Official Luthiers Forum!

While on the topic of fret slots, i decided to put this in a separate thread. I am building a small parlor, to the Scott Antes plan. The drawing calls for a fret board thickness of .190". That seems a bit thin to me, but then there are many things on this smaller bodied guitar that are smaller than listed in teh Cumpiano book, for example.

So for those who have built these, is .190" a good thickness, or should i go for a bit more?

_________________
Phil

http://www.oleninstruments.com

"Those who tilt at windmills are only considered insane by those who can't see the dragon."

Hi, I think that is a good thickness, though it is a "finished" thickness, so you need to figure radiusing and finish sanding into your rough thicknessing.
By the way, the fretboard thickness may be the only part on these plans to be "correct". Scott Antes' plans have the braces, thickness of the top, back & sides, bridge plate, and other parts thicker or larger than they need to be, so consider every dimension with your thinking cap on.
My plans are very old, so you may have a revised one, I haven't seen recent copies of this.

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008907949110

Thanks David, I'll go for that.

My drawing is Rev. W, dated 8-12-10. Not sure which one you have. There is no change block on this drawing so I have no idea which dimensions were updated. Since this is my first guitar, I don't yet have a feel for dimensions, but some seem plenty thin to me.

For example, top is .090, sides .080, back is .08/.09. That is about as thin as I can plane with my belt thickness sander. My planer will go to .125 before the blades hit the base, and the Performax has some belt scraping around .090.

The bridge is rectangular, 6" long, .28" high in the center, tapering to .09 on the ends. is that still a bit beefy? Would be interesting to see which dimensions are on your plan. There is a copyright notice on mine, with dates of 1974, 1998, 2003, and 2006-2010.

_________________
Phil

http://www.oleninstruments.com

"Those who tilt at windmills are only considered insane by those who can't see the dragon."

Hey Spyder,

For what it's worth, I have built two guitars from this plan in the last 12 months. I usually convert to mm for ease, but a .90" thick top is 2.28mm. I have built both of my guitars with 2.5mm thick Sitka spruce tops, and that is about as thin as I'm comfortable going. The tops are plenty lively, and on one of the guitars, you can see the upper portion of the "X" brace printing through the top when strung up. Granted, that is with medium strings on a guitar with a 24.5" scale length. The second guitar (see my current challenge build thread) is strung with lights, and I don't see nearly as much "brace printing" on the top. I don't measure saddle rotation on my builds, but there is definitely some on both of mine. I am very happy with both builds, and both guitars sound great to my ear. You can hear the first of my parlors in my challenge build video from last year here...



You will love the guitar when you are finished with it. All of my top bracing is 1/4".... After having said that, I would certainly heed Todd Stock's advice!

That sounds pretty thin for the top, but you could go a bit thinner on the back and sides if you wanted to. Sounds like your Performax needs a little tuneup, I routinely go to .06" on my Performax 16-32.

_________________
A man hears what he wants to hear, and disreguards the rest. Paul Simon

Todd,

What is 1/4"? Board before radius, center after radius, edges after radius? I figure you mean edge after radius, but just wanted to clear it up.

Thanks!

_________________
Phil

http://www.oleninstruments.com

"Those who tilt at windmills are only considered insane by those who can't see the dragon."