Official Luthiers Forum!

So after reading reviews and looking at various binding jigs available, I finally settled on the guitarjigs.com binding jig. I called to place an order, but they had a message that no new orders were being taken and that they weren't taking phone calls as they have a new baby (Congrats, Mark!). The website just says that the current session is fully booked and to check back later.

So, does anyone who's done business with him in the past know how often he actually accepts new orders? I knew I'd have to wait, but I figured there would at least be a waiting list.

Anyone interested in selling theirs?

Since in the past this has opened into a discussion into what kind of binding jigs everyone is using, here are the reasons I decided on this one.
1.) Small size, can be stashed in a drawer
2.) No micro adjust, just different bearing sizes to set the desired cut depth.

I notice that in a lot of these binding jig threads, people have referenced their binding jigs as working on the same principal as the guitarjigs binding jig, which isn't really the case. With most of the jigs that register off the side of the guitar, you have to keep the jig exactly perpendicular to the sides to get a consistent width of cut. On the guitarjig one, the bearings are centered on the same axis as the router bit, so no matter which way you hold the jig, you're cutting the same depth. I'm sure these other jigs work fine for a lot of folks, but it's a pretty different design concept.

I'm still working on the gramil and chisel method just because I want to know how to do it... I just know I won't want to do it on every guitar.

_________________
______________________________
Jonathan Kendall, Siloam Springs AR

Almost any system you use the bearing or bearings will be in the same axis as the router bit. The main thing is how the router indexes this axis. if your sides are rippled this jig works no beter than ones that the router rides on the top or back. For me I find hand held workd better in some cutaways I use this setup


MichaelP38992.5779976852

The router bit axis would be parallel to the edge of the bearing guide, but the axis of the bearing guide (or UHMW guide or whatever depending on the jig) has to move in and out as you adjust the width of the cut, so it can't share the same axis. The cut's going to be more shallow if you don't hold the guide perpendicular to the outside perimeter edge of the top (if you're looking down on the top of the guitar). letseatpaste38992.5916782407

_________________
______________________________
Jonathan Kendall, Siloam Springs AR

Yes it is parallel I knew that but so are the bearing guides on the Guitarjig fixture. The big difference is on the guitrjigs fixture you move the guitar body around the fixture as opposed to moving the router around the guitar body. They both use two bearing to index the sides. Just the guitar jigs bearings are machined dumb bells and do not rotate and your working horizontal not verticalMichaelP38992.6135532407

Not trying to be an agitator here... :)

It's hard to describe in text what I'm talking about, so I did a couple sketches to illustrate.

As far as working horizontal or vertical, presenting the tool to the guitar or the guitar to the tool... All that is relative and doesn't really matter. I'm concerned about the geometry of how the tool actually interacts with the guitar body to cut a consistent channel.

So here's the standard type of handheld jig, where you use a micro-adjust type device to move the guide to set your depth of cut. As you can see from the illustration, if you hold the guide at an angle that's not perpendicular to the side of the guitar, the cut is more shallow.


And here's the Guitar Jigs style, where you adjust by changing out the bearing "dumbbells" that are different diameters, but they share the same axis as the router bit. With this design, no matter what angle you hold the handle/guide at, it will make a consistent width binding channel.

_________________
______________________________
Jonathan Kendall, Siloam Springs AR

I get your point. the failure to maintain the alignment on an adjustable bearing set up will cause this issue if you allow the bearing guide to get out of alignment but to me this would then be my error not the tools. Yes it could be defined as a flaw of the tool. But also as a lack of knowledge of the tool by the operator. Anyway a simple piloted bit does what you are demonstrating on your sketches except it only indexes on one point on the side as opposed to two points on the guitarjigs fixture. I know the inherent flaw in an adjustable guide system and work properly with it. however buy the same token someone new to routing may not realize that if you loose contact with either guide end on the guitarjigs fixture that you will taper cut the channel. Both cases would be the failure to not know and understand the tools usage. i am not knoking either. Just showing both sides of the coin.MichaelP38992.6567708333

Right, I just think the guitarjigs method is a little more foolproof that way. I also think it could be tricky in a tight cutaway to keep the other one arranged perpendicular to the sides exactly right. Mainly, I wanted to point out that there are pretty significant design concept differences with the Guitar Jigs one.

If space weren't an issue for me, I'd do the Williams Fleishman jig as that seems to me to be the most versatile.

_________________
______________________________
Jonathan Kendall, Siloam Springs AR

Hesh, my thing a ma jigger was built having the Luthier tool in mind and it does exactly what you saw on the video, don't fear on the next build bud, use it!

I didn't mean to disparage Luthiertool or that style of binding jig in any way, just wanted to point out the design difference between the two. I have the Luthiertool slotted headstock jig and while I've not used it yet, I'm very impressed by the quality of it.

_________________
______________________________
Jonathan Kendall, Siloam Springs AR

Jon, I understood that from the get go. I personally think the GuitarJigs fixture is super. Let possible error, for sure. I like my Luthierstool guide very much as well

You are right however, If you do not keep an adjustable guide system in proper alignment you will under cut. This is most noticeable in the lower bout , waist and cutaways because it is difficult to maintain the alignment there if you try to move to fast. i also suggest if you use an adjustable guide that you make a second pass before removing the router just in case you got out of alignment.

Hey Paste, John Hall makes a nice one!

_________________
http://www.presnallguitars.com

Jon, thanks for pointing this out. I hadn't realized the difference in the Guitar jigs design, wonder if this is the exact same design Larrivee uses, and if it's the same the Taylor uses, I bet you it is.

This sure would eliminate the need to go round' a second time to get any "missed" sections.

Great drawings to, they really help explain the difference in the two designs.

I do have a side indexing jig, similar to the guitar jigs design, however, having seen the differences in the two, I'm temped to see what it would cost me to have some "dumb bells" turned for me and to create the exact same type of jig. Hummmmmmmmm

_________________
My Facebook Guitar Page

"There's really no wrong way, as long as the results are what's desired." Charles Fox

"We have to constantly remind ourselves what we're doing....No Luthier is putting a man on the moon!" Harry Fleishman

"Generosity is always different in the eye of the person who didn't receive anything, but who wanted some." Waddy Thomson

I was wondering if anyone has ever tried routing binding channels before gluing on a top or back, and if one could find a way to make that work. A flat board on the rims to use as a router platform seems very tempting.

On my first guitar I just used a bosch router with a simple rabbet guide that left an unfortunate bearing groove I had to sand out...not fun. But in the end I made it work and am happy with it. On this next one I hope to improve my methods and I love simplicity. All the complicated jigs I've checked out seem beyond my meager financial reach now. I like that porter cable guide though. I wonder if they make one for bosch too. nickton38993.2021064815

_________________
"Preoccupation with an effect gives it power and enhances the error"
from "Your Owner's Manual" by Burt Hotchkiss.

[QUOTE=Rod True] I'm temped to see what it would cost me to have some "dumb bells" turned for me and to create the exact same type of jig. Hummmmmmmmm [/QUOTE]

This may turn out to be a dangerous thread for me. I just had a new shed/storage building delivered yesterday, and I was thinking last night that I could get one of those Harbor Freight or Grizzly mini-lathe/mill combo machines, or just a separate mini-lathe and a mini-mill. Then I could turn my own bearing guides and work out other jig ideas I've had. I spent a few hours digging around on mini-lathe.com last night, pretty fun site if you have any interest in machining.

_________________
______________________________
Jonathan Kendall, Siloam Springs AR

Yes, the luthertool one will not cut to the full width if you don't hold it perpindicular to the tangent of the curve, but in my book that's a plus. I make several quick passes, slowly moving into the full width, by first holding the router at a slant, then moving it perpindicular. This way the final cut is just taking a tiny bit of wood off, and I minimize tear out. That sounds complicated and fussy, but it really isn't. Watch the videos, you move the router along smartly.

I like how this system is infinitely adjustable for depth and width, as opposed to the dumbbell system that requires tape for fine tuning.

I just glue up a 2" length of extra binding and purfling to get the final dimensions (using super glue), and use that to set the bit depth and cutting width. Very fast and easy - I like it.

[QUOTE=nickton]   I was wondering if anyone has ever tried routing binding channels before gluing on a top or back, and if one could find a way to make that work. A flat board on the rims to use as a router platform seems very tempting.

On my first guitar I just used a bosch router with a simple rabbet guide that left an unfortunate bearing groove I had to sand out...not fun. But in the end I made it work and am happy with it. On this next one I hope to improve my methods and I love simplicity. All the complicated jigs I've checked out seem beyond my meager financial reach now. I like that porter cable guide though. I wonder if they make one for bosch too. [/QUOTE]

Seems impossible to ever get the side channel properly lined up with the remaining channel in the top or back. then you compound that with any purfling channeling. I just see too many problems and no real benefits.

I'm sure you're right about that one. I think I've been spinning my wheels too much trying to avoid something that scares me.

_________________
"Preoccupation with an effect gives it power and enhances the error"
from "Your Owner's Manual" by Burt Hotchkiss.

[QUOTE=MichaelP] I get your point. the failure to maintain the alignment on an adjustable bearing set up will cause this issue if you allow the bearing guide to get out of alignment but to me this would then be my error not the tools. Yes it could be defined as a flaw of the tool. But also as a lack of knowledge of the tool by the operator. Anyway a simple piloted bit does what you are demonstrating on your sketches except it only indexes on one point on the side as opposed to two points on the guitarjigs fixture. I know the inherent flaw in an adjustable guide system and work properly with it. however buy the same token someone new to routing may not realize that if you loose contact with either guide end on the guitarjigs fixture that you will taper cut the channel. Both cases would be the failure to not know and understand the tools usage. i am not knoking either. Just showing both sides of the coin.[/QUOTE]

This is an interresting post and I thought about it for quite awhile. The purpose of a jig is to reduce the number of degrees of freedom of the cutter. It is often insightful to look at extremes so consider cutting a binding channel with an x-acto knife. One could argue that imperfections in the binding channel were the fault of the user. (Not counting the one where he decided to cut a binding channel with an X-acto knife). On the other extreme, One could imagine some industrial jig that can cut the binding channel for the top of a Martin OM and requires another jig to do the back or a Drednaught. I have no idea how such a jig could be built but let's suppose that one can be made. This jig has almost all degrees of freedom removed from it.

From a practical matter a jig should reduce the degrees of freedom but leave enough flexibility to be useful for most of the situations that actually come up. The adjustable jig shown above pays for its adjustablity by allowing for the user to mis-cut the channel. The GuitarJigs jig does not have this flaw but you lose a certain amount of adjustibility. It too, along with the Williams jig, has problems with depth since it indexes off of the top from a position slightly offset from the actual bit and arched tops cause a problem. Here the problem is that that jig has reduced the degrees of freedom in a way that doesn't match the requirements of the job. In most cases, this error is acceptable or correctable.

Personally, I have poor fine motor control. That means that I need to use a lot of jigs and to have those jigs have the minimal number of degrees of freedom. Just because I know that I have to keep the jig perpendicular to the side, doesn't mean that I'm physically capable of doing it.