Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Solving the neck problems

So after some time out of town, and fighting off various other disasters sent down from the Gods, I'm back in the game. It's time for some more problem solving, and getting that neck glued up.

Due to a lack of about 5mm on the opening ability of my clamps, I was forced to go high-tech again in order to get my neck glued up. It was pretty simple really - I put it under the couch, and spend the night on top of it all. (The Russian wasn't impressed.) It's not ideal to do all this in the lounge, especially with glue all over the show, but a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. It worked a charm, and this is what it looked like this morning, just before I took it out from under the couch.

High-tech clamps - Put the couch on it and spend the night.

Redesigning the neck joint

After spending some time over the past week or so wondering about the complicated neck joint, I took one look it the plans this morning and had a light-bulb moment. Sometimes you just have to step away for a while, and when you come back, the solution will be obvious. All those little nooks and grannies on the joint is not necessary! Cut it straight - the little nooks will come by itself when you cut the cavity for the neck pickup. Secondly, who ever heard of routing at an angle? Instead of routing the cavity for the neck at an angle, (with lots of effort and complicated jigs), take it out flat, and change the angle on the neck. Its much easier to cut the angle in the neck than to rout it out in the body. DING DING DING we have a winner.

Top: Newly redesigned neck joint for a 1958 Gibson Les Paul Standard. Bingo!
Bottom: Standard neck joint according to the plans.

The only difference between the two joints is that the angle for the neck now comes from the neck, instead of the body, and therefore the cavity can be routed flat at the bottom. Although it looks like another adjustment, leaving out the little nook for the pickup cavity, this is not so. That will still be cut in, when I cut the actual cavity in the body. It's a case of "why struggle to do it now, when you can do it much easier later?", and will result in a neater cut and fit eventually. I'm also tempted to not cut the cavity for the neck joint square, but to continue the gentle taper of the neck right into the joint, resulting in a dove-tail joint for the neck. All in all, a much stronger joint, that is much easier to make. (Les Pauls are known for their complicated, yet weak necks - problem solved.)

The neck joint marked out on the neck - ready for cutting.

The headstock marked out on the neck - ready for cutting.
Note how the headstock runs over the glue joint - this is the reason for gluing it up.

This saves me a lot of time, effort, money, and swearing... and possibly my spare necks, since I would undoubtedly have fucked this up too, and started over again. I do, however, have to make a new MDF template for the neck, but that is a lot easier and cheaper than fucking up a few mahogany necks - the body was bad enough.

I was planing on taking out the neck with the router as well, but after what happened to the body, I don't want to risk it. My jigsaw can also not cut deep enough - it cuts 60mm deep, while the wood is 80mm (the width of the headstock.) To solve this problem, I marked out the cuts to be made on the wood, and I'm going to a friend to cut it out on a circular saw. This will hopefully happen tomorrow - if not tomorrow, then early next week.

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Disaster!

My friend used to tell me, "Danie, you're a star... a fucking disa-star!"... and sure as hell, disaster struck yet again.

You might have noticed that I have not been posting for a while. I had an absolute few weeks from hell. First my phone got stolen... Then my laptop was unceremoniously introduced to a sledge-hammer and I lost everything on there. So I was a bit distracted by sorting all of that out. I now got my laptop back, so here we go with a new post...

To top it all off, I had a serious disagreement with my brand new router that I bought specially for this job. When I started this project I had just about no tools, not to even mention power tools. I got myself a jigsaw for cutting the rough stuff, and then went out to get a router too. I got the router brand new at a second hand shop (ironic) for R420, including a set of bits. To cut the mahogany from a template, I needed a router bit with a bearing on the top, (as opposed to having the bearing on the bottom, like the ones included with my router). After spending the entire Saturday morning looking for one, I finally tracked one down at some obscure hardware store, where I had to part with another R70!!! Just for a router bit, but I suppose if you need a bit with a bearing on the top, and they are the only people around selling them, you got no choice but to buy it... Capitalism at its best.

The new tools - a second hand jigsaw, and a brand new router/fucker-upper-machine.


The router bits. Note the yellow one has the bearing above the blades, while the red one has it below the blades.

So, daddy took the new toys home and got busy. I soon realized I brought home the spawn of the Devil himself... this R70 router bit fucked up my mahogany that I spend AGES tracking down! Somehow, the bearing that is supposed to follow the template slipped, resulting in it going all over the show. This means nothing was stopping the actual cutting edge of the router bit to feast on the forbidden fruits of my Les Paul. What can a man do? I fixed the bearing, (or thought I did), and carried on - this thing has to be routed out sooner or later. Low and behold, the fucker did it again... and again... and again. After the neighbours came around to see what I'm shouting, screaming and swearing about, (yes they could hear me a block away over all the noise of the router), I though to myself "Fuck-it... time to get a beer...", and that is what I did.

One of several chunks that went missing in action - casualties of war. The dark stuff is the paste I used to fill the gaps, and at the top you can see the damage done to the actual template as well. There is still a lot of work to be done here before I'll be able to use it again, but I'll worry about that later.

I didn't have the heart to go have another look at it for days after that, but I send off a few e-mails to fellow guitar-builders for advice... The prognosis wasn't good at all. When I finally got the guts to go look at her again, I started thinking that it can be saved after all. Option one was to fill the gaps with body putty - pass on that idea... Option two was to mix up some varnish with some sanding dust from the mahogany to make a paste and fill her up with that - bingo! (Another trick I learned in woodwork class at school... the best wood-filler is varnish and sanding dust - the stuff you buy in little tubs are useless, since it shrinks and falls out) Just as I thought I solved my problem with my cunning plan, it was dowsed in cold water... I will never be able to hide any sort of filling under the clear coats! Fuck!

I did fix her though, but I can not use this body for my 58 Standard. I will use it later for another Les Paul - something with an opaque finish, so the paint job will cover up the mess I made. This takes me back to square one though - looking for wood. I don't have mahogany for the body, and I don't have maple for the top either. Time to do some real work for a change so I can afford to buy new wood - when I eventually find it.

I'm not even going to bother putting up pictures of the mauled body here. I will put it up when I use it for the next build. When I get the new wood for the new body, I will put pictures up of the (hopefully more successful) process of routing it out. In the meantime I can at least work on the neck, and I hope to make a post on that soon.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Mahogany and Rosewood - check!

Finally! I managed to track down a reasonable amount of mahogany. Way back, in the back store-room, right back in the corner under a good few tons of other wood, I tracked her down - a 1500 x 350 x 50mm. It took some rearranging of the entire store-room, but it was done, and after all that I still had the nerve to bitch and moan about the price. Eventually I got it for R300 flat. If you want to dish it out, make sure you can take it, because now they refuse to plain and cut to for me.

No problem... I took it back to the people I originally went to, and although I didn't buy it from them, they are cutting it for me as I type this. They also got me a very interesting piece of rosewood for the fingerboard, and charged me R100 flat for the rosewood and the cutting of the mahogany. (Some other guy quoted me R240 to do the plaining and cutting - fuck that for a laugh...) I'll get one body and four necks out of this mahogany, and the waste will be just less than enough for another body... pity really. The rosewood is technically speaking enough for two fingerboards, but as luck would have it, it has a beautiful figure running down the center of it, which will be lost if I cut out two - half of the figure on one fingerboard and half on the other - so I'm just going to let rip and cut out the center piece and waste the edges... another pity really.

All in all - I got all my mahogany and the rosewood for R400 - cut and plained - with three necks to sell. Not to bad. I could probably sell the three extra necks for R100 each, which means I would have gotten my wood for free... bargain!

The 450 x 350 x 45mm Mahogany Body

The body template fits nicely on top - with about 5mm all round to spare.

The body has a nice curl in the grain right about where the cover for the control cavity would be, but I will turn it around to try and save it. Would be silly to cover that up with a maple top - nice as the maple is - but luckily I'm spoiled for choice, and can use both side of the mahogany for the back. Both sides came out well. A few plaining marks, but thats why I left it a bit thick - to sand it off.

Enough mahogany for four necks. The little blocks on top are to be glued on to make space for the 16 degree angle in the headstock.

How it should be glued up...

...and the reality - my clamps are a few millimeters to small... Fuck!

The necks are fine, with no real problems, besides the fact that I got four of them. I'll pick out the best one, and sell the rest. Only real problem is that my clamps won't fit the combined 90mm of the two bits to glue up! I would have to get new clamps anyway to glue the top to the body later, so I'll make sure I get nice big ones.

The rosewood fingerboard, on top of the mahogany necks.

A piece of off-cut rosewood with a splash of teak stain on it.

A piece of Kiaat that I'm still thinking about using.

The rosewood I got for the fingerboard is way to long, but that means I can pick the nicest part, and avoid some of the little cracks in it. The picture does not do the color of it any justice - it's almost orange, and very similar in color to the mahogany. Apparently the term "rosewood" refers to a number of species, all with the same qualities. This is obviously not the dark Brazilian rosewood used on the original 58's, but I might stain it a little darker. Another option I have, is to use a piece of kiaat for the fingerboard - this I got for free as some sort of "ass-hole tax" when they didn't want to plain and cut my mahogany. It's more of a darker brown like the typical Brazilian rosewood fingerboards, but I think the actual rosewood I got - funny color and all - will match nicely with the final color of the sunburst and the rest of the guitar. I'll see what happens later...

The maple is still a huge pain in the ass. I can get maple, no problem, but the flames are lacking. Truth be told, only about 10-15% of the 1958 Pauls came out with any significant flaming, and it was a pot-luck situation as to how much flame you would get if you bought a guitar. Nowadays, the tops are specifically sourced to provide these flames. So... I'm considering just getting a nice piece of maple, with all the little bit of flame I can get, and let it be what it is. Obviously flames would be nice, but a lack of flames does not take away anything from the "authenticity" of my replica - if you think "Les Paul", you think "flames under a Sunburst" though... Decisions, decisions... I suppose I could look again on e-bay or other online sources, but I like to touch and smell wood when I buy it - buying wood online is like ordering a Russian by mail...

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Making templates

Now the last thing you want to do is destroy your plans. (They got to go on the wall, remember...) So what you do now, is to make some sort of copy of them. Maybe I should rather say "make a CLONE"... It's got to be exact, brother. If you got a steady hand, you can simply trace the original plans. If not, I suggest a trip to your local photo-copy shop. They probably wont have a piece of paper big enough to copy it onto, but that's OK. Just copy it bit by bit, making sure the copies overlap, and put it together like a puzzle - but be precise! If needs be, draw some line-up markings on the original plan before copying them to help you re-align them later.

A cut-out of my copied paper template for the body - aligned and taped up, ready to go.

You can now cut out some of the main parts of the copy, (such as the body, neck, headstock and neck-profile), and hey, presto, you got a paper template - with your original plans in tact. The problem is that a paper template is not really going to do you much good when you're working with tools, but it's a step in the right direction. Next step it to transfer this to something a bit more rigid... something like, uummm, lets see... MDF maybe?

Honestly, I never heard of the stuff, but saw that a lot of other people used it for making their templates, so off to Wikipedia I went. Turns out, it's nothing more than plain ol' Supawood. MDF stands for Medium Density Fiberboard, and is actually a pretty accurate description of what it is, but then again, so is Supawood - this stuff is amazing. It's basically the very fine fibers of softwoods, mixed with wax and some resin, and pressed together under high pressure and temperature. This gives you something very dense, but still pretty light, with no grain. Lately it's been made from more environmentally friendly sources, such as recycled paper and sawmill dust, to save a few trees.

An example of MDF/Supawood. Also known as Customwood or Craftwood.

You can also use plywood, hardboard, or even perspex for making templates, but personally I foresee some problems with using these materials. Mainly, I think they will be a bit thin, and will have to be raised somewhat to be effective when you put a router up against them. Sure, you can use thicker plywood or chipboard even, but these might chip, crack, and generally loose their accuracy.

Your 16mm thick MDF templates should be just the shit for the job. You will have accurate templates that will last you a very long time, should you want to use them again - or even sell them on e-bay to cover some of the cost of building your guitar. If you really want to, and you keep the original plans in good condition and don't scribble all over them, you might even be able to re-sell these too. If you're only planning on building one, and never use the templates again, I suppose you could use just about anything to make templates with and bin them when you're done - just make sure you ARE done with them to save you having to cut another one later.

Now that I've told you how cool MDF/Supawood is, it does have a tendency to dull your tools a little faster than other materials, due to the resin in it, but then again, you're not going to be cutting a million of these. MDF also comes in very large sheets, and it might be a problem getting someone to sell you the small amount that you need - even half a sheet is way more than you need. After spending the whole of Monday morning driving around to find some smaller quantity, I got lucky and got some off-cuts that was big enough to cut out what I needed - it cost me R44.99 at Builders Warehouse.

Unfortunatly, at this point in time I'm still looking for smaller amounts of tone-wood. I was at the timber merchant again this morning to do some calculations, and it seems I'll have to get enough wood to build 6 Pauls - and thats just the mahogany! I might get it anyway and sell the rest as blanks on e-bay, since I will get them already cut and plained to just over size. In the meantime I'll keep looking and try to find wood for ONE guitar.

My paper body-template on my 450 x 350 x 16mm MDF - ready to be marked out.

I was going to take my copied plans and stick them onto my MDF using any old glue that's not going to mess things up to much, but decided to simply trace them on again. To do this I put the paper cut-out on the MDF - making sure the center lines are lined up, and that it DOES NOT MOVE - and then I simply took a big black marker and traced the outline. Half of the line on the paper, and half on the board. I actually made several small lines along the edge of the paper, moving from the paper onto the wood, all the way around. Don't make the lines from the wood onto the paper, as the edge of the paper might lift up, giving you an inaccurate outline. By doing it this way, it has the same effect as masking the wood with the paper and spraying along the edge - it gives you a perfect outline.

Body shape marked on the MDF - ready to be cut out.

Although the outside edge of the line is rather jagged, the critical inside of the line is perfect. I can now use the jigsaw to cut somewhere on the line, (it's about 10mm wide), and then sand the shape back to size - in other words, until I don't see any more black marker on the edge.
Don't even try to cut on the line - it's NOT going to happen, and you will have to start all over again. (See, I DID learn something in the woodwork class at school - jigsaws do what they want to do, not what you want them to do.) Leave a little bit on the outside of the line that you can sand back to exact size later. Obviously, the less you leave on, the less you have to sand back, but the closer you get to the line, the higher the risk of cutting into your template. Because of the high density and fine grain qualities of MDF, it sands really well, and you can get it really precise and smooth with little effort. I just did a check, and to my surprise, you can actually even take a rasp to it. My rasp is rather vicious, but it does not rip the edges as I suspected it would, provided I take my time - easy does it. So... stay clear with the jigsaw, rasp it a bit closer, and sand it down to size.

Roughly cut out with a Jigsaw and ready to get rasped!

Note the center line on the MDF.
When you trace your plans on paper, make sure to mark the center line of the body and neck, and transfer these marks to your board template, and draw this line in with something that will not rub off or fade later - that line is a VERY important reference for measuring and lining everything up later. At this point it is simply drawn in with a pencil, but I will cut this in with a sharp blade to mark it permanently. Best NOT to add the cavities to the template at this time, as the actual covers for these might differ slightly from what is drawn on the plans. You don't want to make a template that will never fit anything you cut with it. Also, the cavities for the picups will depend more on the actual pickup than the plan, so hang on with those too. When you do get these parts, you can just add the cavities to this template, and cut them out. (More on this later.)

Making a start on the horn. Note my high-tech vice - put it on a milk crate and sit on it.


Didn't I say to take it easy on the rasp?! Oh yes, I did...


Good to go! Rasped and sanded.

Bob's your uncle, Fanny's your aunt... you got a nice template for making sure you cut that chunk of mahogany right first time - that shit don't come cheap, you know!

I'm going to follow the exact same steps in making templates for the neck/headstock profile, as well as two separate templates for the neck and the headstock. The reason why I'm making two, is that a flat template will be useless with a headstock that tilts back at 16 degrees. When I cut the neck later, I will first cut the profile, and then trace and cut the "face" of the neck and the headstock separately. (More on this later.)

Now that I got my templates, I should really get a move on with finding that tone-wood! Well, its relatively easy to get if you're interested in mass producing guitars, or buying a tree. All I want is wood for ONE guitar, dammit - and soon would be good! Right about tomorrow would be a good time...

Saturday, May 10, 2008

First things first...

So... I got up this morning and there's this little notice from the post office in my mailbox, saying something arrived for me, and I need to come and collect it! Mmm, I wonder what that could be?! Maybe it's my Russian mail-order bride? Hell no, baby, it's my Paul-plans! I'll be very disappointed if it's a Russian woman and NOT my plans - I'll tell you that much...

After a run to the post office, (and a walk back), I had my new Russian woman, (where did she come from?), make me some coffee and I opened this baby, (the plans, not the Russian), on the kitchen table like an old timer would open a newspaper over a cup of tea. The only thing I read in the newspaper is the comics, but that will have to wait... No time for love, Dr. Jones... or is that Miss Kalashnikov???

Inspection

Now the first thing you need to do, is to make sure your plans at least resembles a 1958 Gibson Les Paul. After all, that's what you're building. My mother confirmed that it looks like guitar plans, (as opposed to plans for building a boat), so we're on the right track.

One thing that came up while researching this project, and talking to other people, is something that puzzled me quite a bit lately. It seems that not even Gibson can build a 50's re-issue (RI) correctly... Surely, if ANYBODY has reliable plans from the 50's it must be them? But alas, they still keep buggering up the positions of the control knobs! People, it's not that hard to get it right! I wonder if they are aware of this fact? Surely they must be? It's probably done with intent, but the questions is WHY?! Simply to distinguish the RI's from vintage 50's models? Thats what serial numbers are for!

Anyway... On the original 50's models, if you draw a straight line along the center of the tail-piece and extend this line toward the bottom of the guitar toward the knobs, this line should pass between the two knob closest to the neck, touching both of them. This line should touch the KNOBS after installation, so the actual center of the hole for the pod's pegs should be a distance equal to the radius of the knob away from this line drawn through the tail-piece. Might sound complicated, (seeing that even Gibson gets it wrong), but it really isn't. I'll explain it a bit better later when it comes down to installing these parts.

The correct position of the control knobs in relation to the tail-piece
on a vintage 1950's Les Paul Standard.


*Check the for control knob positions on the plans... They got it to within millimeters - not to bad... Makes a note and changes the plans.*

Ooh, my first scribble on my soon to be framed and hanged artwork!

*
Checks a few other things... Seems OK for now... Will keep on checking and double checking as I go on...*

The plans are for a 1959 LP Standard, and NOT for a '58, but very little, if anything at all, has changed during the few months of production in the late half of '58. I will find out what these little cosmetic changes were, and let you know when I get to them later.

The plans seem to have been drawn directly from a vintage '59, with the serial number 9 2044 - the number is actually drawn in on the plans. I wonder if the guy who drew the plans was meticulous and drew it in because it was there, or if he had a sense of humor, did some research, and added the number for the hell of it. Be that as it may, the number does correspond to a late 1959 Les Paul Standard - one of the last ones made in that year, since the numbers for 1959 stop around 9 25xx.

Time for love, Miss Paul...

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

With some consultation with the plans, a few measurement translations, and a few plans to cheat, I came out with the following cutting list to take to the nice people at the timber merchants. You will need the following:

Mahogany:
450 x 350 x 45mm (Body - if you cant find 350mm, like me, glue up two 175's for a center seam*)
660 x 80 x 45mm (Neck)
90 x 80 x 45mm (Headstock - glued up to the end of the neck to accommodate the headstock angle**)

Maple:
450 x 175 x 16mm (x2) (Top - glued up to 450 x 350, center seam)

Rosewood:
65 x 470 x 7mm (Fingerboard)

*Gluing the mahogany on a center seam is not ideal for two reasons. Firstly, it's not supposed to have a seam, and secondly, any glue joints in the guitar will be "softer" than the wood, and absorb some tone... Look really hard for a piece of 450mm - short of cutting down a tree, gluing two 175's together should be your last resort.)

**Gluing the extra bit on for the headstock angle is not ideal either, but a viable and less critical "cheat". If you glue the two 45mm pieces up like that, you can get it from the same 50mm board, and have it plained once. The other option is to get a separate board, with a lot of wastage in both boards, and have the second one cut and plained to 660 x 80 x 65mm.

These measurements are slightly oversize for two reasons. Firstly, it's plained a little think to allow for some sanding - this is really very little, but enough to sand it properly. Secondly, it leaves you with a little bit of wood outside the actual shape of the guitar for the router to take off, without having to cut to close to the outlines with a jigsaw.

Wood is normally sold in standard sizes, so you will be forced to buy more than you really need. Looking at the cutting list and the standard sizes of wood, I will probably have to buy enough wood for 2 bodies, 3 tops, 3 necks and 6 fingerboards. Guess who is going to build some more of these? If you are lucky enough to have some of these woods in the right sizes, or you can organize to only buy what you need, PLEASE do so and save a tree.

Besides the "proper" wood, you will also need something to make templates from. The material depends on how lasting you want your templates to be - are you going to use them once, or are you planning on using them again? The thickness does not really matter all that much, but I would suggest something at least 10mm thick. (See the next post on making the templates for more information.) I'm probably going to use MDF or plywood for my templates, depending on the price, and I'll see what I can find as far as thickness goes, so for now I'll just give you the surface sizes of the material you need to get. You will need:

450 x 350mm (For the body, the top, and the cavities)
80 x 700mm (For the neck)
80 x 180mm (For the headstock)
80 x 660mm (For the neck and headstock profile)

Keep the rest of the board you got for the templates when they cut it for you. These bits will come in handy later to make smaller little templates, like those for the cavities, or even the neck joint.

***

It's Saturday afternoon now, so there's is no point in going to the shops now to get the wood. I'll just sit back, have a few beers, and wait for Monday morning. (Damn, this waiting is killing me!) I'll go get at least the material for the templates on Monday, and start on making those. The tone-wood might have to wait a little longer, until I finished some other work I have on order, so I can get paid for that, so I can pay the timber merchant. (Capitalism hard at work while I have to sit and wait...)

Friday, May 2, 2008

A bit of a history lesson

After spending ages trying to find plans to build this bitch, and finally finding them, the suspense of waiting for them is killing me now! I'm going take my time building her though - not only meaning I'll be precise and meticulous, but there will be a lot of waiting time between steps, while I figure out plans to hoodwink the capitalists and find some money, so I can carry on. I suppose I'll have to get used to waiting, although, I must admit, patience has never been one of my virtues.

I can't even go and look at wood until I know exactly what sizes I'm looking for. I'm not planning on using bought blanks, but rather raw wood from the lumber yard, for the body, top, neck, and fingerboard. I know that a LP Standard body is 17 1/2" long, 12 3/4" wide, and 2" deep, (1 1/2" mahogany and 1/2" maple), but I need to confirm this on my plans, since I want them to plane it to a millimeter or so over-size, to make my work a little bit less. Converting all these measurements from inches to millimeters for us non-imperial locals is going to be another nightmare all on its own, since imperial fractions don't really translate into decimal millimeters all that well... I'll keep being a fraction of a millimeter long or short - not much you might say, but you will be surprised at how big a fuck-up half a millimeter can make! Sure, I can work in inches, but try telling a timber merchant you want it planed to 1 6/8 inches... they get this blank stare on their faces...

To keep my mind otherwise occupied, (I should really be studying), lets have a look at the history of the Gibson Les Paul.

***

The Les Paul is the result of a design collaboration between the Gibson Guitar Corporation, and the musician/electronics inventor Lester Polsfuss (a.k.a. Les Paul), in 1951. Earlier, in 1945/6, Paul approached Gibson with a prototype solid-body guitar, simply know as "The Log", but the design was rejected. After Fender came out with the Tellecaster in 1950, and caused a public craze in the market, Gibson president Ted McCarty, called Les Paul back in 1951, and the collaboration was born.

It is unclear who contributed what to the design of the Les Paul model, but it was clearly very different from the competing Fender models. Gibson have been offering hollow-body electric guitars since the 30's, with a much more traditional shape than that of the Telecaster. This body shape, together with the glued in, set neck, served as a loose design template for the new Les Paul models. There is some controversy about the actual contributions Les Paul made to the design of the guitar that carries his name. The book "50 Years of the Gibson Les Paul", limits his contributions to two - advice on the trapeze tail-piece, and the colour. According to the book, Paul preferred gold as a colour, since it made the guitar "look more expensive", or as an second option, black, because "it makes your fingers look like they are moving faster in the box", and "it looks classy, like a tuxedo". McCarty also claims that when Gibson approached Paul, they presented him with a nearly finished product, and that they only needed advice on the tail-piece, and permision to add his name to the headstock to increase sales. Paul also requested that the maple top over the mahogany body be reversed, but Gibson declined this request. This would have made the guitar far heavier than it already is, and secondly, in retrospect, it would have been a sin to rob future generations of that wonderful flame maple tops under the finish!

A vintage 1952 Gibson Les Paul Goldtop. This puppy is for sale on e-bay we speak,
for a mere $28,000 - that's R213,000 to us locals!!!

The Les Paul "Goldtop" (1952-1957)

The original 52 Gold's were fitted with two P90 single-coil pickups, and a one-piece trapeze bridge/tail-piece, with the strings running UNDER the steel top-bar, as opposed to over it. The pickups were fitted with creme coloured covers, which became famous, and is still associated with this model to this day. However, there seem to a great variation in the models of this issue, and some were fitted with black pickup covers. None of the 52 Gold's were issued with serial numbers either, and is considered by some to be prototypes for the Les Paul models.

The original Goldtops were far from perfect though, and they had a lot of problems with intonation, and these problems soon became a design focus. To resolve this problem, the trapeze were replaced by a wrap-around tail-piece in 1953, and later, in mid to late 1955, this was again replaced by the Gibson designed Tune-o-Matic system, that is still used today. In 1957, the P90's were replaced by Gibson's new duel-coil Humbucker pickups, designed to reduce sonic interference, caused by AC electricity - an invention that changed the Les Paul's sound and stability for ever.

A vintage 1957 Gibson Les Paul Custom, with three Humbucker pickups.

The Les Paul Custom (1954-1960)

The second issue of the Les Paul, the Les Paul Custom, was made available in 1954. It was an all black work of art, and therefore it was dubbed "The Black Beauty". It featured a mahogany top on top of the mahogany body, (as opposed to the maple top of the earlier Goldtops), the new Tune-o-Matic bridge, a P90 in the bridge, and a new pickup with an Alnico-5 magnet, (designed by Seth Lover), in the neck position. Hardwear was available in gold or nickel silver plated versions, and the frets were much lower and flatter on the new ebony fingerboard, and it soon earned the additional nickname of "Fretless Wonder".

As from 1957, they were aslo fitted with two Gibson PAF (Patent Applied For) Humbuckers, and later became available with three of these, as opposed to the usual two. The three-pickup models were strictly speaking not "Fretless Wonders" though, as they were fitted with the original Jumbo frets.

The problem with the three-pickup model was that Gibson stuck with the standard three-way pickup selector switch, which meant that not all pickup combinations could be used. While the bridge and neck-only setting on the switch stayed the way they were previously, the old setting to use both these pickups was rewired to use a combination of the middle and bridge pickups. A common modification by users was to restore the original bridge-both-neck settings on the switch, and to install ANOTHER switch to control the middle pickup on its own.

A vintage 1955 Gibson Les Paul "TV" model - essentially a Gibson Les Paul Junior, with a special translucent yellow finish to reduce glare on early television broadcasts.

The Les Paul Junior (1954-1960),
and the "TV" model (1955-1960)


To expand the electric guitar market, Gibson released the Les Paul Junior, targeted at the bottom end of the price range for novice players, but it soon became popular with professional musicians, (such as John Lennon).

The Junior was basically a stripped down Les Paul - simply to make them available cheaper. Although the shape of the Junior was very close to the more upmarket Les Paul, it had a flat "slab" top in solid mahogany, as opposed to the carved maple top of the more expensive models. It also came with a single P90 pickup, simple volume and tone controls, and unbound body and rosewood fingerboard, with simple dot inlays. To sweeten the deal, they were also fitted the same stud bridge/tail-piece as the second issue Goldtops. It is also the first Les Paul model to have the absolute CLASSIC Sunburst finish that Les Paul's are known for - although the Sunburst finish was a feature on earlier Gibson acoustic arch-tops and hollow-body electric guitars.

In 1955, Gibson released the "TV" model, which was nothing more that a Junior with a special finish. Although Gibson called the finish "natural", it was actually a translucent mustard yellow, through which the natural grain of the mahogany could be seen - much like the "Butterschotch Yellow" that Fender came out with around this time. The reason for the name and the colour? Because of the quality of black and white TV broadcasts at the time, white guitars would produce to much glare on the screen, where as the "TV Yellow" did not - I shit you not... cross my heart and hope to die... stick a needle in my eye...

Left: A 1954 vintage Gibson Les Paul Junior in a Sunburst finish.
Right: A vintage 1958 Gibson Les Paul Junior with the double cut-away in Cherry Red.

To accomodate requests for easier access to the top frets, Gibson made a radical change the the design of the Junior and TV models in 1958, and revamped both models cosmetically, in addition to the double-cutaway. The Junior got a brand new coat in Cherry Red, while the TV model became rather Yellow.

The Les Paul Special (1955-1960)

In 1955, Gibson released the the Les Paul Special, featuring two mini Humbuckers, finished in a variation of the TV Yellow. In 1959, the Special was changed to incorporate the double cut-aways that was applied to the Junior and TV models a year before, but when this was done, the neck pickup cavity overlapped with the neck-joint cavity, and resulted in the necks breaking after moderate handling. Since the Junior and the TV only had one pickup, this was not a problem. The designers at the Gibson plant soon rectified their obvious mistake, by moving the neck pickup further back towards the bridge, (DUH!), and hey presto, a stronger neck joint. Note I said strongER... Even today LP's are know to have vulnerable neck joints - be careful when you choke them.


The ultimate Rock icon - A vintage 1958 Gibson Les Paul Standard.

The Les Paul Standard (1958-1960)

In 1958, Gibson changed the finish on the regular Les Paul model from the gold colour used since 1952, and replaced it with the distinctive Sunburst finish, and these later became know as Les Paul Standard's, to distinguish them from the earlier Goldtops. They did not have the distinctive look, now known as Cherry Burst, associated with them today when they left the factory. They were in fact Sunburst like the Juniors, but due to the quality of the red dyes used, the red faded very easy. Especially the units made in 1959 had a particularly "bad" red, which faded much more than the 58's. This "accidental" use of inferior dye caused the varied colour variations that the Gibson Les Paul Standard is famous for. The harwear specs were the same as the Goldtops, featuring the new Humbucker pickups.

Another change was the fact that the new LP Standards came with a two-piece maple top that was book-matched, creating a visible seam under the translucent burst-finish. In later years, many Goldtops were re-finished in the burst of the new Standards, (either by users or by Gibson, using old stock), but the original Goldtops had a SOLID maple top. If your vintage Paul has no visible seam in the top under a burst-finish, it's a tell-tale sign that it is a re-finished Goldtop. There is no exception to this rule, except for one of the very first original Sunburst Les Paul Standard - Serial number 8_3322 - which has an off-center seam in the maple.

A vintage 1962 Gibson SG with slide-pull vibrato system.
(Note the "Les Paul" truss rod cover, indicating that it is a pre-1963 specimen.)

Paul-lessness and the Gibson SG (1960-1968)

After being in production for only eight years, a decline in their market share, due to their high prices and strong competition from Fender's (much lighter) double cut-away Stratocaster, made Gibson decide to stop production of the Gibson Les Paul. In response to this, Gibson came up with a new guitar, which was much thinner and lighter than the Les Paul, with two sharply pointed cut-aways and a vibrato system. These changes to the design was made without consulting Les Paul, (the musician), and as soon as he saw the new guitar, he asked Gisbon to remove his name from the instrument, and parted ways with Gibson Corporation. Although this seperation ocoured in 1960, Gibson continued to use the Les Paul name on these new guitars until 1963, because they had a surplus of "Les Paul" logo's and truss rod covers.

Finally, in 1963, they changed the name of the new guitar to the Gibson SG, which was simply short for "Solid Guitar". (My capitalist friend with the credit card asked me what SG stood for the other day, and I didn't know the answer - now we both know, thanks to Wikipedia.) They continued to produce the cheaper Junior, Special, and the Melody Maker models with the newer body style, which became the standard Gibson electric guitar models, until the return of the Les Paul Standard Goldtop and the Les Paul Custom, in 1968.

The hero's of the day - An original Gibson PAF Humbucker on a vintage 50's Gibson Les Paul.

PAF to the resque!

During the time that the Les Paul was off the market, from 1960-1968, artists such as Keith Richards and Eric Clapton became real fans of the Les Paul, and gave them extensive exposure. The reason for their interest in these 50's models of Les Pauls, were the PAF Humbuckers, sounding like nothing else out at the time. Since there was a patent on the PAF (Patent Applied For) Humbuckers, nobody else could produce them, and the cheap knock-off's of other manufacturers simply did not give the same results. Fender did not even try to do something similar, and when they entered the Humbucker market in 1972, (15 years after Gibson came out with the PAF), it was with a radically different Fender Wide Range pickup.

For this reason, authentic 50's Les Pauls have become the most desirable and expensive guitars in the world. A '59 Paul in good condition can now sell for between $200,000 and $750,000 - that's more than R5.6 Million to us locals!!! Even in the late 60's, prices of the 50's Les Pauls went up so much due to popular demand, that Gibson would have been stupid not to bring them back to the market, and so, in 1968, we moved out of the dark ages of "Paul-lessness", and back into the age of Rock! The Paul was back!

*STILL A PROBLEM: Unfortunately, as I mentioned before, South Africa has been suffering Paul-lessness for the past few months, and will continue to suffer at least for the next few months - hopefully this is resolved ASAP!

Thursday, May 1, 2008

So, how do you do this thing?

If all else fails, read the instructions. At the lack of the luxury of having an actual 58 LP, (or any LP for that matter), close at hand to copy from, the next best thing, (or maybe ever better), is to get plans for it. PROPER plans! I don't think my friend's Zakk Wylde is going to cut it as a template for a 58, although very little has changed over the last 50 years or so, besides cosmetics - but then again, what's the odd's of him borrowing me his Zakk?

Insomnia can be a good thing. During the past week I spent only a few hours sleeping, and I used the awake-time to do some online searching. Sure, I found some plans and diagrams for building a Paul, but to be honest and with all due respect, they suck! Now I ask you with tears in my navy blue eyes, what good is a plan without any measurements?

Being the anti-capitalist that I am, I don't own a credit card, (or bank account for that matter), so buying online is impossible. Eventually, after a lot of searching, I realized that there is no other way but to buy PROPER luthier plans online. Thanks to a helpful capitalist friend, (one with a credit card, that is), I bought some plans from Pilgrim Projects via e-bay. These plans come highly recommended, and I saw some other people use it for their own projects while I was researching my own project, and the results looks really good. If they can follow the plans, so can I - I might be stupid, but I'm not THAT stupid...

Here is the link to the plans I got from e-bay. Alternatively, go directly to the Pilgrim Projects website, where you can get a wider variety of products, probably at a better price than you would get it for from them via e-bay. It is the exact same plans that you can get directly from Stewart-MacDonald, where the ones from Pilgrim Projects come from anyway.

For those of you that is not interested in building your own and simply follow my progress, there is no need to go to the link, so I will post a few pictures of the plans, just to give you an idea of what I'm dealing with here.

These pictures are all supplied by Pilgrim Projects.

The plans cost $9.50, with a $4.00 shipping charge inside the US, but since it was shipped to me in South Africa, the total cost of the plans was $17.50 - that comes to R132.29 for us locals. I got confirmation of payment yesterday, and they will be shipped within 2-3 working days. With the weekend upon us, and the state of the local postal service, I hope to have them in my hands by the end of next week - that might be optimistic, but lets hope for the best!

Thanks again to my friend for helping out with the credit card! It's much appreciated! (You know who you are.)

*NOTE: These plans will probably be framed, with all my notes and calculations and shit scribbled all over them, and put on the wall somewhere... just not to sure where though. Not for sentimental reasons, but purely because I really like technical drawings. I think a mahogany frame would be just the thing ;)

Building a 1958 Gibson Les Paul

So, I'm going to build myself a 58 Gibson LP - am I fucking nuts? This is the Holy Grail of guitars! It is the ultimate icon of Rock n Roll, (used as the logo for Hard Rock Cafe), but it is so perfect in it's design, that it handles everything from classic jazz, to blues, to rock, and even some serious metal with ease. If you're going to get a guitar, this is it. As for building one... "If you want to play with the big dogs, you can't piss like a puppy." Go big or go home!

Some complain about the weight of the Les Paul, (averaging around 9-10lbs, as opposed to the average Strat, that tips the scales at around 7lbs), but so what? Do you want the tone, or not? The heavier the guitar, the better the tone, and for tone, nothing beats the solid mahogany body and maple top of a Paul - especially if you plug it in to a Marshall amp.


The real deal: A vintage 1958 Gibson Les Paul - the Holy Grail


There are many, many Les Pauls out there, with the main difference, (and topic of argument), being that some are made by Gibson in the USA, and some by Ephiphone, (owned by Gibson), under license in Japan. Some purists say that the Epi's are just about the worst thing out, when compared to a Gibson, while Epi users say there is no difference, other than about $2,500 in price. Personally, I don't care. It makes no difference to me whether you play an Epi or a Gibby - to each his own. If you're happy, so am I.

I barely have money to buy booze and cigarettes, so I know the frustration of wanting something and having to settle for something cheaper, so I wont bash the Epi - it's a good guitar for a good price. However, the purist in me prefers the Gibson, for no other reason than authenticity.

Obviously, mine wont be build by Gibson, or even Epiphone for that matter, but a home-build custom job, as close as possible to the original 1958 model. (Even the re-issues that Gibson build differs a lot from the original.) I will however kit it out with genuine Gibson parts, again sticking to what was in the original '58 models.

As far as year-models go, the Gibson Les Paul has been around since for ever. I'm sure there are some quality differences, but mainly the differences are cosmetic. The reason why I'm going for the '58 Standard, is mainly because it's as original as they come, and it's just about the only proper plans I could get online. That, plus it's been exactly 50 years since the first Les Paul Standard rolled off the line in the Gibson plant, so see it as a 50th anniversary special.

*PROBLEM: A few months ago the sole importer of Gibson to South Africa stoped importing them, so nothing is available here! No guitars, no parts, nothing. Luckily, some clever guy started e-bay, so guess where I'll get parts? (I've been told that the import issue is being resolved, and we will have a new importer soon, so lets hope for the best - popping down to the local store is so much easier than searching on e-bay)