40's style Gibson 400 Black rear headstock/neck pinstripe, with Dingotone

This has got me stumped.
I bought the ES3 kit, and my intention/ want, is to be able to a achieve a headstock, that is Black at the rear, and tapering down the rear volute, into a pinstrip, that runs down the rear of the neck like a classic Gibson premier super 400.
Attachment 5588

I'll probably put Gold Klusons on it to match.

I was looking at using Dingtone for the rest of the guitars body/neck.....is this possible?

If so, how do I go about doing this, or am I going to have to look at a paint/lacquer finish to achieve this?

Hi Tweaky

The effect you are looking for is achieved by using a veneer on the back of the head stock.

You can get these off e-bay for a few dollars.

The pinstripe requires a channel to be cut down the middle of the neck and the insertion of a wood binding.

WOW!
That is totally NOT what I was expecting to hear.

What sort of veneer are we talking about?
Ebony, Dark Rosewood...it doesn't look like either to be honest.

I can imagine original neck construction having book-matched Tiger maple , using Ebony stripe down the middle as a spline.
Then Gibson, not wanting to show the joint at the headstock, painting the rear Black.

I got given a similar [Super 400 type] guitar when first learning.
Attachment 5589
My widowed mum was going out with a former pro Jazz guitarist.....he & I hit it off.....I later learned he had this under his bed, in the case, under disrepair [he had clobbered somebody with it and had cracked the side :rolleyes:].... I paid to get it fixed.....he said it cost me more than he paid for it back in 1958, so I might as well keep it.....which I did, until it got stolen.

Tommy Emmanual gave me the history of Levin guitars in Aus, he said they were imported by Nicklesons Music, and that Levin was actually a Swedish based subsidiary of Martin Guitars, that made Archtops for the AMERICAN MARKET.

You can see a well know photo of Django Reinhardt playing the exact same guitar on his only US Tour.
Attachment 5590

Long story, but sort of explains my love for Achtops....you can get any sound you want out of them by just changing where you pick/strum.

It is possible that Gibson may have painted the Headstock but to get a quality finish you will want to apply a thin veneer. Ebony would be more expensive than Rosewood, but nothing stops you dyeing the rosewood black before attaching it to the headstock. The reason for the 'skunk' stripe on Fender guitars was to seal the channel that they cut to insert the truss rod.

The Gibson Super 400 was first sold in 1934 and named for its $400 price.

The Super 400 was the largest guitar that the Gibson produced. Until 1939, it had a hand-engraved tailpiece and a hand-engraved finger rest support. During the very early production stock the truss rod cover had engraved "L5 Super"; on later guitars this was changed to "Super 400".

In 1939 the guitar was changed. The upper bout was enlarged, and the hand-engraved tailpiece was replaced with the one fitted to the current Super 400s. The f-holes were enlarged, and a cutaway option was available. This was called the Super 400P (for Premiere), later changed to C for Cutaway.

During the 1950s, Gibson released the Super 400 CES. This had a slightly thicker top to reduce feedback, two P-90 pickups, and individual tone and volume controls, along with a three-way toggle switch. Later the P-90 pickups were replaced with Alnico V pickups, then in 1957, humbucking pickups.

I'm not doubting you...it's I'm just trying to envision the black Gibson headstocks I've run across before.....they weren't exactly uniform in construction/presentation come to think about it.

Actually, If you watch "It Might Get LOUD"......You will see J/Page play a Black headstocked Gibson when playing 'In my time of Dying'.....WTF the model is???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m9tDkic_GM
Nothing I can identify 100%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tweaky

Actually, If you watch "It Might Get LOUD"......You will see J/Page play a Black headstocked Gibson when playing 'In my time of Dying'.....WTF the model is???
Nothing I can identify 100%

---

I think it's his Gibson Custom Shop ES-350...

I think Gav's right - it looks to me like it's a three piece neck - may have originally been a single piece of maple, but a piece of something else (I'm guessing rosewood from Gav's photo), but given it was made in an era when there would be more than enough of everything to do whatever you wanted in the world (i.e., pre CITES), it could easily have been ebony.

In terms of doing it - I think your options are...
1. Paint - finish the sanding, etc of the neck then mask everything that doesn't need to be black and spray - would be fairly straightforward, but may not be authentic / exact - still - would look pretty close;
2. Ebony headstock veneer - from memory ~$20 from Carbatec. You'll need to thin out the back of the headstock enough that when you add a couple of mm of veneer (headstock veneers are thicker than standard veneer at ~3mm) you can still get the tuners working properly. You could then paint the skunk stripe down the back to get the overall effect... Overall wouldn't be easy or quick - depending on skill level it may be safer to go with #1 as there is real risk in going down this path of damaging (i.e., junking) the neck unless you know what you're doing.
3. Rebuild the neck - by the time you've taken the fingerboard off, truss rod out (and put a brand new one in - you're going this far, why skimp on a truss rod), cut the neck in two, inserted a veneer for the stripe, put a new slotted fingerboard on (you'll have damaged the original), etc, etc, etc, it would be safer to build a new neck with the stripe in it - certainly not for the faint hearted and not an easy job...

They certainly are three piece necks..

You won't be able to do it with DT, so my thoughts are you would be best to mask it up and paint it.

As for building a whole new neck, it is doable with the right tools and know how.........

Yeah.....It seem more a scratch build neck to get the result.
Bookmatched Tiger maple neck [not overly so, as Tiger Maple isn't the best for this use....the bigger the Flame, the more unstable it is apparently...don't know if roasting it [ as some are doing] actually helps....suspect it would dry it out too much, and cause fragility.

A Ebony trussrod spline, running down the middle [if you have seen these old Achtops], they go Mahogany sides for the neck, maple strip/Ebony spline/Maple strip, Mahogany , was I suspect a method used prior to the development of the truss rod, and just carried on as a neck construction method.
{My Levin Deluxe 400 carved Archtop had no trussrod ], ....well it had some sort of metal thing barely visible running out from under the neck, at the body joint, you had to stick your finger in there to actually know it was there....what it actually did....I have no idea, even after all these years.
You see it in Classic Strombergs and De Angelico builds, right up until the 60's built like this.

Anyway.
I've received the last of all my kit's yesterday......on the whole I'm impressed with the body construction.....a few minor issues....but I know how to sort all but one [I'll photo and ask advice on the problem...slight Ply splitting at neck joint, more a finish problem].......3 different kits will keep me going, and if I space the builds out, I will not be in a hurry to get any one finished soon, which should get better results long term, finish wise, if using Dingtone

Totally OT:
I picked up a new release movie at JB today that I have been waiting to be released, it's called Rudderless...recommended.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puOUO2T1H6o

First time I have heard of Flamed Maple being unstable...
I would say the opposite as the flaming is caused by the tree growing big and the weight of the crown actually compresses the trunk.
This and the tree slowly rotating as it follows the sun creates flames and quilt in the timber.
Add these things and then quarter cut the log and you end up with timber that is very stable as well as being very pleasing to look at.
Then when building the neck, if you go for a laminated construction it should not move too much at all.

Well there you go, that's the funny thing about the internet, differing information on the same topic.

Have look yourself, just Google 'flame maple less stable for guitar neck building' and you'll get plenty to read.
https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=cr...+neck+building

Not that I have any first hand knowledge, it just came up in a search result one day when I was looking at getting a replacement Strat neck custom built.

It certainly looks nice anyway, and any guitar built with a flame maple neck would most likely out live it's owner anyway , so I suppose it's all moot in the end.

As for building a neck from scratch...well I honestly think I could do it, if I had the correct tools, and more importantly, the space to do it in....I envy you Dingobass, being able to quietly work away building beautiful creations out of raw materials, then after completion, being able to stand back, and having the satisfaction of being able to say, I BUILT THAT ! :)

Is there a sort of heart break when they leave the workshop?
I imagine there would be, if it was me.

As for doing the wanted finish on the ES-3, it won't happen.
There is just too much work to be done to the neck to make it look the part....the most problematic would be to add girth to the rear of the headstock, down towards near the nut, reshaping the taper of the volute, so it matches a Gibson...I'll post comparison photos of the ES-3 and my Gibson headstock when I start my ES-3 build, so you will see what I mean.....as the kit stands as a replica of a Gibson....it's had too much material taken off around the end of the headstock/tapering to nut....again, you'll see the difference in the photos .

Don't think this is a complaint, it's just a observation, as I have original guitars at hand to directly compare them against.

Hi Teeaky, as mentioned previously the factory would be breaching copyright to make exact replicas of these famous brand of guitars. Hence we expect that there will be differences as our models are only based on these famous models.

Yeah, it is hard to let them go but they go to peeps who treasure them so thats a consolation..

I hear what you are saying about the kit necks vs the real deal.
It comes down to ease of manufacture as well as steering clear of any potential heat from the big name companies... They do protect their intellectual property with vigor..
Gibson, Rickenbacker and co spend more money on this than they do on R&D these days... Hence nothing new other than a few fancy gizmos has come out of their factories for the past two decades or more..
Pity that really, Gibson could have at the very least fixed the design fault with the LP, SG & FV headstocks breaking on a regular basis.... But then guys like me would lose a lot of repair work so I shouldn't complain :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gavin1393

Hi Teeaky, as mentioned previously the factory would be breaching copyright to make exact replicas of these famous brand of guitars. Hence we expect that there will be differences as our models are only based on these famous models.

---

Just a suggestion.
It seems you can "Partially" get away with copying certain design elements, without breach of copyright, it seems the Headstock being the problem.
Since headstock templates are available online to be easily downloaded to replicate the END of the headstock [which are the copyrighted portions], the need to choose between the end of headstock [copyright] and headstock to nut tapering/shaping has, IMHO, been skewered the wrong way.
My ES-1 Kit neck has the classic [copyrighted] Gibson end of neck Tulip shape, but differs at the neck joint....as a guitar builder, which is more important?, the neck/body joint, or legal troubles because of headstock copying?....fix the neck joint, leave the headstock flat so purchasers can sort it themselves......[neck joint problem with my kit]...I'll post photos.:rolleyes:

The ES-3 has a flat headstock end [so design away], but the taper of the neck differers considerably from the headstock to the nut.
I don't think that has been copyrighted, as it's a matter of structural integrity of the neck [I know, Gibson and Neck headstock structural integrity shouldn't be used in the same sentence ]
The ES-3 Kit has one particular bigger problem than that though [actually several-needs a construction rethink as a kit] .....I'll take some photos and show you....it is particularly bad, and quite frankly, I'm surprised it's sent out as is for people to build.
[It's where the body meets the neck at the LOW E side, there is a gap of about 1/1.5mm ]
I used some lateral thinking, and have thought about doing some slight Internal modifications, and glue a small block of wood under the guitars top, so it can be clamped against the fixed neck, when it comes time to do so, thereby closing that space....there is plenty of space to fit a small clamp inside the body that would do the job

Just a guess until you post pics but the gap is there to give some wriggle room in order to ensure the neck and bridge can be lined up.

Also, for the price you kinda have to expect to do some cosmetic adjustments.. Its all part of the fun of building a kit Guitar :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tweaky

The ES-3 Kit has one particular bigger problem than that though [actually several-needs a construction rethink as a kit] .....I'll take some photos and show you....it is particularly bad, and quite frankly, I'm surprised it's sent out as is for people to build.
[It's where the body meets the neck at the LOW E side, there is a gap of about 1/1.5mm ]
I used some lateral thinking, and have thought about doing some slight Internal modifications, and glue a small block of wood under the guitars top, so it can be clamped against the fixed neck, when it comes time to do so, thereby closing that space....there is plenty of space to fit a small clamp inside the body that would do the job

---

Tweaky, I'm really not sure how much experience you have with building guitars - particularly those that come in kit form. (I'm not referring to the forum user who puts the guitar together but the manufacturer who provides it).
But for your benefit and perhaps those who perhaps are less aware of the manufacturing process there are some things that need to be taken into account and investigated before suggesting a kit has a problem with its design.

There is the key issue of humidity to consider. With a hollow body this is even more important since wood continues to 'breathe' and adjust to the humidity of the geographical area that it finds itself in. For this reason serious builders of guitars will always try and control the humidity around them at between 40 - 50%. This is essential when gluing up a guitar too as if the humidity causes the wood to expand too much the glued up joints will weaken and tear apart. You will often see this on an acoustic guitar where the soundboard has 'split' right down the middle line. An acoustic guitar/ hollow body built in Mt Tamborine in Queensland will 'bulge' when it arrives in Perth Western Australia unless the builder is extremely careful with the build process and controls the humidity while building.
So, when building a guitar for a different climates there has to be wider tolerances, especially when unprotected (unpainted) wood is being shipped all over the world. Since we know the wood can be affected by the humidity and typically swell or shrink slightly, you will find that by design there is a small gap between the neck pocket and the guitar neck when you dry fit.
I am currently in the final stages of building the ES-3 and the gap you refer to was there initially on my guitar, however, I know that this is not a problem because I'm painting the guitar and I will be gluing in the neck with Hide Glue. This is the next point, once the guitar is painted, the thickness of the applied coats combined with the Hide Glue will usually completely cover up that gap. Of course when I do apply my glue to fit the neck to the body I will make sure the humidity is right otherwise I can expect cracks to appear unless I fluked the right humidity when I glued up.

I agree with the Gavmiester.
Humidity is a massive issue when building and finishing a Guitar.

During our hot and dry Perth summers I have an evaporative cooler running in the workshop in an effort to maintain that magic 40-50% humidity... This can be a challenge at times...

Then I have the drama of lowering the humidity to 20-30% during winter before I apply any form of finish, whether it is DT or Nitro...

Ergo, with our kits (we have sold thousands of them) there are tolerances built in at the factory to allow for the home builder, regardless of location, to successfully build their Guitar.

I am sure that by the time you get to the final construction stage that you will find everything will fit together in a satisfactory way.

So I should get in the good books of my mate who works in a warehouse that can control temperature and humidity from 0% to 100% (to the point that they can create fog) :P

Perhaps I have come across as too opinionated,.....the internet seems to highlight & twist what was originally a question, into an opinion.
A loathsome effect.

Please wait until I take photos and post them before any further replies in this thread.....should be in the next day or so.