'Vintage correct' or not

John_A

Maybe should have said 'they should all be the same within an acceptable tolerance'

GSPBASSES

Funkfingers said:

John_A said:
Can you measure the rout for me? 

Which dimension(s) do you require?

John_A said:

in fairness to the supplier they should all be the same 

Agreed ... up to a point.

Ultimately, guitar bodies like these are shaped by a series of pin router actions, guided by templates. The potential exists for inaccurate positioning of the template(s). It is the job of Quality Assurance to spot and eliminate duds before they are shipped. Somebody at *this supplier* failed to do his or her job. 

In short, *this supplier* cocked up. They should have taken the hit for wasted time and wood and provided a replacement that is to specification.

Almost right, doubtful if anyone who uses an overhead router, pin router would get that particular job out of alignment.  I don't know where you purchased the body from but I'm presuming it come from the company that use a CNC. It is possible that the body you have was originally designed to take the VS 100 tremolo system (although I think that might be wishful thinking), this had a slightly smaller base plate on the treble side. If this tremolo was fitted to a standard rout you can see in to the rout on the  on the treble side. I used to fit the VS100 to most of my builds some 20 years ago, because of the gap I made a jig specifically for that tremolo. See the photo below, you'll see how I used to do it. Unfortunately the body with this rout would not take a vintage tremolo or even modern tremolo with the very large block. Although you could quite easily file that little bit of shelf away. 

John_A

The body was designed to take a Fender reissue trem.  This fits but has around 4mm clearance at one side and 1mm at the other (as per the original 1962 body apparently) and this is 'how people want them, vintage correct'. Doesn't matter about measurements, it's an exact copy of an original.

the Callaham block is 4mm wider than the Fender block, so it doesn't fit, if the block route was correct to the measurements it would have 2mm clearance at both sides.

Nomad

Need to be careful about what's original and what isn't. The blueprint is of a '62 reissue, and isn't necessarily the same drawing that was used to make the original body that was used as the pattern for the new one.

Even if the blueprint is derived from an original drawing, the tolerances could have changed in the new one (perhaps to reflect more accurate manufacturing methods). If the earlier tolerances were looser, the original body could still be in spec for its era, but an outlier. Or, it could simply be out of whatever the original spec was. On the other hand, the new body is presumably based on measurements of the original, which could introduce new errors.

I do find the responses from the maker a bit odd. If an original spec is available, their 'vintage correct' bodies should be made to that spec, or at the very least, the sample body should be verified as within that spec.

John_A

My point is the fact it's 'wrong' the trem route is off-centre.  The drawing isn't like that, and I'm certain an original '62 shouldn't be like that by design.  If the '62 body that was used to copy this from is like that then it's wrong too and that should be corrected, not just copied exactly warts n all

Nomad

I'll reiterate. The drawing is of a '62 reissue. The drawing itself was made in 1982 as best I can make out (drawn by somebody called "Benton").

It is a potential mistake to assume that this is an exact copy of the specification that was used to make the original 1962 design. As I alluded to in my previous post, it may be the case that the dimensions are the same, but that the tolerances have been tightened up due to the production machinery being more accurate in 1982.

In other words, the 1962 body may well be compliant with the original 1962 spec. Unless and until that original spec can be presented, it is not established that the '62 body is wrong. If the Fender reissue bridge does fit, albeit with an offset, it could be argued that the original and new bodies are both in spec. Further, if it was the case that Callaham designed their hardware against the '62 reissue drawing, then it could be argued that it is actually their product that is wrong if it's being touted as compatible with an original 1962 body.

John_A

Nomad said:

I'll reiterate. The drawing is of a '62 reissue. The drawing itself was made in 1982 as best I can make out (drawn by somebody called "Benton").

It is a potential mistake to assume that this is an exact copy of the specification that was used to make the original 1962 design. As I alluded to in my previous post, it may be the case that the dimensions are the same, but that the tolerances have been tightened up due to the production machinery being more accurate in 1982.

In other words, the 1962 body may well be compliant with the original 1962 spec. Unless and until that original spec can be presented, it is not established that the '62 body is wrong. If the Fender reissue bridge does fit, albeit with an offset, it could be argued that the original and new bodies are both in spec. Further, if it was the case that Callaham designed their hardware against the '62 reissue drawing, then it could be argued that it is actually their product that is wrong if it's being touted as compatible with an original 1962 body.

It would be very hard to imagine in 1962 Fender designed the trem route to have 1mm clearance at one end and 3-4 at the other.  As you say this could be down to manufacturing tolerance, but if that's the case is 'vintage correct, and what people want' a body manipufactured with sloppy tolerance, or one that has accounted for this

Nomad

John_A said:

It would be very hard to imagine in 1962 Fender designed the trem route to have 1mm clearance at one end and 3-4 at the other.  

I don't think anyone here is saying they did.

John_A said:

As you say this could be down to manufacturing tolerance, but if that's the case is 'vintage correct, and what people want' a body manipufactured with sloppy tolerance, or one that has accounted for this

It's an argument that borders on semantics, really, but it's possible that it's both if 'vintage correct' is to have any real-world meaning. If the 1962 spec had bigger tolerances, then anything that is within that spec is, de-facto, correct. If the dimensions in 1962 and 1982 are the same, but the latter has tighter tolerances, then, de-facto, anything made to the 1982 spec is also 'vintage correct'.

Without a drawing from 1962, it is moot whether the original 1962 body or the new copy are really within the original spec. The supplier may well have that information and know that it is, or he might not have the spec and just assumed that the body is in spec (even if, in reality, it's at the limit, or is plain out of spec).

If I was making 'vintage correct' strat bodies, I'd be looking for the original 1962 spec and making them to the tightest tolerances my machinery could practicably manage. I would not assume that a random body from 1962 is either within the original spec, or even a particularly accurate example - I would check.

Danielsguitars

I've ordered a 62 strat body from a certain cnc company so I'll check how it stacks up to a real one when I get round to building it, I'd be a bit pissed off too if it's not close to the original one or something doesn't line up, the necks will be vintage spec and custom made for the body, fingers crossed it works out 

poopot

I can vouch for them not being to spec, certainly on the couple that I have had from them.

pic below shows the comparison from neck pocket measurements on the last body I had from there.

http://a63.tinypic.com/21cy2rm.jpg

Build thred here if you can wade through the treacle...

http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/121124/c18q1-swampy-strat-finished-with-pics#latest

GSPBASSES

A couple of points I'd like to clarify statements that have been made by various people on this post. As an ex-CNC programmer, although not with wood, but in precision engineering, metal wise, I feel confident to say it is very unlikely that the CNC that made that body would have inaccuracies, unless of course the system of holding the body down on the bed was inaccurate, or when the body was turned over the second jig that held in place isn't true to the first jig. This is presuming that the bodies are held down with vacuum and the jig only holds body in the correct place. So even if the program is incorrect it should produce the same mistake on every body that is made using the program. That's dealing with tremolo routs, the neck pocket is something entirely different, for CNC to cut a neck pockets at different depths. It can either the operators error or the bodies may be different thicknesses. Most likely error, that an operator who put the cutting tool in the head may not have put back correctly, inasmuch that the height has to be set  identical each time it's changed**. This quite a simple procedure, but if done incorrectly, that will give you varying depths on the neck pocket. What would have been interesting to know, were the depths of the pickup routs correct. They should be 19mm and 37mm for the control cavity, if than not, but there are as inaccurate as the neck pocket, then that would point not to a programming error but to an operator error. 

Another point is worth mentioning the gap each side of the tremolo block is different, it's quite small on the bass side not quite twice that size on the treble side of the block. I've measured my Strat vintage 2000, It has a 2.5mm on the bass side and 4mm on the treble side. 

What might be an idea to settle the rights and wrongs of this if anyone on the forum who has a genuine 1962 Strat to take a photograph of the tremolo block, or if you have a reissue 1962 Strat to thank one.


**The procedural for setting tool height  is quite a simple operation, but it does vary on how it's done depending on the type CNC is being used. I've not gone into the details of this procedure as it's not relevant. 

poopot

GSPBASSES said:

What might be an idea to settle the rights and wrongs of this if anyone on the forum who has a genuine 1962 Strat to take a photograph of the tremolo block, or if you have a reissue 1962 Strat to thank one.

Below is a cnc body with a two point USA standard trem (‘89)

https://i.imgur.com/rrsJLPN.jpg

Below is swampy fitted with a vintage trem.

https://i.imgur.com/hN54LvG.jpg

Will ask my mate to snap a pic of his ‘63

cant measure the pup routes as both guitars are in the car already for tonight but... I have a replacement body on its way, when I do the swop I can take detailed measurements (although I know the neck pocket is nearly 19mm in depth-that’s why it’s beong changed).

PhilKing

I have a 60 & 63.  I'll take pictures this weekend, if no-one else has anything by then.

poopot

Pic of my mates ‘63 trem cavity for reference... not the best pic but then he’s a guitarist not a photographer

http://a64.tinypic.com/2j3io3q.jpg

John_A

poopot said:

Pic of my mates ‘63 trem cavity for reference... not the best pic but then he’s a guitarist not a photographer

http://a64.tinypic.com/2j3io3q.jpg

That '63 looks pretty much equal clearance at either side, just as you'd expect

poopot

If further proof is needed about the QC of these cnc bodies, I bought the Callaham VM trem from @John_A. It arrived this morning and dropped straight into my body from the same supplier without and need to modify the body!...

http://a68.tinypic.com/4uxqpy.jpg

http://a67.tinypic.com/24lptdw.jpg

Not it sure what else can be said!!!!

ICBM

If you think about it, the Callaham block *must* fit in a correctly-sized Fender rout, because if it didn’t there would have been thousands of complaints by now.

So it’s rather obvious which part is wrong.

John_A

ICBM said:

If you think about it, the Callaham block *must* fit in a correctly-sized Fender rout, because if it didn’t there would have been thousands of complaints by now.

So it’s rather obvious which part is wrong.

You would think so - However, to paraphrase the supplier  This is an exact copy of a 1960's Fender body, so therefore it's correct, the Fender block fits and the Calaham is non-standard,  because it fits everything else means everything else is wrong

poopot

ICBM said:

If you think about it, the Callaham block *must* fit in a correctly-sized Fender rout, because if it didn’t there would have been thousands of complaints by now.

So it’s rather obvious which part is wrong.

Without question!...

conversely I got a body from northwest guitars, turned up yesterday, 20 minutes later and my ‘88 strat is back to its ‘88 best!... body all to spec!...
http://a67.tinypic.com/qpgj6e.jpg

John_A

Well had a load of arguments with the supplier who won't budge on the position that there is nothing wrong with his body.  The fact that a Fender trem 'fits' means it's 'right', the fact that the callaham trem fits some of of his bodies and not others, and that it fits every other manufacturers bodies is of no interest.

after charging me £35 to modify the body so it fits he's given me £20 off my next purchase as a gesture of goodwill, think I'll order a £20 scratch plate and hope it fits:)