please do continue but it might be better to start a new thread. btw - welcome andits nice to hear of someone else who fixes old instruments for local music programs. Welcome to HCAG

The hardest part is starting

JEFF-B wrote: Is there a way to remove the cloudiness from a finish with a polyurethane coat? I suspect it has to do with improper wood treatment during construction and/or heat/humidity stress. I think not but maybe there is a way. Thx. Jeff B First, a few questions. Is this a factory finish? When you say "polyurethane" - how do you know that and what kind of poly (air cured, catalyzed - if so what kind)? Is the entire finish cloudy or just spots? Does it appear to be on the surface or at the wood level or within the finish itself? Why do you think the wood was improperly treated (most factories treat their wood properly)? What kind of heat or humidity stress has the guitar been subject to? Do you know if it was ever shipped in a cold time of the year and taken directly into a warm room (and opened)? Have you used any cleaners or polished on the finish? Depending on some of the answers above I might suggest using micromesh or polishing compounds with a buffer, but that might also make it worse.

Compensation: For me is a must. Strings aren't perfect, but you can make them play much more in-tune with a compensated saddle. Except on a slide guitar where you really don't want any. Having just built an electric, I was impressed by how really easy it is to set them up and dial in the compensation. Of course, when you spend all your time in the middle of the fretboard it is vital. edit to add - it is interesting that on an electric, metal saddles are the norm. But the saddle only acts as the "end of the string" - since is doesn't vibrate (much) it probably doesn't matter what it is made out of. On most archtops, mandos, violin and other instruments with tailpieces, the saddle is usually integral to the bridge and is wood - ebony, rosewood or similar. Archtops are compensated for the individual strings, but you can slide the whole thing around to get the overall intonation correct (I learned that on instruments with f-holes, a good starting point is the middle of the f's)

anyone use one? how does it compare to other, more standard (e.g. plastic) materials? or how bout a compensated saddle? do they really help with intonation? Brass, or other metals, is not usually used for saddles for all the reasons listed above. Probably the two biggest are the difficulty of working it and the fact that it adds a lot of mass to what is already the heaviest brace on the top of the guitar (the bridge plus bridgeplate). Some very old guitars, Weissenborns and a few others used a piece of fret wire for a saddle, but then you have the problem of getting enough break angle (the saddle in Seorie's picture also looks like it is very low - without knowing anything else about that guitar I would be suspicious that it needs a reset). John Doprya experimented with brass for early resonator saddles and rejected it. You can test the effects of additional mass by simply taping some weight onto the saddle. Brass bridge pins are another option - when I did the Pin Test most people felt that they "brightened" the sound of the guitars that I put them in (D18, old Yamaha). As to the original question - if there was truely an advantage to brass saddles manufactures (or small builders) would certainly use them. Bone (and ivories) and synthetics (plastic, Tusq, etc) remain the most popular for lots of very good reasons. As far as a compensated saddle - first, almost every modern guitar has the saddle compensated for the different core diameters of the strings - that is the way it is angled with more length to the bass than treble. In addition, you will find that it is located farther than 2X the distance to the 12th fret, that is more compensation. Both of those help with correcting intonation, particularly as you play up the neck. In addition, you can further compensate individual strings (usually the B and low E) either by using an accurate tuner or just simply moving the break point a little more. Does it help - yes, but mostly in the upper frets. Remember that there were a bunch of Martins built with the saddle at 2X on the high E and because their bluegrass playing owner rarely go above the 5th fret they really never noticed. I'm anal about compensation - I use Jasemine Tea's trick to set the break point of every string - on a 12 string the saddle ends up looking like a rip saw blade.