Printable View
Yeah I'm really liking the first one and getting a lot of positive feedback for the design. How I'll go actually cutting it out though? We'll see I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fretworn
I am actually thinking of do the guard in wood. Which may make it even harder. Won't know until I try. I can always fall back to other designs or material if need be.
Sent from my LG-H930 using Tapatalk
I trialled by cutting it out of 3mm MDF. Then use that as a templateQuote:
Originally Posted by kuanjb
cheers, Mark.
Can't believe it's been 3.5 years since I last posted. Almost to the day. What happened? Certainly not much with this kit. It's been sitting in a box unloved.
Last weekend I open up the box again. I got busy with shinto rasp, a curved rasp and a file and made the belly and arm cuts much bigger and more comfortable (and closer to a real Jazzmaster). I then took a saw to the neck joint and made it curved like an American Ultra Jazzmaster. There's still a bit more work required to clean it up but not much.
Attachment 43368Attachment 43369Attachment 43370Attachment 43371
And finally, with that little bit of cut off from the neck joint I tried out a couple of finish options. I can't start on the finish yet though until I work out the controls and pickguard, and hence what I need to change in the routes for the controls and pickups. I recently picked up a Squier Jazzmaster so had a "real" Jazzmaster to compare things to.
It was around this point that I realised something wasn't quite right. The lines didn't quite seem the same as the Jazzmaster, particularly around the neck pocket and lower horn. I'd noticed this earlier when designing the pickguards on the computer but didn't think too much of it as it's a kit and didn't expect it to be exactly the same. Nevertheless, I was making some measurements of my Jazzmaster and comparing them to the kit to try and work a few things out for the pickguard.
And then I made a terrible discovery. For some reason I must have never measured the scale length. I really have no idea why I didn't, particularly given that I had the 27" neck which wasn't the original one for the kit. And as it turns out the neck is too short. The 27" scale length equates to about 686mm (on the neck heel itself it has 685mm written). But, with the neck in the pocket pushed all the way in it only measures 672mm to the edge of the treble bridge post hole, and 674mm to the bass one. With the 11mm diameter that would be about 677.5mm and 679.5mm to their middles. This compares to the 687.7mm + 1.5-3mm according to the Stew Mac fret position calculator. I.e. about 10mm out.
So what can I do now?
I could insert dowels and re-drill the bridge posts. That would certainly rule out any finish which shows the wood grain though, unless I hide that area with a different pickguard design. And it would bring the bridge much closer to the tremlo. The kit has a much shorter body as it is, so not sure that's a great option anyway.
Or I could add in a bit of wood to the neck pocket, which should be hidden under the pickguard. The only issue would be that it's shortening the neck pocket. Funnily enough though it would make it a tiny bit shorter than my Squier (78mm versus 80mm). And now I'm wishing I didn't cut a bit off, even though it was only a couple mm (it was rather long).
At the moment I'm leaning towards the second option. It would certainly make the neck pocket, and hence pickguard, be closer to a real Jazzmaster. It's taken the wind out of my sails though. I may end up putting this one back in the box again and instead continue on with the bass which I also have done a bit of work on.
That is a shame.
What's the distance from the nut to the 12th fret? Is it around 343mm (half of 686mm), or is it around 339mm (half of 678mm). If the latter, it will work as a guitar, and it will just be a slightly shorter scale baritone, about 26.75" instead of 27".
If the former, then if it were me, I'd probably dowel and redrill the bridge holes and finish in a solid colour (plenty of the real ones are solid colours). The fact the bridge is a bit nearer the trem won't matter, in fact it may improve it as Jazzmasters have notoriously low string break angles, causing no-end of problems if using the original splined saddle bridge if your neck angle was too shallow or string gauge too light. Bringing the bridge nearer the trem helps improve the string break angle (not a lot, but every bit helps).
Nut to 12th fret is 341.5, maybe even 341.8 ish. So it's not exactly half the 685mm they have written on the heel. Probably 683.5. So that's a couple of mm less that I'd have to worry about. But still 7.5mm is a fair bit out, especially on a TOM bridge that only has about 10mm of adjustment for the saddles.
So on my Squier it has fairly low action. I couldn't really raise it anymore than it is either as it would result in the strings resting on the back of the bridge. Thus you actually can't increase the break angle at the back.
The kit is a different story as it has a TOM bridge. The roller TOM I picked up for this one I think should allow it to have quite a bit more of a break angle than the normal Jazzmaster bridges. And the neck pocket is routed so that the neck is a bit higher off the body too (11mm versus 8mm). The current bridge location would result in a distance of about 102mm to the tailpiece compared to 125mm on the Squier. So all up the break angle will be significantly greater than the Squier. If my maths is correct then it's 9 versus 6 degrees. Moving the bridge closer would take it to about 10 degrees. Still not that great compared to my SG, but that doesn't have a trem.
I think I'll sleep on it.
I didn't sleep yet. Did more measuring. Working out the pickup locations so the polls are the same relative distance (percentage) as on the normal 648mm scale length (77.4% and 93.6%). This resulted in the neck pickup being quite a bit closer to the neck. Which lead me to a crazy idea. Maybe I could cut out the bit of wood between the neck pocket and pickup route and move it. Thus using that bit of wood to move the neck pocket. The wood would match a lot better and it already has the correct shape.
Now I should sleep.
That bit behind the neck pocket carries most of the stress from the strings, certainly all the force that's not taken up by the neck screws. Exactly how much will depend on how the screw holes are drilled and how well the neck fits in the pocket etc. So I'd be wary of cutting and moving what you already have. I'd be happier cutting and sanding another bit of wood to fit in the gap. A spindle sander would make that quite an easy task, as you then only need to trace the curve of the rear of the neck pocket and the curve of the neck heel and place them your selected distance apart and sand to the lines. Epoxy glue will fill in any small gaps at the rear.
Your pickguard should then be adjusted to cover it up.
But first check where the existing neck mounting holes will then sit on the neck heel. You don't want the rear mounting hioles too near the end of the neck or you could easily get splitting when under tension or you knock the neck.
I get what you're saying. But, if you believe what they say then a glue joint is stronger than wood itself, so surely moving the wood shouldn't be an issue? And I was already looking at thinning that wood a bit to get the pickup in the "right" location. So I'd end up adding extra wood in the pocket and removing existing wood anyway. Though what the right location is is debatable. My Squier's neck PU is at 501.5mm whereas the 24th fret would be at 486mm (77.4% versus 75%).Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Barden
Yep, this is one of the things I looked at when I went and modified the neck / joint / pocket. It is currently really long and the mounting holes are towards the front of the pocket rather than to the rear. Certainly a lot further forwards than is usual for a guitar. It's more similar to a bass currently. The back screws are 25mm from the end (compared to about 15mm for my Squier). So if I shortened the pocket by 6-8mm it should still be fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Barden
Attachment 43372Attachment 43373
Now it did occur to me that the tension with baritone strings would be different to normal strings. But according to this chart it isn't that different: https://www.elixirstrings.com/suppor...-tuning-guitar
So I did some more measuring of the neck and frets (because the nut might even be in the wrong location, though it looks like it's not). From measuring the frets it works out to having a scale length of about 682-683mm. So roughly 26.85 inches (for those that prefer). If I work with 682 there should be enough adjustment in the bridge to account for the slight difference. If I then go with the bridge post positions from Stew Mac that's 683.7mm + 1.5-3mm. So still looking at 6-7mm out.
Here's the rough change I'm thinking, moving it 7mm. The PU outline would be based on the location of a normal Jazzmaster, i.e. poll pieces at 77.4%. If they were at the 24th fret then the PU would be almost right against the end of the neck due to the size of the JM PUs.
Attachment 43374
If I were to move the bridge posts by 7mm I'd still be cutting out the semi-circles for the screw tabs and possibly about 1 mm of the wood if I wanted it to be exactly the same as a JM. For reference here's the neck pocket and neck screw locations for a strat and JM taken from some online templates I found a while back. As you can see the screw holes are just behind the 21st fret and the wood between the neck end and PU route isn't very think.
Attachment 43375Attachment 43376
Moving the bridge posts of course would be easier. And may even result in the pick guard sitting in a nicer location and be not so cramped. I'm still wondering how noticeable dowels would even be. A third of them would be drilled out again with the new holes and the bridge and thumb wheels would cover a bit more.
Dowels can be quite obvious if you're staining, as you'll get the end grain on the dowel taking up a lot more of the stain than the rest of the body (apart from starting out a different colour). You could slightly countersink the dowel and put a round cap of ash veneer on the top to help it blend in a bit better.
Yes, wood glue should be stronger than the wood - though it does depend on the wood/grain orientation of the join as to relative strengths. Wood glue is certainly stronger than the lignin holding the (much stronger) cellulose tubes together, so when gluing most joints, you do get a joint that is stronger than the wood. End-grain to end-grain still gives a strong joint, but it's not as strong as if the wood was a single piece.
But it's not going to be easy to remove that neck pocket section in a single piece. You can cut down the sides but you'll need to chisel the remaining block off, and the wedge effect of the chisel is likely to end up with the block splitting along the grain. Also, cutting will remove some of the wood, so, certainly at the sides, you may have quite a gap to fill. Better using epoxy than wood glue for that as wood glue becomes weak once you can see daylight between the surfaces to be glued.
I'd still suggest leaving it in place and adding more wood to fill the pocket. I just think it will be less hassle overall. But I've never attempted either method, so I'm only making suggestions based on gut instinct.