GregP

A patient person could also do some swirly bendy jiggery-pokery with a single fret. (like the fretwaves, but just for the zero fret). Greg

Naturally.

My plan is to simply rout a channel before gluing the top. Greg

According to philosophyforum.com, it's impossible to agree COMPLETELY with something. I've started a thread about it, if you want to check it out. Greg

I didn't realize that tapping a coil was such an involved process. I could have sworn guys just kind of did it in their basements in the 60's. I certainly wouldn't be able to do it myself, mind. Greg

Well that was the initial reason I asked in the first place if he knew. Greg

I agree 99% percent with that. In fact, I was about to add a cheery, "Well that about sums it up!" But it's about the wording of the last phrase. It's not that the two have 'nothing' to do with each other but simply that a zero fret minimizes the change in pitch, compared to poorly crafted nuts that appear on so many commercially available guitars. Therefore, a player may find that with a zero fret, the intonation difficulties inherent in guitars (in general) are minimized to the extent that a compensated nut isn't needed by that particular player. A zero fret doesn't compensate. That much has been proven in this thread; however, in some cases it can accomplish the same goal as a compensated nut, which is to reduce the impact of fretting a note upon a string's pitch. To that extent, the two things are related and therefore have something to do with each other. Greg

It worked! I was like, "what the...? How could he be pissed at bp already??" and of course opened the topic out of morbid curiousity. Greg

Makes sense now that I'm thinking about it. The original laminated blank would be rectangular, and then they'd shape the taper from there. Greg

No, you're not being misunderstood. I already said that there are guitars like that. However, this project here, in this thread, features a guitar with wood that is not proud of the body. I think if you dig through some pictures, you'll find that it's more like 3 mm PLUS the height of the fingerboard, but that's just splitting hairs. Point being, I at least understood what you were saying, but it's not going to happen for this guitar. Greg

what kind of chord is that, Wes? Looks like some sort of inversion.

Hard to tell from the picture, eh? I bet if you call them, they can tell you.

Your neck should be perfectly level before putting on a fretboard. A truss rod is used to counteract the pull of strings, but I wouldn't count on it to correct a piece of wood. Greg

They're the same thing. Even on a guitar with a binding, they'll still measure the entire width at whatever reference fret they're using. If the rest of the body wood is at a 90 degree angle from the fret (ie. the taper isn't just continued) then it'll be that width. Can you tell from the picture if the taper simply continues? Greg

Nice and simple, Hyunsu. I would like to see you develop a more "distinctive" headstock, but that's all. Greg

Impossible! Curse the interweb....

I guess the key word is "compromise". It's a compromise for aesthetic appeal, perhaps? Or structural integrity? Myself, I can count the number of times I've gone past the 17th fret in this past year: once. Greg

The "KXK" logo looks too much like "KKK" on first glance for me to be comfortable. Greg

Yup, excellent original design. The Swamp Ash DOES look better, but having 2 guitars instead of one is a fabulous idea. I should make 2 guitars at once next time. Greg

I thought the word was "fantuish"? Nice-looking project so far. This is the first time I've peeked into this thread. Greg

The way the guitar is made, the neckwood is already level with the body, meaning that the only wood you'll be able to see above the face of the body is the fretboard wood. It won't be enough to avoid recessing the TOM. If the neckwood was already proud of the body, it'd be possible, and there are lots of guitars out there that do this. I find it a bit ugly-looking, but it's possible. However, the builder has already indicated that he'll be recessing the TOM, so he's already aware of the issue and is compensating accordingly. Personally, I really like the look of recessed TOM. Some people see it as a workaround, but I think it actually ends up looking pretty cool, too. Greg

My English degree has finally proven useful.

That guitar has already been the subject of much ridicule. Can't believe you managed to find pictures. Last I heard, it was an e-bay auction, but that was about a year ago! Greg

It makes sense, but you're wrong. The neck, as it stands, does not have a fingerboard, but one will be added. This will have a thickness (likely) of 1/4". Since the neck is straight (ie. no angle), it won't be able to work with a plain mounted TOM. The TOM will have to be recessed in order to get any sort of playable action whatsoever. Just like how... Godin... does it. The alternative is to make the fingerboard very proud of the body, which isn't completely unknown; however, that would require either a fingerboard of bizarre thickness or some sort of extra material between the laminated neck and the fingerboard, which strikes me as not something one would want to do. Plus, as you've pointed out, it'd require making the back of the neck far too thin unless a baseball bat grip is what he's after. So yes, recessing the TOM is the preferred option in the absence of a neck angle. Alternatively, if the parts haven't been ordered yet, he could just get a hardtail strat bridge instead of a TOM. Greg