Les Paul Prototype Build

WezV

I was reading a 52-59 LP conversion thread the other day.  its fairly brutal stuff that might make some wince, but the work looks great and I am not trying to start a conversion debate here
http://www.lespaulforum.com/forum/showthread.php?171038-52-59-Burst-Conversion

The reason I am linking it this is because it shows the bits a Golden age gibson (in terms of wood and construction quality, if not design quite yet) you don't often get to see

like this pic - with a fairly large shim going down the entire bass side of the tenon


doesn't stop it being a beautiful guitar,  you would find similar in gibson's from all ages.    But it does show the difficulty Gibson have always had in getting this join right.   

Danielsguitars

Yeah it's all good wez, alot of the old stuff was slapped together but I still love em

Most modern mass produced stuff I've tried just feel boring, I'm still chasing the unplugged tone

On the subject of tenons, I've got a build planned out at some point for a dc junior style but with a flying v type joint with the heel on the body, it's to get a strong joint if I want a 59 style neck pickup placement

The narrow long tenons I did on my strat and tele styles came out really nice and I'd do them again

I don't like losing the side wall on the body that's all and from a finishing point of view I don't like the look

TTony

Interesting photo.

Not getting into the whole debate about pros & cons or rights & wrongs though!

GSPBASSES

TTony said:

Interesting photo.

Not getting into the whole debate about pros & cons or rights & wrongs though!

Go on you know want too.

When are we going to see the new work shop?

WezV

GSPBASSES said:

@WezV Sorry, I'll shut up now and leave this post to the real thing about you making your prototype Les Paul, and I must say is most interesting.

 

Always grateful for the input.... sounds like we have a similar approach, but for slightly different reasons.

Anyway, worth restating my intentions with this build.  Its not to prototype my own line of les paul style guitars.   Its to do things the way Gibson might have done in 51-52 whilst avoiding the mistakes of the 52  les paul.  Not the documented ways they did do it - but some of the steps they might have gone through to get to there

So far i have majorly diverted with a sycamore top and a laminated neck.   I am okay with that and may divert in other ways

But i did show you all a 51 prototype to demonstrate gibson were playign with the full width tenon back then, even if it only ended up being on that guitar


not quite right though is it - they have not done the full lip of the juniors/specials but left quite a hump on the transition.  Also, they have made the heel quite a bit larger and its not really needed.  I also wonder about the two inlays - possibly covering screws, if so why

So a full width tenon is fully in the spirit of this project- but not the way they did it in on the 51 guitar

just so happens the full width i did on my last guitar looks to be the perfect hybrid between the 51 prototype and the eventual and classic les paul design

WezV

customkits said:

I don't like losing the side wall on the body that's all and from a finishing point of view I don't like the look

i think the gibson tenon design relies on those 2 side faces of the join, whereas the full width tenon  favours the bottom face of the join.

Its clear from the gibson examples that they often sacrifice a good fit on the bottom face of the tenon as part of getting the neck fit right.  The short rocker tenon takes that to extremes and almost totally sacrifices the lower glue surface.  Even that example, the worst tenon  design, will still work as long as the side faces are a good join.   the side faces are your glue surface, the fretboard  and neck heel sets your reference angle

You can't ignore the base of the tenon when going full width, it becomes your primary glue join and your reference point for the angle. 

In short - what you lose in one location, you more than gain back in another

But yeah, i would agree the gibson solution is more aesthetically pleasing than my full width join above.  I just chose to place that factor lower down my list of priorities

Danielsguitars

Nice pics 

WezV

in other news - Special instructions from @SteveRobinson ;

WezV

the neck is a bit further along - not happy with the headstock veneer so that will change in some way even if its just being sprayed black later on


Next steps are to radius, inlay, fret, carve, drill etc....but its all prepped and is currently a consistent thickness of 24mm along the neck shaft

I can route the body for it at this stage as all the important dimension for neck angle are correct.

New new tailpiece is here too.   its maybe a little too long - but they are easy to shorten if i need to

Danielsguitars

WezV said:

customkits said:

I don't like losing the side wall on the body that's all and from a finishing point of view I don't like the look

i think the gibson tenon design relies on those 2 side faces of the join, whereas the full width tenon  favours the bottom face of the join.

Its clear from the gibson examples that they often sacrifice a good fit on the bottom face of the tenon as part of getting the neck fit right.  The short rocker tenon takes that to extremes and almost totally sacrifices the lower glue surface.  Even that example, the worst tenon  design, will still work as long as the side faces are a good join.   the side faces are your glue surface, the fretboard  and neck heel sets your reference angle

You can't ignore the base of the tenon when going full width, it becomes your primary glue join and your reference point for the angle. 

In short - what you lose in one location, you more than gain back in another

But yeah, i would agree the gibson solution is more aesthetically pleasing than my full width join above.  I just chose to place that factor lower down my list of priorities

I don't ignore the bottom of a long tenon as I too think that is a very important gluing surface, i dont care how gibson do them, if the joints not right it's not good and that goes for any type of narrow or full width tenon

I don't prioritise weather it looks good it's just what I use and I'm happy with how they work

A joint to me is all the surfaces available being correctly fitted and used 

WezV

Haven't we done with this?


at no point did I suggest yours were not fitted correctly or that it was a substandard method.   I am not going to post a load of pics proving my point here.  Just google gibson long tenon and enjoy all the pictures of gaps.

Danielsguitars

I know of the banana tenons and crappy joints, anyone that's any good would try and get it as good as possible before gluing

I'll shut up now and see how yours turns out, get some sound clips up if you can

WezV

here is the full width mortice all routed


Still need to do the binding channel in the cutaway, once that's done I will trim down at least a 3rd of the treble side to make it nice and neat - similar to a fender neck join.  That's the glue joint I sacrifice for this.

The neck slots straight in nice and tight, but not so tight i cant get it out again.- no more  fitting needed

It starts to look like a guitar

normula1

Looking good.

IvisonGuitars

Nice work Wez. I may have missed it but is your neck angle in the pocket like a Standard or on the neck tenon like a Junior?

WezV

miserneil said:

Nice work Wez. I may have missed it but is your neck angle in the pocket like a Standard or on the neck tenon like a Junior?

I angle the pocket on a carved top like this, angle the tenon on flat tops.  If you look at the maple you can see it

The body angle has already been done as part of the carve.  I use an extra long template that sits on the body angle, but is also supported by blocks either end to keep the angle consistent

however, worth noting that I still have a flat fretboard as a point of reference and could tweak the heel angle if I had messed up the body route.  Thankfully it's still spot on 4 degrees

WezV

routed for the pickups - happy to see the wiring channel where i left it


which gets us to this point

WezV

decisions at this point.

I have decided that tailpiece is definitely the right one.  I am still not sure about the bigsby bridge.  I would need one staggered for a plain G.   I quite like it, but wonder if it makes the whole thing a little too gretschy.  I am not even sure that's a bad thing


I am starting to think about controls and I am still slightly tempted to go for a non-standard layout as used by les, but would not be putting a jackplate on the front.   I don;t know whether to do a front mounted jack in place of a pot, or just write it off as a silly idea

Teyeplayer

Loving this build. For what it's worth and I'm no luthier just a player, but I've always wondered if a combination of Gibson and Gretsch would be the perfect guitar. So many qualities and so many niggles ironed out when combined. 

WezV

Well given the pickup choice its really not going to be a million miles from this