Jump to content
Why become a member? ×
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt

17/03/1964 a day of birth Precision bass build


rubis

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Andyjr1515 said:

Mmmm - I think you are right, looking at those. 

So @rubis would be probably talking only one set of radii  :)  

Looking just how thin that rhs fretboard is, I would be very surprised if the bottom of the fretboard had to be concave carved.  I'm sure it's just pressed on and clamped against the radius as in my option 1

 

 

Those mustang necks aren't a good gauge :)

The board on my P is still pretty thick, and it's def. radiused top and bottom - I wouldn't want to steam/clamp/glue this board back on if the bottom was flat - it'd be quite a pig to do I reckon. Looking at the end grain I'd say it's cut bottom first (concave) out of a rectangular piece, then mounted, then the top carved to match. Then again, I'm getting well out of my depth on this now!!! 😁

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bridgehouse said:

Those mustang necks aren't a good gauge :)

The board on my P is still pretty thick, and it's def. radiused top and bottom - I wouldn't want to steam/clamp/glue this board back on if the bottom was flat - it'd be quite a pig to do I reckon. Looking at the end grain I'd say it's cut bottom first (concave) out of a rectangular piece, then mounted, then the top carved to match. Then again, I'm getting well out of my depth on this now!!! 😁

Actually - I think you are probably spot on!

And remember - on this subject, I REALLY don't know what I'm talking about ;)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Andyjr1515 said:

Actually - I think you are probably spot on!

And remember - on this subject, I REALLY don't know what I'm talking about ;)

Lol - you might say that, but I've got one right in front of me and I still can't work out what they have done 😁

I can however see why fender went back to slab later on as the work involved in this method just to get the truss rod a bit higher does seem a bit extreme. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gawd me 'ead's spinning now 😣

I must admit I assumed (I know you should never do that!) that the radius was 7.25" and the topside and bottomside were parallel, I will have to look more closely at this, and if I go down the DIY route (and knowing how stubborn I am, I probably will) then maybe some sort of compromise or easiest route might be in order! 

Thanks again gents, I love all this, it's the internet at its best 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rubis said:

Gawd me 'ead's spinning now 😣

I must admit I assumed (I know you should never do that!) that the radius was 7.25" and the topside and bottomside were parallel, I will have to look more closely at this, and if I go down the DIY route (and knowing how stubborn I am, I probably will) then maybe some sort of compromise or easiest route might be in order! 

Thanks again gents, I love all this, it's the internet at its best 

7.25” top and bottom would look right in my opinion, just based on staring at mine for a while ;)

I think as long as you get the thickness right then it will broadly look no different to mine. The biggest thing will be trying to match some of that wear at the end of the board which has that “old smoothed wood” look about it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Bridgehouse said:

Those mustang necks aren't a good gauge :)

The board on my P is still pretty thick, and it's def. radiused top and bottom - I wouldn't want to steam/clamp/glue this board back on if the bottom was flat - it'd be quite a pig to do I reckon. Looking at the end grain I'd say it's cut bottom first (concave) out of a rectangular piece, then mounted, then the top carved to match. Then again, I'm getting well out of my depth on this now!!! 😁

Thanks Bridgehouse, this is the sequence I was thinking too

First step would be to radius the neck blank, at 7.25" convex, then the underneath of the fingerboard at 7.25" concave, then glue it on - it would help with clamping that the bottom of the neck blank and the top of the fingerboard would still at that stage be flat. Then finally route the top radius as per any other (normal :dash1:neck build) 

Sounds easy when you write it down 

Edited by rubis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, rubis said:

Thanks Bridgehouse, this is the sequence I was thinking too

First step would be to radius the neck blank, at 7.25" convex, then the underneath of the fingerboard at 7.25" concave, then glue it on - it would help with clamping that the bottom of the neck blank and the top of the fingerboard would still at that stage be flat. Then finally route the top radius as per any other (normal :dash1:neck build) 

Sounds easy when you write it down 

Rather you than me ;)

Then again, although there’s extra steps involved I suspect it’s not that tricky. At least you can mount the truss rod a bit higher for that authentic look 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you not expect there to be a difference in the top and bottom of the fretboard that is equal to the thickness of the board?

In other words, the arc of the top of the fretboard should share the same centre as the bottom arc.  The way you are describing it with 7.25" top and bottom, it wouldn't look  obvious across that short segment of the two circles but it would if you extended the arc of the two circles. l They'd intersect eventually.

Shouldn't it be 7.25" for the top radius and 7.25" minus the thickness of the board for the bottom radius?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Bridgehouse said:

7.25” top and bottom would look right in my opinion, just based on staring at mine for a while ;)

I think as long as you get the thickness right then it will broadly look no different to mine. The biggest thing will be trying to match some of that wear at the end of the board which has that “old smoothed wood” look about it

Me too - on some of the photos.  

The only thing....and it might be an optical illusion...is that on a number of them I've looked at, I reckon that the FRETS might be a tighter radius than the board.  Doesn't it look the same to you?  But bear in mind I have astigmatism and varifocals.  Which is another reason you might want to disregard my comments... :lol: 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Andyjr1515 said:

Me too - on some of the photos.  

The only thing....and it might be an optical illusion...is that on a number of them I've looked at, I reckon that the FRETS might be a tighter radius than the board.  Doesn't it look the same to you?  But bear in mind I have astigmatism and varifocals.  Which is another reason you might want to disregard my comments... :lol: 

Yep - frets def look like they are at a tighter radius. Maybe it’s how they are shaped at the edges...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SpondonBassed said:

Would you not expect there to be a difference in the top and bottom of the fretboard that is equal to the thickness of the board?

In other words, the arc of the top of the fretboard should share the same centre as the bottom arc.  The way you are describing it with 7.25" top and bottom, it wouldn't look  obvious across that short segment of the two circles but it would if you extended the arc of the two circles. l They'd intersect eventually.

Shouldn't it be 7.25" for the top radius and 7.25" minus the thickness of the board for the bottom radius?

I reckon that they are the same radius and that means they look like there is more wood in the centre than the edges...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bridgehouse said:

I reckon that they are the same radius and that means they look like there is more wood in the centre than the edges...

Which, thinking about it, is what @SpondonBassed says above :)  Parallel would mean the radius at the top of the frets would be more than 7.25" so, if they used the same block, it would appear to be tighter

Edited by Andyjr1515
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Andyjr1515 said:

Which, thinking about it, is what @SpondonBassed says above :)  Parallel would mean the radius at the top of the frets would be more than 7.25" so, if they used the same block, it would appear to be tighter

I think we have the answer then! The board is 7.25 at the top and probably at the bottom, thus appearing a bit looser, and the frets a bit tighter due to also being 7.25

Cor. I'm sticking to a one piece fretless neck - this stuff is too hard for my little brain 😁

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think something like the jig in this build thread from the TDPRI forum might be the solution to my neck build conundrum 

http://www.tdpri.com/threads/mojotrons-former-build-challenge-thread.263775/page-6

This is another quite interesting thread on building veneer necks, albeit with a CNC machine in this thread 

http://www.tdpri.com/threads/cnc-broadcaster-build-and-then-some.112695/page-7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an idea...

Could you radius the neck blank, then fix some sandpaper to it to concave-radius the back of the board? i.e. use your neck blank as a sanding block. You'd probably want to make up a jig to keep it all aligned. That's assuming you haven't tapered the neck yet

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/10/2018 at 14:13, SpondonBassed said:

Would you not expect there to be a difference in the top and bottom of the fretboard that is equal to the thickness of the board?

In other words, the arc of the top of the fretboard should share the same centre as the bottom arc.  The way you are describing it with 7.25" top and bottom, it wouldn't look  obvious across that short segment of the two circles but it would if you extended the arc of the two circles. l They'd intersect eventually.

Shouldn't it be 7.25" for the top radius and 7.25" minus the thickness of the board for the bottom radius?

This

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Right.....how time flies! 

I haven't been entirely idle for the past couple of months, but I haven't been as busy with this as I had hoped to have been. 

I have been experimenting with a router jig to get that troublesome veneer fingerboard radius, and got part of the way there. I have used some parts from 3D printers 

s-l1600.thumb.jpg.2d3b8a6df7600288ef0f536eeebc2ddc.jpg

I got the12mm bar for the bearings to slide along, as it needs to be quite long to fit a bass neck onto, and have been trying to make a holder for my laminate trimmer (for lightness, so it doesn't bow in the middle while travelling lengthways. 

I'm pretty sure it will work (eventually!) but there is a lot more trial and error than I had thought. I had envisaged a device which would allow the trimmer to travel side to side on a curved holder, as others had done, which would give the required radius, and hoped to have been able to have it reversible so that it would do concave and convex, but that might be a bit ambitious!

I haven't abandoned the idea, but I have put it to one side for now and taken the easy/sensible option of ordering an aftermarket neck from Musikraft. I have heard good things about their necks and they seem to be the only ones to offer the period correct veneer board, the price is reasonable too.  The only problem, of course was getting a rosewood fingerboard as there are problems exporting it, so I had to make one compromise. 

They offer a great service where you can spec pretty much anything you like, so I went on their site and was able to order a neck which will exactly meet my needs. 

These are the options I have gone for

Options:
ORIENTATION: Right for Right Handed Players
HEAD SHAPE: J/P Style
HEEL SHAPE: Rounded J/P Style
NUMBER OF FRETS: 20 Fret (Standard)
NUT WIDTH: 1-3/4 P Style (44.45mm)
HEEL WIDTH: 2.4375 (61.91mm) Vintage Fender
TUNER HOLE SIZE: 2 Step 11/16 X 9/16 Vintage Fender
TRUSS ROD TYPE: Single Acting Adjust at the Heel
FB RADIUS: 7-1/4
NUT SLOT STYLE: 1/8 Standard Fender Style
SHAFT WOOD: Rock Maple
FINGER BOARD STYLE: Veneer Vintage Fender (20 Fret Only) Will Come With 50/50 Side Dots + $80
FINGER BOARD WOOD: Brazilian Walnut - Reclaimed Lumber from The Coney Island Boardwalk
TOP DOTS & INLAY: Imitation Clay
BINDING: None
SIDE DOTS: Imitation Clay 2mm
FRET WIRE SIZE: 6230 Vintage Small
FB EDGES: Semi Rolled Standard
BACK PROFILE: Fat C 1.0 X 1.0
FINISH: Raw (No Warranty)
MOUNTING HOLES: Do Not Drill Mounting Holes

All vintage spec and with the fattest neck possible, exactly as I would have hoped to have built it myself.

This way will also mean I will not have the headache of fretwork and fettling to get it acceptable. 

The fingerboard material is a little unusual....."FINGER BOARD WOOD: Brazilian Walnut - Reclaimed Lumber from The Coney Island Boardwalk"...……..sounds quite cool coming from the Coney Island Boardwalk but from what I can gather, it's a very similar colour, and I had intended to try using brown dye to darken the fingerboard for a more aged look anyway (apparently brown leather dye works well).

The build time is 6 to 8 weeks, which is perfect, as it's going to be my birthday present. 

Hopefully it may arrive early enough to get it finished in time for St Patricks Day, when I can wet it's head with a Guinness or two! 

Here are a couple of pics I found of a relic'd Musikraft Jazz neck which gives a pretty good idea of what they do 

rvw8ao1cnnvynekewfiq.jpg.a208739767ace090aaf2cf303fd22f23.jpg

evnwvnhzfebt1tkyvpoh.jpg.ebe3643814bab17fc0c9a7b3c3835cf2.jpg

dzcdljale3kqzvkzkp1i.jpg.e96b51586eb0ec8b1be5de0e7b32001d.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just catching up on this thread, but wanted to say that the workmanship and attention to detail is amazing! What a great job on the relicing of the body. 

It might be too late, but if you are still looking for stamps for the neck-pate numbering, the originals would have been imperial measurements, rather than metric. Probably something like 5/32.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Thanks Simon, I got some 4mm stamps after Bridgehouse very kindly measured the numbers on his own bass (lucky bugger). The neck plate will probably be the next little job I can do while I'm waiting for the neck to arrive. 

I did the aluminium pickguard shield tonight. I worked out the wording from various photos around to be 'ALCLAD 2024T3 Q' and '2 KAISER' ………...like this 

 

avbzcbgzey1igznqanly.jpg.d25ce29f016f0d775c10045e71519ac0.jpg1600.thumb.jpg.f25841dbbcd1b4abf4af03708fc63a2e.jpg

I found some stamps online which looked to be near enough same size and font, some red enamel spray paint, a plastic clipboard and one of them roller things for getting dog hair off your trousers!

IMG_0014.thumb.JPG.f0398609e9c79c721fc7ec04b55080ed.JPG

After masking off the shield at what looked like the same width of gaps, I applied the lettering and I'm quite pleased with the results. 

IMG_0015.thumb.JPG.49e382a7a410964f61190f19c281caef.JPG

Edited by rubis
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I've been having a bit of fun with the hardware, making it look 'less new' 

I took the pickup covers off and rubbed them down with fine wet and dry and then 0000 steel wool to give them more of a matt finish like this 

repro_pbass_pu_cover.jpg.45653f558540d153c217e9edebdb5df2.jpg

Then I read about using this stuff on the polepieces of alnico pickups

IMG_0019.thumb.JPG.2d646cef05c7c71045a257db2c8f27f0.JPG

On the photos of vintage P basses I have studied, some have rusted polepieces, some are blackened, I decided that blackening them would be both easier and kinder to the pickup! 

Here is a sort of before and after comparison 

IMG_0021.thumb.JPG.09b3be5a604a6f5ebfe14be318e953fe.JPG

Edited by rubis
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next step was Dr Fakenstein's acid bath!

Bought some concrete cleaner and some plastic tubs and put the metal parts in to tarnish.

You put a bit of the acid in the larger container which needs to have an airtight lid, then float the smaller tub with the parts in, inside and place it somewhere safe outside, checking on it every 30 mins or so until you get the desired look. 

DSC02946.thumb.JPG.069875d1e8bf4bb8c35a5e50acaaf91b.JPGDSC02945.thumb.JPG.344352eefaf8f9c668fcaeabdb045f51.JPG

DSC02944.thumb.JPG.5373629d8189200620a19df2620e23fd.JPG

The process definitely works better on nickel coated parts, rather than chrome, and I resisted the temptation to soak them in the liquid, as I had noticed on the pre-relic'd bridge I bought that the baseplate looked a bit blotchy, as if some sort of liquid (etching fluid or acid?) had been put on it and globules had formed and left to dry. It didn't look all that authentic to me, anyway so I polished it up and put it in the tub and (to me anyway!) improved it a bit. DSC02623.thumb.JPG.e493115bc56398b4ad9fde7cb74a8307.JPG

this was before I re-did the baseplate 

DSC02950.thumb.JPG.a81b71daf37519c0d69a5c9578c7fed3.JPG

This is after. 

I got a bit 'acid happy' and put in the brass pickup plate and the pots, just to take a bit of the shiny newness off them!

DSC02951.thumb.JPG.a7b4edf81be8004bcc0bb7bb1e219d17.JPG

 

 

 

 

Edited by rubis
duplicate picture
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, rubis said:

Next step was Dr Fakenstein's acid bath!

Bought some concrete cleaner and some plastic tubs and put the metal parts in to tarnish.

You put a bit of the acid in the larger container which needs to have an airtight lid, then float the smaller tub with the parts in, inside and place it somewhere safe outside, checking on it every 30 mins or so until you get the desired look. 

DSC02946.thumb.JPG.069875d1e8bf4bb8c35a5e50acaaf91b.JPGDSC02945.thumb.JPG.344352eefaf8f9c668fcaeabdb045f51.JPG

DSC02944.thumb.JPG.5373629d8189200620a19df2620e23fd.JPG

The process definitely works better on nickel coated parts, rather than chrome, and I resisted the temptation to soak them in the liquid, as I had noticed on the pre-relic'd bridge I bought that the baseplate looked a bit blotchy, as if some sort of liquid (etching fluid or acid?) had been put on it and globules had formed and left to dry. It didn't look all that authentic to me, anyway so I polished it up and put it in the tub and (to me anyway!) improved it a bit. DSC02623.thumb.JPG.e493115bc56398b4ad9fde7cb74a8307.JPG

this was before I re-did the baseplate 

DSC02950.thumb.JPG.a81b71daf37519c0d69a5c9578c7fed3.JPG

This is after. 

I got a bit 'acid happy' and put in the brass pickup plate and the pots, just to take a bit of the shiny newness off them!

DSC02951.thumb.JPG.a7b4edf81be8004bcc0bb7bb1e219d17.JPG

 

 

 

 

I was with it until the pots went in!   Do they still work??

Other than that slight worry, the rest of it is very impressive.  Your methods are producing some very natural looking ageing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

😅

I hope so Andy, they weren't in there for more than 1/2 hour to be honest, it's quite a slow process, perhaps because the containers I used were bigger than the ones I have seen people using on the YouTube clips I watched, so maybe the fumes are less concentrated? 

Some of the metal parts took longer than I was led to believe from the clips, and the chromed bits are very subtle, which is probably a good thing! 

Anyway, if the pots are buggered, they are fairly cheap to replace, fingers crossed, and thank you for your comments!

Edited by rubis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...