Official Luthiers Forum!

You are NOT the "bad guy" ever Matt. So stop it!
We all know you too well.

_________________
"I want to know what kind of pickups Vince Gill uses in his Tele, because if I had those, as good of a player as I am, I'm sure I could make it sound like that.
Only badly."

[QUOTE=Matt Gage] I seem to be the bad guy lately, I figure I`ll take a break for a while.

Good luck guys.... [/QUOTE]

Bad guy? Me thinks not! Dont you be goin anywhere! Ill hunt you down!

_________________
Support the OLF! Bookmark our STEWMAC link Today!
Lance@LuthiersForum.com

Im new here and Im in no way itching to get into a brew ha ha right off the bat - but honestly is anyone going to get any more ideas about the jig by looking at these pictures above, moreso than going to the site where its retailed and studying those pictures?
As an observer who isnew and hence more impartial, I get the feeling that the pictures are meant as someone who is proud of his accomplishment, more than a direct undermining of someones livelyhood.
I think anyone who builds something like this ahould expect imitation or outright copying, protect themselves legally, and save themselves the frustration.
I dont get any ideas about this jig one way or the other -
Im either too stupid or lazy - but If I were smart enough to build vs buy jigs of this complicated nature I would - but my brain would melt - hence I fall into the first category of people, those who just plain couldnt wouldnt or cant, so I'll buy one if I need it.
As opposed to the industrious first category of people, those who should, would, and can build something of this nature.
Cheers
Charliewood

Hi Pete
Nice drawings and description.
I'm going to have to disagree on the fixture concept in general. I'm assuming that the tubular frame is rigid and as such it will swing a constant radius. I believe that this constant radius is going to be equal to half the difference between the two radius templates.
In other words, if one template is 10" and the other 16", then the tubular frame will swing on a 13" radius. The router has to swing on this same radius as it is mounted to the frame.
I realize that the actual radius of the templates have to be adjusted depending on their location relative to the fretboard being radiused. (as mentioned in height adjustment statements above)
I believe that to make this fixture create a compound (conic) radius, the cutter would actually have to move up and down (as in plunge router) as the router is slid along the length of the tubular frame.
Nelson

Nelson

Let me step back a few paces and make an observation. This is a great forum, with an immense collective storehouse of knowledge. In my eyes, the Achilles heel of the OLF is the fact that technological concepts, methods, and ideas are both freely given and sold here. The wood vendors do not have the same situation, because I can talk all day about wood, and I will still need to buy wood to build a guitar. On the other hand, the greatest strength of the OLF, the incredible willingness of the members to freely share ideas is sometimes stifled when someone holds back sharing information because:
1.) they don't want to step on some vendor's toes
2.) they want to sell their ideas in the form of a DVD, or a seminar
3.) they want to protect unpatented intellectual property (their own, or someone else's)

There was a guy from Spain, a classical builder wannabee, that popped into the luthierforum to get some information. He was amazed at how free everyone was with the info, because in Spain (according to him) the masters closely held the "secrets" of lutherie. [I'm not comparing forums! That example could just as easily have happened here.]

Lance and the OLF are on a slippery slope, and I think Craig Holden's reaction in this case underscores the problem. For the most part, the possible clashes between information and goods are handled well (IMO.) For example, a builder may go to the jigs section of the OLF, and get info to build a bending form. Another builder contacts John Hall, and orders one.

But, in the case of the Holden fingerboard radiusing jig, Craig has R&D time into the jig that he wants to capitalize on, and though he has not patented it, he also has not released the plans as public domain info. So, he feels cheated.

Solution? One of the things that I believe that Lance should do is to establish to any vendor, that no attempt can be made to protect any unpatented ideas, concepts, jigs, or methods. Those ideas, concepts, and methods are to be shared freely among the members. That sharing is to be protected as a cornerstone of the OLF.

For those that sell/convey/license intellectual property, there are copyrights and trademarks (not too expensive) and design patents (expensive, and design patents are easy to circumvent.) Of course, just because someone sells a DVD here (with a copyright) that explains the intricacies of creating a dovetail neck joint, that should not stop any member of the OLF from also freely discussing dovetail joints.

For a jig maker, I would think the greatest protection is competitive pricing and high quality. If your cool jig is so affordable that I would be an idiot to try to make one, then if I can afford your jig I will buy it. If your cool jig would require expensive tooling to make just the one I want with the quality you have, then I have to consider your jig a better investment.

There are hundreds of amateur luthiers and wannabees out there, like me, that will make jigs that we cannot afford. If an amateur plans to make maybe a couple of dozen instruments in their lifetime, then they will not be able to afford the cool gadgets that pro luthiers will buy. We amateurs are simply not your market.

That's a bit more than my $0.02, but again, I feel that this is a very important issue if the OLF is to continue to be a great place to gather information, tips, and tricks of all things lutherie.

Dennis

_________________
Dennis Leahy
Duluth, MN, USA
7th Sense Multimedia

hey there,

i see craigs point too,

but to be honest i know i guy who was using a similar setup to craigs jig about 8 years ago, i know that craig has made a proprietary version of this jig but its not really earth shattering tht asomeone makes something similar,

look at craigs binding jig, it basically a tweaked fleischmann jig, but i dont see harry here beating down the law,

2 cents said

paddy

[QUOTE=npalen] I'm going to have to disagree on the fixture concept in general. I'm assuming that the tubular frame is rigid and as such it will swing a constant radius. I believe that this constant radius is going to be equal to half the difference between the two radius templates.
In other words, if one template is 10" and the other 16", then the tubular frame will swing on a 13" radius. The router has to swing on this same radius as it is mounted to the frame.
[/QUOTE]

I don't know, Nelson. If you have two different radii with a rigid frame, consider the following. Look straight down the tubes, lining up the crowns of the two radii as shown below.



When in the center, the tubes won't have much of a problem. But look at what happens as you move the frame to the left. If you press both tubes onto the larger radius guide (magenta), then one tube will lift off the smaller guide (the cyan) as shown since the tubular frame is rigid you said. If instead you press both tubes onto the cyan side of the jig, then the opposite tube will come up on the magenta guide. With the frame (with the router bit somewhere in the middle!) teeter-tottering I don't know how you'd get an average 13" radius - you'd have a mess of a fingerboard as the end of one tube or the other alternately lifts off a radius guide.

[QUOTE=npalen]
I believe that to make this fixture create a compound (conic) radius, the cutter would actually have to move up and down (as in plunge router) as the router is slid along the length of the tubular frame.
[/QUOTE]

No, not really. The bit stays at the same protrusion from the router, but during set-up you adjust the height of each radius guide such that the bit just barely kisses the crown at each end of the fingerboard. That way, everything inbetween is OK too. But the difficulty in executing a compound radius on this kind of a jig is that you'd end up moving the sled more on the larger radius end than the smaller radius end as I said previously. This by the way keeps all four ends of the two tubes in contact with the radius cauls. Below is a picture. That picture also may help explain what I was saying in my previous post.



Moving the frame in such a matter keeps all four ends of the tubes on the radius guides (see below). I think you may need more than two hands to move the two ends of the frames as well as the router at the same time, though!




(By the way the ends of the tubes are now magenta and cyan to indicate which radius guide they're resting on).Pete Licis38811.6963773148

Ah, trouble in paradise...

And y'all thought this wouldnt happen on -this- forum, too, right? "We won't need no rules" was what I kept hearing in the "us' VS "them" threads.

When was it that I predicted this?

<g>

BTW, I can't see how a ridgid frame will cut a correct compound, either.

Pete--I totally agree with you. I got to thinking about the teetering issue also.   Looks like a 3-point contact would be needed with the frame guided by another slide of sorts that would keep it square with the world. I'm really not sure what that would produce however <g>
An interesting discussion, at any rate. That said, I do enjoy the "mechanical" part of any discussion much more than the political side.
Again, great illustrations! Picture is worth a thousand.....
Nelson

Your a pretty smart guy Dennis. I think Craig has already sold several of his machines here on the forum and will probably sell many more but he won't and can't expect to sell them to everyone and by displaying his wares without patent protection (assumeing that is true) he risks people copying it. Afterall his machine is or appears to be a handcrafted kind of thing made from materials available to all. I agree that if the thing works as advertised and is a good value, people will buy rather than build in most cases, however some just like a challange.
This place is all about the exchange of ideas and I for one like to be able to post pictures and discriptions of projects I have underway whether they are guitars or tools as long as they are associated with the core subject. If we can't do that then we'll all just take a break. I wish Craig all the success and he will have it if he meets the criteria for success.

_________________
Tickle your guitar daily, and it'll tickle you back.

[QUOTE=npalen] Pete--I totally agree with you. I got to thinking about the teetering issue also.   Looks like a 3-point contact would be needed with the frame guided by another slide of sorts that would keep it square with the world. I'm really not sure what that would produce however <g>
[/QUOTE]

Now for my non-theoretical in-practice view ... I don't know why anyone would build anything so complicated. Buy, yes - it saves a lot of time over building it. But, I just take a jointed 2x4 and a couple of radius guides as shown below, double stick tape the fingerboard to it:



turn it over and sand away, randomly tilting it on the radii until no more dust comes off the board.



Then you have a perfectly transitioning radius from one end to the other!



(By the way, note that the radius guides have a slot [barely visible] that the lag screw goes through so you can get the up/down adjustment I talked about earlier).Pete Licis38811.7349537037

[QUOTE=Mario] Ah, trouble in paradise...

And y'all thought this wouldnt happen on -this- forum, too, right? "We won't need no rules" was what I kept hearing in the "us' VS "them" threads.

When was it that I predicted this?
[/QUOTE]


Who'se talking about rules? I see this more as a question defining the boundaries of etiquette.

I disagree completely that the commercial side of the OLF is the Achilles Heel of the forum. I think that commerce is a vital part of any community and we should embrace it, not ban it, hide from it, or make it just a collection of our cronies who have something to sell. For the most part we will take (nearly) all comers in terms of sponsoring the forum. This is largely due to the fact that Lance and I have TONS of ideas and a very clear direction on where we want the forum to go.

While we do work hard to try to stop people from promoting products when they are not active sponsors, NO interference has been made on any front to try to steer a conversation to any particular supplier, or have we censored any problem that was brought up in the discussions. To imply otherwise is a gross misrepresentation.

I understand why Craig is a little bruised by this, but I am also a card carrying capitalist and understand that once you build a better mousetrap you need to be prepared for this to happen. I think Lance is right, in some respects this is a form of flattery... even though it might not feel that way at the moment to Craig.

In the end though... I think this could help Craig's business simply by drawing attention to what he is making. He builds an awesome quality jig, it is VERY well thought out, and it works extremely well. I never seem to get enough shop time as it is, so I am just as happy to buy one of his pre-made jigs as I am to figure out how to duplicate what he has already made.

But if you are the type that likes to home-brew your own jigs, that's fine too.

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

[QUOTE=Mario] Ah, trouble in paradise...
And y'all thought this wouldnt happen on -this- forum, too, right? "We won't need no rules" was what I kept hearing in the "us' VS "them" threads.
When was it that I predicted this?
<g>
[/QUOTE]

Gee Mario...it took you longer than I expected to say that....but I fully expected it.

_________________
"I want to know what kind of pickups Vince Gill uses in his Tele, because if I had those, as good of a player as I am, I'm sure I could make it sound like that.
Only badly."

I own one of Craig Jigs and it cost nearly as much to ship the jig here as it did to buy it. To me it is still worth every penny, not only does it save me huge amounts of time on the process of radiusing boards, but because of the jigs accuracy and built quality it makes the subsequent processes go alot smoother.

As for needing rules, I don't buy that one, too often we legislate for a small blip, and throw the baby out with bath water. To me it is a small blip, but to me everyone is getting it sorted, so no need for an amendment to the rule book just yet.

I think I've managed to stir up enough controversy here, so I am bailing out of the thread, and perhaps we can put it all to bed. So, thanks for the positive feedback on the radius jig from those of you who own it, and my apologies to those of you I somehow seemed to have unwittingly offended.
Craig

[QUOTE=PaddyD]
look at craigs binding jig, it basically a tweaked fleischmann jig, but i dont see harry here beating down the law [/QUOTE]

Respectfully, there is a difference here. Harry published plans for his jig in an issue of American Lutherie for all to see and be able to build for themselves. He chose to share the idea freely.
It was from Harry's idea that another individual with a keen intellect (name withheld for privacy reasons) made some modifications to the plan and willingly shared the knowledge of how to build it on his website and on a number of forums, giving Harry full credit for his part in the design. Neither this Intellectual nor Harry (who is most highly intelligent too) had any desire to build the jigs nor profit from them. Therefore Craig is free to manufacture them to sell if he chooses. I know that Craig talked it over with the Highly Intellectual Person (H.I.P. from this point forward) to clear being able to build and sell them for those who prefer buying jigs to making them. The H.I.P. (now world-renown for this jig modification idea) was fine with the idea, and links to the site of the H.I.P. appear on Craig's site, as does credit to Harry Fleishmann appear on the H.I.P.'s site.

Craig is trying to make a livelyhood from his jig, and has never freely shared plans for it, nor has he given his "blessing" for others to build it or improve upon it and build it. So the difference is in what has been freely given, vs what has not.

At some point, we all have to decide if we're crossing a line that we shouldn't when borrowing intellectual property, trying to save a buck. Is it ok, or should we just pay the person to make it for us?

These questions, as Brock stated, are matters of ettiquette and perhaps even ethics. It's hard to know all the answers...but if we ask ourselves the questions of conscience prior to acting, all would be better for everyone. That's a hard row to hoe, but an honorable one. What kind of community do we wish to be? It's up to us and how we make those kinds of decisions.


Sorry for posting this after you Craig...but I actually started it before your post and brok in the middle for dinner...Don Williams38812.3685069444

_________________
"I want to know what kind of pickups Vince Gill uses in his Tele, because if I had those, as good of a player as I am, I'm sure I could make it sound like that.
Only badly."

I'll agree that it is a matter of etiquette and not one of rules, but if this happens to more of your paying advertisers, you'd have to step-in and intervene, correct, Brock?

This is what happened at the MIMF, and why rules were put into place. And to be fair with everyone, the rules are followed without bending. this is what was brought up in the "us VS them" threads, and i tried to explain that once the OLF grew in size, and sponsors strated picturing into things, intervention and rules would HAVE to be. The many here who thought the OLF was above that kept arguing with me with regards to that.

And it's still a tiny forum, relative.

Y'all do a good job of running it, for sure, but I had to rub that one in a bit <g>

As for patent VS no patent. It would do no good in this regard for Craig to hold one anyway. As long as I'm not going to sell it, I am free to make my own version of anything for my own use. And if it is patented, I now have free access to the exact plans and blueprints <woohoo!>. As soon as you make a rpoduct that is visible to the public, if it is a good idea, someone will copy it for their own use. Some of us simply like to make our own tooling, or we see something we'd try to do better, and we try it. My thickness sander is an example; I used a Performax for a couple eyars, but some things just bugged me. So, I made my own version, with my own 'updates'. Fair use... Many of my ideas came straight out of catalogs. Fair use...

How many of you have gone to my site and come away with ideas on methods or tooling? How many of you have gained knowledge from my 7+ years' of posts at the MIMF? Good for you! I am happy to share. I have gleaned much from others' sharing, too, inclduing the way perfect Williams jig <g>

How many of us build a dreadnought? Don't hear Martin crying....

Someone thought your jig was cool enough to try to copy, Craig. Be proud!

[QUOTE=Mario] I'll agree that it is a matter of etiquette and not one of rules, but if this happens to more of your paying advertisers, you'd have to step-in and intervene, correct, Brock?

This is what happened at the MIMF, and why rules were put into place. And to be fair with everyone, the rules are followed without bending. this is what was brought up in the "us VS them" threads, and i tried to explain that once the OLF grew in size, and sponsors strated picturing into things, intervention and rules would HAVE to be. The many here who thought the OLF was above that kept arguing with me with regards to that.

And it's still a tiny forum, relative.

Y'all do a good job of running it, for sure, but I had to rub that one in a bit <g>[/QUOTE]

I hear what you are saying with respect to rules. Clearly we have a **few** rules already (no swearing, no religion, no politics), and several strong mores (most dealing with the protocol used by sponsors to make commercial posts), but I really hope we can avoid an environment as highly structured as the MIMF. No dis on Deb, that is the path she chose and I understand why she went that way, but I hope to always let this community be a little looser.

I understood you were just jabbing at me a little in good fun.   

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

As I said before I often agree with Mario, but not always how he says it except this time I even agree with how he said it! (Well except for the "I told you so!" part and the "you're gonna need more rules" part...so far anyway). I built a rim sander that was posted by Tim McKnight from a copy he did of one that Mario built. Tim modified Mario's version and showed us what he did. I modified Tim's version and it too lives in the archives of this fine forum for the access of all of those interested.

Mario is absolutely right. Craig's jig has got a lot of great press, that means it will be copied. Months ago I PM'd Craig about releasing a plan for the jig. I see here that Craig would rather not but I suggest this:

There are many people who, like myself, do like to make jigs. Contrary to another post above I think that many more than a handful on this forum do like to build their own jigs. Case in point, about 60 fret slotting blades went to OLF members, I suggest most will build their own sleds. How many of the OLF's (Paul or Michael's) plan for radius dishes have been delivered? My suggestion Craig would be to offer the alternative. Your jig, right or wrong, will be copied. No one will likely sell it, at least not anyone with any moral fibre. So offer the alternative. Draw up the plan and charge well for it, even in the $50 range, at least give people the option to support your idea and hard work. Do not allow the user of the plan the option to make the jig for sale, keep that for yourself if you wish. Those that buy your plan likely would not have bought your jig anyway and it allows them a way to say "thanks" by putting a few more shackles in your pocket. You will still have a HUGE following who would rather just have you make it than spend their precious little time figuring it out and putting it together. Progress is a pretty big wheel to get under and try to stop. For my part, I crindge when I see non-paying tonewood guys flogging their spruce on here, but I leave it alone, I figure the character behind the person and his product will keep him going and I think Craig, that your character and your product will keep you going also.

See, just what Mario said...

ShaneShane Neifer38811.9448611111

_________________
Canada

I think that points were made on both sides of the issue and don't want us to make a mountain out of a mole hill!. Everyone seems to be cool, so lets keep rolling, sharing and respecting each other. This will happen once in a few thousand threads or less. No need to overreact.

Mike

I just want to add another suggestion. I have wanted one of Craig's jigs ever since I saw it at the last ASIA gathering. I would buy one now but can't figure out where I've got any space left to store it.   However, some folks have more money than time and others have more time than money. For hobbiest only building a few guitars a year, it is probably more attractive to build your own. For the full time and professional builders it is probably more of an advantage to buy the jig to immediately increase productivity. It would appear to me that Craig is loosing sales to the hobbiest and not the dedicated builders. How about maximizing income from both by alternatively selling copyrighted plans for the jig? Price them about a 1/3 to 1/2 of the jig price and increase the income chain on the non-producing side of the equation. I'm sure folks would buy them as it is a proven product. Just an idea (yeah I know, Shut up Don ...but you must forgive me as I am the Low Intellect Person (LIP for short) )    

Mario, we all steal from you site (and Hoffmans, and Franks, and ......). Anyway, thank you.

And by the way, for those not using a compound radius, check out Sylvan Wells contribution in the jig section.   

_________________
Don Atwood
Arlington, VA

Ok. My turn. I had no intent to undermine anyone's business or to raise the ire of Mr Holden or anyone else.

For the record I don't intend to sell the jig or plans and may not even post the finished product(more on that later). The problem is the genie is out of the bottle. If I don't some one will, eventually. We being a do it yourself group by defenition it's bound to happen.

If I've hurt your business let me offer the following;
You mentioned that my jig had some problems yet to overcome. You were correct. Specifically the location of the radius blocks are too far outboard requiring a serious math problem to be solved to achieve the correct radii. A simple sollution is to move them inboard and mount them under the bed of the jig. That way they can be located right at the nut and saddle positions for any given scale. You being the designer, know exactlly what I mean.

Think about this and look at my pics. You could then build the entire thing (minus the sled) from eight pieces of wood, plus or minus a gusset here and there. The whole thing could be cut from a 1/4 sheet of plywood.

So why not build an "economy" version for a retail price point of 2/3 the price of your "deluxe" unit. Then you have two products where there was one. The deluxe and the econo, two different target markets. The drawbacks of the econo unit? not as professional and not as many bells and whistles as your deluxe unit. It might appeal to a different client. The pluses of the econo unit? It's highly portable. It can be hung on the wall when not in use. BTW the ONLY bad thing I've ever heard about your jig is the amount of real estate it takes up.

With the econo unit you could also sell it in kit form for another price point to gain even more sales. Just cut the pieces throw them in the box and ship.

Yet another income stream could be had from selling the plans. You might even let the OLF sell them in return for a portion of your ad budget.

No offense intended here. I don't know your business, but I know business. These ideas are just suggestions. I don't mean to poke my nose where it doesn't belong.

The point is I won't bulid it and sell it or the plans, but someday some one will! It might as well be you.

You can't put the genie back in the bottle, but you can make the genie work for you while he's out.

If you want to discuss this further please feel free to PM me or contact me via email at

wefour at sbcglobal dot net

Mario, we all steal from you site

Nah, it's not stealing. If I didn't want to share, I wouodnt put it up.

And if others, like the Hoffmans and Fords and Turners out there hadn't shared, I wouldn't be able to share, either, because I wouldn't know near as much as I do.

It's like a smile; pass it on, and it keeps going around, and eventually comes back to you.

And we all like seeing a smile come our way, right?

Right!

[QUOTE=Brock Poling]I disagree completely that the commercial side of the OLF is the Achilles Heel of the forum. I think that commerce is a vital part of any community and we should embrace it, not ban it, hide from it, or make it just a collection of our cronies who have something to sell.[/QUOTE]

Hi Brock,

Here's what I said: "In my eyes, the Achilles heel of the OLF is the fact that technological concepts, methods, and ideas are both freely given and sold here."

The last six words contained the gist of my message.

I went on to explain (too verbosely) that in my opinion, the most valuable commodity here is the willingness of members to share. By sharing, I don't just mean offering encouragement and aesthetics opinions. By sharing, I mean in-depth technological know-how, insights, methods, processes - you know, the nut-and-bolts real-word useful information for lutherie. I believe that information is the most valuable shared asset here. I hope that the OLF sees it as critical to protect and nurture the free sharing of information, even if some or all of that information may also be contained within how-to DVDs, taught in paid classes or seminars, or contained in books offered by OLF vendors.

I have no problem with the commercial side of this site, and have purchased from several OLF vendors with no plans on stopping. I won't rehash what I said about jig vendors and jigs for sale, as I think I covered it in my previous post. I wish Craig Holden great success in selling his FB radiusing jig, which looks like a very well made, time-saving jig for professional luthiers and those amateur luthiers tooling up to become professional luthiers.

Dennis

_________________
Dennis Leahy
Duluth, MN, USA
7th Sense Multimedia

Does this mean the binding jigs or other jigs made before the Holden ones came up have to be thrown away and now bought from a sponser or feelings get hurt. Most of the thing I have seen, were before this, not new idea's, but since a sponser can't look at others stuff/ See yea way down the road on this