Official Luthiers Forum!

Most books, DVD's etc. seem to favor completing the binding of the back or top in a single gluing session.
Wouldn't it make sense to glue the bindings in stages?
For instance: glue and tape a part of the waist only, let the glue dry before gluing and taping another small section. Except for the time involved, wouldn't this method help prevent gaps?

Ray

Actually, I think doing it this way would increase the possibility of gaps. See, once the glue drys, you will have a harder time pulling back the binding nearest the hardened glue to get more glue in there, which may cause some gaps. I could be wrong though.

I really doesn't take much to do it all in one shot. Once you get the channels cut, binding, if simple binding scheme (ie, no cut-away or side purflings) can take about 10-15 mins per side. So you really can do it all in one shot.

_________________
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 agree with rod, with the addition that the only other time i think it is beneficial to do binding in separate sessions is when using shell purflings and the teflon specers are used to hold the shell space, then removed when the glue is dry and the shell inlaid in its place.

I (also) think it works better to glue the binding on 'all at once' ie one side at a time if you are using 32" binding strips. If you are using Titebond-type glue you have a fair bit of working time.

If you don't want to do that, there's always the option of taping the bindings on 'dry' and then wicking in CA glue. Lots of info on that method can be found in the archives/MIMF library, etc, though I'm not fond of it myself.

John

Generally I'd say all at once too. The exception might be if you use different materials with different gluing needs, such as plastic binding (Duco) with wood purfling (white glue).

Another "stage" method that's been discussed here is when you want to use CA with tape to hold the bindings on, but don't want the CA wicking under the tape, making the tape become one with the top/back/sides. Here you'd use tape with perhaps a 3/4" gap between pieces of tape. Wick in a small amount of CA, let it set, then remove the tape and wick in CA where the tape was. Saves lots of cleanup.

Every method shown here works. Take your pick!

_________________
now known around here as Pat Foster
_________________
http://www.patfosterguitars.com

   I glue it all at one time. Even with different materials I do it at once. Duco will glue plastic and wood so that is the glue of choice. If I am using just wood I will use tite bond. If you try it in stages you will soon see that while it may sound like agood idea well it just isn't
A while back there was a suggesting of using titebond for plastic. I tried it once and NEVER AGAIN. About 3 months later the binding came off.
   Duco for most of the binding will do just fine.
john hall
blues creek guitar

Thanks for all of the good suggestions. I'm a first timer, and just a bit nervous about doing the binding.

Ray

I generally tack my miters at the end graft on first with CA, then install the rest of it as a single installation. This involves cutting the miters in the precise location to make sure the waist of the side purflings lines up correctly.

I have not found a better way to get the miters at the end graft as tight.

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

I don't have tons of binding experience, but I had good luck the last time starting at the waist and working towards each side. I did a dry run to tape everything into place. Then I untaped from the tail end to the waist, glued the waist and worked my way gluing back to the tail end. Then I untaped the upper bout and glued it from the waist working towards the neck block. I did it all at once, though, I don't think it really took much longer than starting at the tail and working towards the headblock.

_________________
______________________________
Jonathan Kendall, Siloam Springs AR

the advantage of starting at the tail end is that, as brock mentions, you can more readily manipulate the binding to get a perfect mitre join with the end graft and its purflings. if you sequence the job so that the binding is fixed to the body before the mitres are finished you make your mitres not only more difficult to get right, but also magnify the task of rectification if the mitres are not perfect with the first cut.