avengers63

Alright - I'll connect the switch directly to the jack and work my way through the controls.

The ground from the switch is cut, but still no sound. The ground runs to the inner sleeve of the jack, the hot to the tip.

Check out the "Other Woodworking" thread in "Off Topics Chat".

Something is all monkeyed up with the wiring I did today. I triple-checked the wiring, and it all looks right, but it isn't making a sound. Here's a couple of pics of the wiring cavity. PLEASE tell me what you think it might be. Hardware right angle 3-position switch 1 volume pot 1 tone pot mono output jack 2 P-90 pickups From the angle of the pics, here's what's going on: Hot Wires Bridge pup wire runs around perimeter of control cavity. Lead wire to bridge pole of 3P switch. Neck pup wire runs behind 3P switch. Lead wire to neck pole of 3P switch. Both pup wires are held down with black electrical tape. Interior poles of 3P switch soldered together. Attached wire connected to pole 3 of volume pot. Pole 3 of volume pot to pole 1 of tone pot. Pole 2 of tone pot to cap to back of pot. Pole 2 of volume pot to outer ring of jack. Ground Wires Outside braid of both pup wires to volume pot case. Ground pole of 3P switch to volume pot case. Pole 1 of volume pot to volume pot case. Volume pot case to tone pot case. Bridge to tone pot case. Tone pot case to inner sleeve of input jack. So.... what's wrong?

It's all been buffed out and polished up. The shellac shined up really nice. BUT.... Before I post any pics of the whole thing, there's a problem. I triple-checked the wiring, and it all looks right, but it isn't making a sound. Here's a couple of pics of the wiring cavity. PLEASE tell me what you think it might be. Hardware right angle 3-position switch 1 volume pot 1 tone pot mono output jack 2 P-90 pickups From the angle of the pics, here's what's going on: Hot Wires Bridge pup wire runs around perimeter of control cavity. Lead wire to bridge pole of 3P switch. Neck pup wire runs behind 3P switch. Lead wire to neck pole of 3P switch. Both pup wires are held down with black electrical tape. Interior poles of 3P switch soldered together. Attached wire connected to pole 3 of volume pot. Pole 3 of volume pot to pole 1 of tone pot. Pole 2 of tone pot to cap to back of pot. Pole 2 of volume pot to outer ring of jack. Ground Wires Outside braid of both pup wires to volume pot case. Ground pole of 3P switch to volume pot case. Pole 1 of volume pot to volume pot case. Volume pot case to tone pot case. Bridge to tone pot case. Tone pot case to inner sleeve of input jack. So.... what's wrong?

You're paying attention. Nice.

So you are trying to say you have never drank too much liqour and puked on your guitar? If you yacked on your guitar, I doubt it'd matter what it's finished with. Stomach acids and digestive juices are pretty dang corrosive.

And I'm looking forward to a maple strat neck, byed blue with white star markers. Let's shoot for January. I'll email you after Christmas.

Any of the film finishes (shellac, lacquer, poly) are available in cans to be brushed on. I don't own any spray equipment, so I speak from experience in saying that brushing the finish on works just fine. The main drawback that I've found is that it takes more effort to level the finish before buffing it out. Consider this: Buying aerosol cans of finish will take 3-6 cans at +/- $3.50 each and you'll have nothing but empty cans when you're done. One quart of finish and a can of solvent will be $15-$20, but you'll have 90% of the can left over. Poly & lacquer both come in matte & gloss. Poly is gloss by default but is matte when buffed out with steel wool. Sure it would. But... why would you be dousing your guitar in alcohol? That seems like an extremely avoidable thing. There's always the possibility of someone in a bar spilling their beer on your ax, but even THAT is unlikely.

No offense taken. From your posts I can tell that even were it worded badly, your intent would not be to offend. It'd have to be really over the top for me to get mad over your opinions. The woods for this are sapele wings with a maple & bubinga center. He told me what the neck was made from, but I don't remember. Honestly, I don't particularly care. My concern is that it's a bolt-on with the industry standard heel. The neck shelf on this body isn't finished, so that may be why it looks bulky. I have it in my head what the bevels will look like with the carve, but I SUCK with the drawing programs so it'd be a real chore to show it to you. Personally, I think it'll look like poo. But again, if that's what he wants, he's the one paying for it.

Shellac is SUPER easy to use, cures fast, and can go anywhere from barely there & feel the wood to a thick barrier. The only two drawbacks I've seen so far is that it doesn't sand well when leveling and it's the least durable of the film finishes.

I took a ruler & notepad to the store before I got started on this thing. An SG is 1 1/2" thick. The bevels go in 1/2" on the sides, leaving a 1/2" shelf around the perimeter. This adds to the feeling of a very thin body. This particular blank ended up just over 1 7/8" thick. I made the lip around the edge at the 1 1/2" mark. That leaves a 3/8"+ carve thickness. Right now, I'm waiting to hear back from him. I want an additional confirmation to go ahead with the bevels.

I didn't want to tell anyone about this or post any pictures until I was sure I could pull it off. A couple months ago, I was contacted by a dude who wanted a carved top PRS body with a couple of contrasting stringers routed for TV Jones pups. We talked a bit and he eventually decided that he really wanted an SG Diablo, but with the same specs. I told him that there was no way I could pull off an accurate Diablo, but I could to a carved top SG. He wanted the traditional SG bevels on it as well. Yea... that's what I thought too. A full carved top but with bevels on the edges. But if that's what he wants.... http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff15/av...20top/wip01.jpg http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff15/av...20top/wip02.jpg http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff15/av...20top/wip03.jpg http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff15/av...20top/wip04.jpg http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff15/av...20top/wip05.jpg Looking at it without the bevels, it actually doesn't look that bad. I was really not enthused about the prospect of a carved top SG, but seeing it, it's not bad at all. I'm still not liking the idea of combining it with the bevels, but again, it's not my ax. On the good side, I'm getting a LOT better with my carves.

My workshop is in the basement. The furnace & water heater are in there, so the room warm in the winter, but not adversely so. Infortunately, the sump pump is in a drain hole in teh corner. There is a semi-open connection to the water/sewer lines somewhere, and during extreme rains there is the possibility of flooding. I'm not sure what this does to the humidity, but it's the most stable option I have.

I wouldn't want to grainfill with shellac. It's not because it wouldn't eventually do it, it's because it doesn't sand well. It loads up the paper very quickly. On the good side, shellac will stick to any other finish that's put over it. On the other hand, sanding sealer has a detergent in it which makes it easier to sand and NOT load up the paper. The drawback is that the detergent can cause issues with finishes sticking to it. Disclaimer: I haven't followed those links and read anything. I now work on a USAF computer and their nrtwork is locked down pretty hard. I'm surprised (and grateful) that I can get to this board. If it's a real tung oil, and you grainfill with sealer/shellac, the oil will NEVER get into the wood. An oil needs to penetrate, and if the wood is sealed, it can't do that. That being said, many of the products labled as "tung oil" are really an oil/varnish mix, otherwise known as a wiping varnish. THOSE will build up a protective layer, unlike a genuine oil. They may be OK to use over a sealed wood, but I personally wouldn't want to risk wasting my time with it. Good luck determining what you actually have - they don't lable it accurately. Flexner goes into a LOT more detail on what is and isn't a tung oil or a wiping varnish. I'm only summarizing what he has detailed in his book.

I just LOVE it when something comes up here that I genuinely know what I'm talking about. There's such a high knowledge level held my some folks here that it's easy to feel like a goofus. Add that I'm still in my rookie year... I'm just glad to be able to really help with something once in a while.

I read here that you can get Tru-Oil at Wal-Mart in the gun section. I can't verify this. I've used shellac on a number of woodworking projects, including the neck of the Avenger prototype. I've used clear, not amber. I have seen no added coloration whatsoever. With the exception of the appearance differences of the various finishes, I've seen no visual difference in the wood itself. In a nutshell, they all have the same "wet" look under one finish as another. Real oil (not Tru-Oil) is a very poor as a finish. It does NOTHING to seal and protect the wood. Personally, I'd never use an oil for anything... ever. But that's me. Shellac is a film finish, meaning that it builds up a protective film on the top of the wood. The initial coat of ANY film finish does a great job of sealing the wood, so no additional sealer is necessary. In cases like this, though, it is sometimes beneficial. For long term use, shellac is the least durable of any of the film finishes. It does it's job just fine, but will not withstand the abuse that lacquer will, which in turn does not hold up as well as poly. For ease of use & application, it's a LOT easier to use that lacquer or poly. The next coat "melts" into the previous, just like lacquer. It cures a LOT faster, though. The first coat is good to go the next day. If applying multiple coats, you can re-apply in a few hours. When building up a thick finish, you can start to buff it out inside a week, as opposed ot the 3-4 weeks lacquer takes. The feel and look is similar to lacquer. The thicker it is, the glassier it feels. I've used it a number of times just putting on a thick first coat, then buffing it out with steel wool & giving it a wipe-down with mineral spirits. The wood has a basic protection and looks finished, but you can still feel all of the wood's texture & grain. I've also used it thicker, and it buffs out just fine. The only thing I can't comment on is it's long-term use on guitar bodies & necks. Personally, I think it'd be a GREAT finish on a neck if used like I described above, with one thick coat that's buffed out. The neck wood would be sealed, but would feel nice & slick.

I have no experience in oil over sanding sealer. I've only used it with lacquer & poly. Remembering what Flexner has said in his book, I would say that it wouldn't work well. Oils need to penetrate. The sealer, well... seals the wood, thus preventing penetration. I understand the point about sanding it back so that it's only in the pores, but I still wouldn't risk it. There is a realistic possibility that you might leave a little behind. I'd guess that that'd leave a blotchy finish. That being said, he describes Tru-Oil not as an oil finish, but as a polymerized oil, which (IIRC) is more akin to a poly/oil blend. That might mean that the sealer would be OK under Tru-Oil, but I still wouldn't risk it. FWIW: If you're looking for a smooth, natural feeling finish, give shellac a shot. Fill the grain and then give a coat or three of shellac, buffing with steel wool after each coat. The wood will be sealed & protected, but will be very slick & satiny.

Is that a question or a statement?

Vox V-847A Personally, I HATE the Dunlop Wah. I don't feel it has a very broad range. It seems to stop halfway through the "wah".

I usually take the wood up to 150 before starting the sealing/filling process. After the sanding sealer is on, I'll sand it back with 150, or whatever grit I stopped at. As a "head's up": the first coat of anything will raise the grain. After the liquid dries, the surface will be very rough. You can eliminate this by raising the grain beforehand and lightly sanding the surface. FWIW: I've never bothered to raise the grain first, and my finishes hace always turned out fine. I just make sure to sand it down after the first coat.

That looks really nice. I scavenge a lot of pieces myself.

Well, I DID say that I couldn't read it at work. For some reason, I had a completely different picture of cabling in my head - thick wires like on bridge supports and whatnot. given the context of this board, there's NO reason to have gone there. I must be more tired than I thought.

I can't read it at work. There was an article in one of my guitar mags recently about scale length. I don't remember exactly how it went, but basically the same thickness of string (wire) will sound differently on a short scale than it will on a longer one. Then consider playing an F on the 1st string/1st fret, then play an F on the 2nd string/6th fret, 3rd string/11th fret, etc. The pitch is the same, but they sound different. So yes, wire thickness directly effects tone. The thicker the string, the "meatier" the tone, and the thinner the string, the "brighter" the tone.

I'll do the most of the work with an angle grinder and a 40 or 60 grit flap wheel. After that I'll do the final shaping with some 40-grit on a random orbit sander, then work my way up through the grits to 100. From there I can sand the whole body.