TL-1HA first build

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Barden

If if still smells, the theory is is needs to wait a bit longer until it stops.

However, you could start the sanding down process. That will increase the surface area of the poly so allow any remaining solvent to escape more easily. I'd hold off on the polishing until the smell goes, or another week has passed, whichever comes first.

---

Agreed regarding the ol' sniff test...

And the second part about sanding allowing the remaining solvent to escape, I discovered this as a result of my impatience getting the better of me. I thought it was my imagination or coincidence until Simon mentioned it here a while ago.

I had a body I had sprayed with acrylic lacquer that was taking forever to gas off. I eventually said "stuff it" proceeded with some sanding thinking worst case is I'd have to re-spray it. Within a couple of days after sanding, the solvent odour dropped dramatically and the feel of the lacquer changed (hardened).

Today I spent about three hours wet sanding... I started at P800 and went through 1000, 1500 up to 2000.

After that it looked a total mess:

Attachment 40086 Attachment 40087

I was expecting that after 2000 I'd get a smooth but satin looking finish... but this looks like I've finished it with a brillo pad with my eyes shut - I'm pretty sure it shouldn't look like that?

I figured it was ruined - something had gone wrong with the poly application, perhaps condensation or just plain incompetence. But it felt really smooth... and it didn't smell of poly anymore so I thought I'd just try some heavy cut polish - to see what would happen - and it was this:

Attachment 40088

I was amazed that it was now looking really shiny and the patches where gone. So I kept on applying the polish by hand. I used Menzerna 1000, 2500 and 3500 compounds with their pads. They are intended for use with an RO sander but I didn't feel the need to use one. I just kept going, applying by hand. I can't believe how well this has worked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SE2jkwhOZQ4

But... there was point after the wet sanding where I went back in with some 400 to try and sort out one of the nastier looking areas on the back. And in my frustration I think I went at it too hard. It seems I've gone through. It also looks like there's some of edges where something similar has happened. I guess there's nothing that can be done other then start the finish again? There's no magic touch up sauce?

However, I'm so pleased with the outcome that I don't think I care too much. The main purpose of this build was to learn and to discover where the boundaries are. To do that you've to cross them at some point. Now I know what it takes to burn through I've got less chance of doing that on my next build. And it's not a total disaster.

I am confused about they way it looked after the sanding - I'm half expecting to come to it in the morning and it will be a patchy mess again... :(

Nice work, but it is easy to go too far. And whilst you can polish a nearly-dry finish, you will get better results if you wait longer. You need patience by the bucket-load for this.

The magic touch-up juice is just more poly. Build it up again, sand that area and polish.

If you don't need to sand the surface level or are sanding off a drip bulge, then I wouldn't ever go any coarser than P800. It may take slightly longer, but far less chance of sanding through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Barden

Nice work, but it is easy to go too far. And whilst you can polish a nearly-dry finish, you will get better results if you wait longer. You need patience by the bucket-load for this.

---

Thanks Simon - I could hear you saying wait longer - but I was pretty convinced I'd be sanding it all off and starting again. So the polish at that point was a total gamble to try to save it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Barden

If you don't need to sand the surface level or are sanding off a drip bulge, then I wouldn't ever go any coarser than P800. It may take slightly longer, but far less chance of sanding through.

---

The burn through was totally due to me trying to push my finger through it in total frustration. Afterwards I realised I was breaking all the rules... not using a block and only focusing on one spot. But like I say - a lesson well and truly learned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Barden

The magic touch-up juice is just more poly. Build it up again, sand that area and polish.

---

Can I apply it to just that small area - or do I need to do the whole of the back?

Do you think the rough looking finish after the sanding is because it wasn't dry? Or is that the look I should expect?

I'm actually really pleased with the shine after the polish - way beyond my expectations. Perhaps I have low standards? :) There are a few swirls but I think that would be fixed by machine polishing perhaps?

Nice result!
I guess the next post will have pictures of it fully assembled :p

re: sand-through on edges

This a common area for sand-through to happen. Especially with right angles that only have a very slightly rounded edge.
IMO this is due to a combination of two reasons. One, simple physics. a liquid finish (particularly hand-applied) just doesn't build up on the tight narrow "point" of the edge the way it does on a flat horizontal surface. Two, most people don't think about reason one when they're applying the finish, whether wiping on or spraying.

When I spray a body, I make sure that I concentrate on the edges with a couple passes with the gun (or rattle can) to ensure an adequate layer of material is going on there. Even with wipe-on poly or Tru Oil I take extra care to target the edges.

The other thing I do is during the sanding process. Whether dry or wet, I barely kiss the edge with the paper with very minimal pressure. More like just dragging the paper over it. Just the polishing process alone will be enough get gloss on a small rolled edge and significantly minimise the risk of sand-through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McCreed

Nice result!
I guess the next post will have pictures of it fully assembled :p

---

Hah - can I resist the urge to do that today? Let’s see. My plan is to make a new pick guard. The knobs holes on the kit guard are far too close together and I don’t like the three ply. But I need to wait for the router bits to arrive - I have the router already.

I don’t want to drill the holes for the old guard incase the they don’t work out to be in the same position. I guess in the meantime I could tape the original guard to the body. Anyhow, there are a few fitting jobs I can do (plenty more chances to fudge it up) so I might not get that far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by McCreed

re: sand-through on edges

This a common area for sand-through to happen. Especially with right angles that only have a very slightly rounded edge.
IMO this is due to a combination of two reasons. One, simple physics. a liquid finish (particularly hand-applied) just doesn't build up on the tight narrow "point" of the edge the way it does on a flat horizontal surface. Two, most people don't think about reason one when they're applying the finish, whether wiping on or spraying.

When I spray a body, I make sure that I concentrate on the edges with a couple passes with the gun (or rattle can) to ensure an adequate layer of material is going on there. Even with wipe-on poly or Tru Oil I take extra care to target the edges.

The other thing I do is during the sanding process. Whether dry or wet, I barely kiss the edge with the paper with very minimal pressure. More like just dragging the paper over it. Just the polishing process alone will be enough get gloss on a small rolled edge and significantly minimise the risk of sand-through.

---

Yeah, your absolutely right - this it what happened. I think this went wrong in the initial sanding. The places where it’s gone through on the edges seem to have a lot sharper corner then the places where it hasn’t. So it seems like I sanded off the radius. [emoji853]

I just want take the opportunity to say thank you to you Mc and more recently Simon, for all your guidance and advice so far. At 4pm yesterday I thought there was no way I’d be doing anything but sanding off a months worth of work today. I was so chuffed when I saw my face in the shiny body. I wouldn’t have got here without you guys. I know I’m not done yet - but it feels like the right time to show some love and appreciation. It will be easy to buy Simon a few drinks when lock down lifts, as he lives round the corner from me. But I hope I can do the same for you Mc some day!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You only need to apply the poly in the affected area. You could even just brush standard poly on to build it up quicker.

I think some of the layering affect you saw is due to the different layer applications not fully sticking to one another in that area. Possibly because the poly has been over-thinned (but I'm only guessing). Not sure what you can do about it. I've had a similar effect with nitro lacquer when I've thinned it down quite a lot so that it sprayed well. In theory, nitro should always bond well to nitro because the thinners in it melt the surface underneath. But it may also be down to trapped moisture.

The effect goes when you polish it, as the finer polishing compounds smooth off the steps in the layers.

P2000 is never going to look anywhere near shiny. To get almost shiny by sanding alone, you'd have to switch to Micromesh and go all the way up to 12000, which will give a semi-gloss look. But P2000 is good enough for polishing compounds to work well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Barden

You only need to apply the poly in the affected area. You could even just brush standard poly on to build it up quicker.

---

Cool - I’ll try touching it in with neat poly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Barden

I think some of the layering affect you saw is due to the different layer applications not fully sticking to one another in that area. Possibly because the poly has been over-thinned (but I'm only guessing). Not sure what you can do about it. I've had a similar effect with nitro lacquer when I've thinned it down quite a lot so that it sprayed well. In theory, nitro should always bond well to nitro because the thinners in it melt the surface underneath. But it may also be down to trapped moisture.

---

Right - after you’re observation about the cool temps and condensation I was worried about this. I guess time will tell if there are any long term effects.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On Sunday I spent hours making a scratch plate template with a jig saw, a chisel and some sandpaper.

Attachment 40140

It took ages, especially the pickup holes. I was pleased with the general shape. I've made the area around the knobs much bigger and spaced the knobs so that they match the spacing on a real tele deluxe.

But I don't like it - it was too rough. I couldn't get the pickup holes square enough and the cut around the neck.... well it just wouldn't do.

Today my router bits arrived so I used my trim router (my new best friend) to cut a new template. I used the hand cut template to make the general shape and the plate from the kit for the neck cut out and the pick ups.

What an awesome little thing that is!

Attachment 40141 Attachment 40142

I did mess up by the switch where I tried to use the chamfered edge of the kit plate as guide - bad idea as I ended up taking a chunk out of the new template and also the kit plate - so I think I'm going to make another template before going at the real thing. I've only got one chance to get it right as I only have enough material for one scratch plate! :eek:

The idea was good. Shame about the chunk.
I love my router and bits also. I normally make my templates from MDF (and wearing dust protection).

If you are making a new template, could the top shoulder be even higher to follow the curve of the body? I found the kit plate of the AG-2 did not match the body shape very well so made a new one.

Or could the top shoulder of your new plate be trimmed to give a slightly bigger gap to see more of the top shoulder? This way you do not waste your first plate!

I used plywood as I have loads of off cuts in the shed. MDF would be loads better.

Yeah I think I'm going to make it so the gaps along the bottom edge and by the right shoulder match. The problem in the top right is there's not a lot of space to play with between the switch cavity and the edge of the template. There's probably just enough room for a screw. So I can make it bigger but not really any small in that area.

The original dlx tele is a bit of an odd shape - especially around the neck.

A couple of days ago I made a new pick guard template from paper - lot's of cutting and sticking until I got the right shape. Today I transferred it onto ply wood and cut it out. Again, I used the plate from the kit to cut the neck and the pickups so everything lined up.

Then I went for it... I don't have a band saw and I thought my jigsaw would be too heavy duty for the pick guard material. So instead I used a cutting disc on my Dremel to rough cut. I tried using the router bit to just carve through it but that seemed a bit sketchy. Then I used a chamfer bit to get, well... a chamfer.

But it's turned out okay I think. Not perfect but useable. There's a couple of places where is gone a bit wonky due to the ply wood template (and it being my first attempt at anything like this).

Attachment 40173 Attachment 40174

I'm pleased with the knob spacing and I like the clean lines of it being all black (not multiply). I've tried to make it follow the lines of the body in the key places and I think I've got it well enough. I still have the holes for the pots and switch to drill and counter sink all the other holes.

The things I've learnt:

1. Don't make templates out of ply wood. They chip out too easily. In one of the pickup cut outs the inner ply tore out leaving just the outer skins... Not good enough for the router bearing to follow leading to one of the wonky bits.
2. Scratch plate material comes with two layers of plastic on it. I spent a few minutes trying to polish out scratches that were in the second layer before I realised :rolleyes:
3. Avoid making your own scratch plate. Cutting it out is messy. The little chips of plastic go everywhere and stick to everything. As I'm typing this I'm still finding them in places where they should not have got. They're also all over the house even though I did it all outside.

If I was doing it again I would try to mount the router upside down and clamp it to a table. Hand holding it makes it less stable I think. It would also remove the "clamp, route, unclamp, move" dance.

I'd also buy a band saw and some kind of sanding machine before attempting this again. Both of these would make the whole process less arduous. I think it would be done in a couple of hours rather than half a day.

It's getting close now. I think I'm ready to start wiring and assembly? :eek:

A very decent first go. You can always finesse the chamfer with a fine file and sandpaper.

I used a fine bladed jigsaw to cut close to the outline of the scratchplate that I'd drawn on in paper and stuck on with glue, then used a Dremel drum sander to sand down to the outline. Then a file and sandpaper to do the bevel. I'd really like a table router but I haven't got the space for one.

Good work. As simple (conceptually) as cutting a pickguard seems, it is a job that takes time and attention to detail IMO. Not something you just "whip up". Especially when it can require a lot of handwork.

Quote:

---

Scratch plate material comes with two layers of plastic on it. I spent a few minutes trying to polish out scratches that were in the second layer before I realised

---

D'oh!!! I appreciate that your humble enough to admit this! I haven't tried to polish it, but have been deceived by that second layer before.


In addition to Simon's advice on file & sandpaper, I find scraping bevels on pickguard material works really well and does it neatly and quickly.
I use my DIY binding scraper to get the angle established then fine tune things freehand. Fine files and sandpaper will also be part of the process here and there, followed by polishing the bevel.

A good sharp Stanley knife blade makes an excellent scraper, either in-hand or in the binding scraper tool. I recently acquired a set of miniature cabinet scrapers (to compliment my large set) they're absolutely brilliant but haven't used them on a pickguard yet.

Man, I feel so silly for not having used a Dremel sanding drum when I had to adjust a pickguard recently... The amount of time I spent with a Stanley blade was way more than it should have been.

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk

I did a little more fettling on the pick guard today, tidying up some of the curves with sand paper, needle files and a blade. No massively discernible difference but it's a little cleaner around the edges. I drilled the holes for pots and switch and to my relief everything fits inside the cavities of the body - was there ever any doubt? (yes)

My goal for the rest of the day was to try and get the neck bolted to the body. But (spoilers) I didn't get that far.

First I gave the body another polish - looking sweet!

Then it occurred to me it would be easier to install the tuners before the neck was bolted on, but before I could do that I wanted to polish the head stock face and file the fret ends. So I did that... nice.

And then I mounted the tuners:

Attachment 40184

This is a milestone as it the first major piece of hardware installed. I managed to avoid drilling through the headstock and I think got them straight enough.

I then dug out the plate the and screws for mounting the neck. I think one of you mentioned somewhere that the neck screws should pass through the body without cutting into the body itself. The screws are too big to do that so I thought I'd stop and go and research before drilling the neck holes in the body any wider.

So that's what I'm going to do now.

Found the answer in my other build thread - thanks Mc. So I need to drill out the body.

Is there any advantage to upgrading the neck plate and screws?

Neck plate, not really. Screws, maybe. Most of the kit screws are quite soft, some very (tuner screws especially). Using known good quality screws to fix the neck, especially as they could be used several times, makes sense to me. I’ve seen weak screws break off in the neck, which can be hard to fix.

Headstock looks great. Nice gloss and the decals are buried nicely too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Groovyman32

I think one of you mentioned somewhere that the neck screws should pass through the body without cutting into the body itself. The screws are too big to do that so I thought I'd stop and go and research before drilling the neck holes in the body any wider.

---

Here's a very good video explaining the principle:

http://youtu.be/Ne69SeQ1b7w

Thanks Simon - interesting.

The section at the ends talks about the offset technique to draw two pieces together in two directions. Is the suggestion do this with the necks to draw them it tightly into the pocket?

It's not normally suggested. Some necks may never get unscrewed in their lives, but others may be on and off quite regularly (especially those vintage style necks with heel-end trussrod adjustment). Offsetting will put more tension on the wood around the screw area, so is more likely to get damaged and the wood threads stripped with several removals and fittings. Just making sure the neck is firmly seated in the pocket and then clamped before drilling is normally enough. Offsetting is good idea if you never plan to undo the joint, but I can see some issues if you are going to undo the joint several times.

Once the guitar is assembled and strung up, you can then back off all four neck screws slightly. You'll probably hear a slight crack as the neck moves and is pulled towards the end of the pocket further by string tension. Then you can re-tighten and re-tune. It may do nothing, but in some instances it can slightly improve the tone and sustain.

I had not seen the offset technique, but I think Simon raises some really good points. I would be reluctant to put that sort of stress on the wood. What also "resonated" with me was Simon's comment about the quality of the screws. I have taken the necks on and off numerous times on my builds and mods for one reason or another. Cheap screws can get really chewed up, so I have been ditching them and using good quality stainless screws instead.

I am also careful about tightening. I will unscrew with a power tool, but I only screw the neck on with a screwdriver. I wax the screw and then drive it until it stops with just two fingers and thumb on the screwdriver. Overtightening a bad screw can lead to a stripped out or broken head. Overtightening a good screw can lead to stripping out the wood.

If you are really interested in tightening up the neck pocket, this guy has a different approach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5motJzsl8Zc

I should say that I have not done this, and am not an endorser of the approach. It looks like overkill to me. But passing it on FWIW.

Thanks guys - I've ordered a bunch of replacement stainless steel screws for everything. I wasn't planning to try do anything fancy - best practice is good enough for me :).

I put the ferrules in and clamped the neck in to make sure the bridge is still in the right place. The strings run over the pickups okay when they're mounted in the new pick guard so that all seems good. I noticed there is still very small gap (0.5mm) at the front of the neck pocket (I thought I'd fixed that) - should I attempt to fix this?

While I was shopping I also got some gotoh strap buttons and a jack plate... and with that I think the only PB parts left for the guitar are the nut (bone upgrade) and tuners (Grover upgrade).

On the subject of nuts... I bought a couple of Graphtec Tusq XL pre cut nuts with the intention of using one of them this guitar. But comparing it to the nut supplied with the kit the string spacing is different. The XL spacing is the same as a strat/tele (35.05mm). I did a bit of digging around but couldn't find anything that documents what the PB nut spacing is. (I guess I could measure it - duh). I assume this needs to match up with the spacing of the tuners so that the strings travel as straight as possible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fender3x

If you are really interested in tightening up the neck pocket, this guy has a different approach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5motJzsl8Zc

I should say that I have not done this, and am not an endorser of the approach. It looks like overkill to me. But passing it on FWIW.

---

A few things to note.

1) The extra screws may be possible to fit on a bass neck, but on a typical guitar neck, the two rear screws are only a few mm from the end of the neck and the angled screws would hit them. Even if they missed, I feel this would create two weak areas of wood at the end of the neck that could be liable to tear out if you hit the end of the neck on something, or just simply with use. So I'd recommend only trying this on a bass neck where the rear screws area decent distance from the end of the neck.

2) For an existing guitar or bass, rather than a new build, you'll already have screw holes in the neck. These will definitely need filling and redrilling if you change the shape of the neck pocket so the neck sits further into the body.

3) He used a kit bass with an unfinished neck. If you are going to add veneer in order to make the pocket so tight that you can raise the body up with the neck as shown, then only do it with a finished neck. Add finish and the neck will be wider and will never fit in the pocket!

4) He used the long edge of the pocket to push the neck up against and added veneer to the short edge. This is fine if the pocket edges are truly parallel and also align with the centre line of the guitar, but this is not always the case. If the pocket is more of a parallelogram shape, then you'll need to get the neck pointing straight down the body, and probably need to fill in both sides of the neck with angled veneer shims. Especially important on an existing guitar/bass where the bridge and pickups are already installed, otherwise you could make it unplayable with the stings running at an angle down the neck.

5) On an existing bass/guitar, if the bridge saddles are already intonated as far back as they will go, then reshaping the neck pocket end so the neck sits further into the body will make the guitar unintonatable without moving the bridge. This may be possible on a top loader, but with string-through bridges or bridges with posts, this is a major fill and redrill exercise with big cosmetic implications. You'll be far better off packing epoxy into the end of the neck cavity (or similar) and leaving the neck where it is.

6) Any neck is already being pulled back into the end of the pocket under string tension with considerable force. Slackening off the neck screw slightly under tension will allow the string tension to move the neck back as far as the neck screws allow. Then re-tighten them. On an electric, you've got a typical total of around 100 pounds/45kg of tension, on a bass, its nearer 200lbs/90kg. Once you've got that much force pulling the neck into the body and you let the screws move as much as possible under that force, then those angled screws really aren't going to be able to do much more at all.

7) If you care about the resale value of your instrument, especially if it's vintage or rare, don't fit the angled screws!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Groovyman32

On the subject of nuts... I bought a couple of Graphtec Tusq XL pre cut nuts with the intention of using one of them this guitar. But comparing it to the nut supplied with the kit the string spacing is different. The XL spacing is the same as a strat/tele (35.05mm). I did a bit of digging around but couldn't find anything that documents what the PB nut spacing is. (I guess I could measure it - duh). I assume this needs to match up with the spacing of the tuners so that the strings travel as straight as possible?

---

There are US and non-US Fender nut widths and string spacings. The kits normally use non-US spacing hardware, and the Tusq ones you have are probably US spacing which is why there's a difference.

A slight change in string spacing won't affect the tuning pull by any noticeable amount. It's rare enough for a Pit Bull neck to have the tuning holes drilled in a straight line, let alone in exactly the right place to have the strings travel perfectly straight from the nut to the tuners.

The main consideration is whether the nut slot spacing suits the neck. If the E strings don't sit too close to the edge, so that the strings lie on the rounded end of the frets or will be easily pulled/pushed off when you fret a string, or sit too far from the edge of the fretboard, then don't worry about a small difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Groovyman32

I put the ferrules in and clamped the neck in to make sure the bridge is still in the right place. The strings run over the pickups okay when they're mounted in the new pick guard so that all seems good. I noticed there is still very small gap (0.5mm) at the front of the neck pocket (I thought I'd fixed that) - should I attempt to fix this?

---

It's up to you. It will be more a visual thing than anything else. Unless you can machine the end of the pocket and the end of the neck on a CNC machine or a complicated router jig (preferable CNC made), getting the curves to match exactly is nigh-on impossible.

I've used chalk on the end of the neck pocket to mark the touching spots on the end of the neck before, and using that method you can get quite close to a match, but still never perfect. It's very easy to just keep going and then you find your neck is 2mm shorter and the neck pocket 2mm longer and you've still got a 0.5mm gap!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Barden

6) Any neck is already being pulled back into the end of the pocket under string tension with considerable force. Slackening off the neck screw slightly under tension will allow the string tension to move the neck back as far as the neck screws allow. Then re-tighten them. On an electric, you've got a typical total of around 100 pounds/45kg of tension, on a bass, its nearer 200lbs/90kg. Once you've got that much force pulling the neck into the body and you let the screws move as much as possible under that force, then those angled screws really aren't going to be able to do much more at all.

---

This is all I'd do after drilling a proper pilot holes in the neck and clearance holes in the body. My experience has been that the body holes generally need a little enlarging to clear the threads properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Groovyman32

I put the ferrules in and clamped the neck in to make sure the bridge is still in the right place. The strings run over the pickups okay when they're mounted in the new pick guard so that all seems good. I noticed there is still very small gap (0.5mm) at the front of the neck pocket (I thought I'd fixed that) - should I attempt to fix this?

---

It will make no sonic difference, and your pickguard and fretboard extension will make this invisible. I'd leave well enough alone, particularly since everything else appears to be in alignment.

I can't tell you how many times I have created some new problem by trying to solve one that was practically invisible.

Thanks everyone - My bit's and bobs arrived today (including the neck screws) so this evening I enlarged the holes in the body and piloted the neck. A few minutes later the neck was bolted up (it's not really bolted though is it?).

Attachment 40209

I checked the bridge position for a final time before committing to drilling the holes. Then the bridge went on. I even remembered to put in a bridge grounding wire. I checked continuity and all good there.

Attachment 40212

I couldn't resist slapping on the junky strings from the kit (two of which broke under tension) to see where things were.

The top E and G vibrate in the nut but adding some tension behind the nut seems to fix it so string trees are in order.

The nut feels a little high but I'm not sure how to measure that. I don't think the slots need to be any deeper so I guess I can take a little bit off the bottom - but I want to experiment with the spare Graphtec I have.

Without measuring it, the neck relief looks okay.

The saddle height is maxed out so of course, the action is crazy high and the intonation needs work but not a disaster.

Generally it feels good - the neck as some chunk to it (which I like) and it seems to sustain pretty well. I haven't done the "back the screws off under tension" trick yet. It also passes the "Slow dancing..." test #modernstairway.

I'm not going to fiddle with the setup until the electronics are in so next I'm going to shield the cavities and then start wiring.

Attachment 40211

#funtimes

Oh by the way - For anyone in the UK, I've been using https://www.charlesguitars.co.uk/ a lot recently. The prices seem good but they also attempt to minimise packaging by not using the manufacture's boxes for small parts like screws and jack plates - nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Groovyman32

The nut feels a little high but I'm not sure how to measure that. I don't think the slots need to be any deeper so I guess I can take a little bit off the bottom - but I want to experiment with the spare Graphtec I have

---

Taking off from the bottom of the nut has exactly the same effect as deepening the nut slots.

But don't do any of that until you've got the neck relief and action sorted. Get the strings sitting just above the 1st fret with a high action, and when you then lower the bridge saddles or reduce the neck relief, there's a strong chance the strings will now buzz on the 1st fret - which means a new nut.

You can set the action with a capo on the first fret, and check for playability, then adjust the nut height. It's a lot easier to cut the nut slots than keep removing the nut and filing the bottom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Barden

Taking off from the bottom of the nut has exactly the same effect as deepening the nut slots.

---

Thanks - I understood that about half of the string should be above the nut. So once I have a the right depth I should sand the top?

As a minimum, the top of the nut should come to just above half the string height. I find this too low myself (I did try it) as the strings popped out of the slots when I was bending strings. So I file the nut down so the strings are level with the top of the nut.

The main thing you are doing is to reduce the height at the ends where the slots are close to the end. A high nut height here creates a relatively tall narrow lever, which if caught on clothing or something hard, can easily snap the end off the nut. I have done this on a nut I hadn't got round to reducing the height.

Reducing the height both minimises the risk of catching it in the first place and the lever effect, so there's less force on the base of the nut if you do. The inter-string sections are wider and stronger, but obviously you file/sand the whole nut down.

You only get friction where the string touches the nut, so you aren't reducing string friction by doing this, but you are making the nut stronger. Bone nuts can be pretty brittle, and some of the plastic ones aren't much stronger.

Some people like to use a small round file to file down the areas between the slots in the middle, but I prefer not to do that as it weakens the nut by the slots, increasing the risk of breakage and having to do a nut replacement.

Quote:

---

The top E and G vibrate in the nut but adding some tension behind the nut seems to fix it so string trees are in order.

---

Not necessarily. Nine times out of ten string buzz at the nut is a result of improperly cut string slots in the nut. String trees will usually make the buzz go away, but it does not actually address what's causing the problem. Fender just whacks on a string tree as SOP because it's quicker and cheaper than paying for someone to finesse every B & E slot (or G) by hand on every single nut.
The unwound G string is notorious for sonic weirdness, but that's another story...

I have been guilty of this myself and a lot of my strats and teles have string trees. Cutting nut slots is not rocket science but it does take practise to get it right. As I have improved my "nut skills" I do re-work nuts on my guitars if I put one on the bench for more significant maintenance or surgery. On my last two strat builds I have successfully cut the string slots without the need for a tree.

Further what Simon mentioned about string slot depth above (I also find the half depth principle too shallow) my general of thumb is 70% depth of string height for E-A-D; 80% on the G (unwound) and 100% (or flush) with the B & E strings.

In regard to nut action (string action at the nut - slot depth etc) the standard procedure is to depress each string at the third fret and measure the gap from the bottom of the string to the crown of the first fret with a feeler gauge.
The measurements I aim for are: .008" on the E/A; .006" D/G and .004" B/E. Some people set a different height for each string to create a more true radius (eg: .008; .007; 006 so on...) but my stepped method works for me. YMMV.

Of course this step is done after string height from the bridge and neck relief has been set as Simon also pointed out.

Thanks both - I do much prefer the treeless look. With your advice in mind I'll aim to adjust the nut as best I can. Time to order those nut slot files I think.

So my next steps:

- Shielding
- Electronics
- Scratch plate
- Relief
- Action
- Nut
- Intonation

When setting up I normally do relief, action and intonation in that order. But quite often I'll need to do two or three iterations as things move around. It's like balancing a three sided see-saw. But I've not had to adjust a nut before - a four sided see-saw?

As I've said, I'm happy for you to borrow my nut files for a few days if you want. I don't need them at the moment. Obviously getting your own is a good idea, but only really if you plan to work on more guitars.

And talking of nut files, if you use the double-sided V-edge shaped files, rather than the straight-sided individual files, you'd be best not reducing the nut height above the bottom of the frets by too much, as that V-angle will present less resistance to the string popping out when bending near the nut, so a bit of extra height is recommended.

Thanks Simon - and for the offer. I have another guitar in the works and I'd like to make this a long term hobby. So I think it's probably sensible to buy some.

GluedtoMusic do the Hosoc straight ones individually. E.g.

https://www.gluedtomusic.com/product...ing-files-010/

I use 9-42 on all my guitars so I was initially planning to buy these gauges of file:

.010 .016 .024 .032 .042

I think I can use the .010 for both .009 and .011?

~£80 for five seems more palatable than the full set of ten (~£150).

0.010" may be a bit tight for a 0.011" B string, especially if the string is slightly over-sized. Saying that, I use a 0.016" file for my 0.017" G string without issues, so it may work. With the wider slots, you can normally get a folded piece of P400 or P600 in there to tidy things up and widen the slot if necessary, but you'd be hard-pressed to get anything coarser than a folded over piece of P2000 in a 0.010" slot, which makes any widening quite hard work. You don't want the string sticking in the slot because it's too narrow, as that will give tuning problems.

If you always use 9-42s, then I'd go for this set of 6 Hosco files, which are £10 cheaper than your 5 files.

https://www.northwestguitars.co.uk/b...ctric-guitars/

Out of stock at the moment, but worth contacting them to see when they're expected.

I use Uo-Chikyu by Hiroshima Files. The set I have are .010" - .056". They are double edge (same size each side - not V shape).
FWIW, you can easily and safely gain up to a couple of thousandths on each size with the right technique. I will reiterate that practise and experience are important, as with all this stuff.

IMO it's worth buying some cheap nuts off Aliexpress or Amazon just for the purpose of having a go and not worrying if you totally hack it up. And if you don't ruin it, you may just have a nut for another build!

Over the last couple of days I've shielded and wired:

Attachment 40294 Attachment 40295 Attachment 40296

The shielding was okay - I can see why some prefer shielding paint. If you don't get it to lie totally flat then it gets quite sharp! I did manage to cut my fingers to shreds trying to smooth it out.

The wiring went okay though (it's not my first soldering rodeo). I did have to lengthen a couple of wires when loading the scratch plate but no biggie. I removed the shielding from the jack hole as I couldn't avoid the tip of the connecter shorting on the tape. It's such a short distance so I just wrapped the ground around the hot coming from the switch.

<rant>Also, the position of the switch is completely stupid. I've play many LP style guitars over the years and it never occurred to me to think about the circuit. What was Les thinking? On the end of the headstock is the only other more inconvenient place! It makes no sense to put the switch there. It would make way more sense to have it down with the pots. At least someone sensible designed the SG :)</rant>

Anyway, it all worked well straight away. There's no discernible hum - at least in my house connected to an HX Stomp into a computer. Although I don't think P90s are particularly susceptible to it compared to true single coils?

I've been experimenting with the Graphtec nut. It's a much smaller nut (i.e. not tall) so the string height it is way better than the bone nut that came with the kit.

Attachment 40297

The slots for the unwound strings look deep enough. Although the break angle for high E string doesn't seem to be enough for it to track down the back of the nut (string tree?). The wound strings need adjustment but I'm not there's enough room to deepen them before they would be too low.

My files have arrived and I've ordered a bunch of blanks to practice on.

I do seem to have problem on the high E around the 12th fret. Only sometimes, there appears to be a bad rattle - like there's a high fret. I'm not sure what could be causing this to happen only sometimes? String tension perhaps? Having replaced the string it seems to happen a lot less frequently - but more investigation needed I think.

The SD Phat Cats are awesome - really, well, fat! And I'd bought the wrongs knobs as they don't fit the mini CTS pots I have - doh!