You are currently viewing Kit Guitar Forum archives. To view the current forums go to www.KitGuitarsForum.com/board



Log-in
Register
Members


X brace intersection with pre-scalloped braces
Author
Post
Kyle

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 45
So I'm carving the notches in my X braces and realize that there's no way I can get a nice, tight intersection because the braces in my SM kit are already scalloped... the whole length, right thru the intersection.

I've done some searching aroung here and the consensus seems to be that this intersection must be very tight and solid. Mine is for half the height of the braces, but where the scalloping starts there's increasingly big gaps.

Is it really necessary to go thru the trouble of cutting custom shaped, triangular slivers and glueing them in, or will the cloth patch suffice? It's hard to believe that SM would ship the braces like this if this is true.

Jul 25, 08 | 4:04 am
Ken Cierp

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 2262
The cross section of the brace material at the joint should be perfectly square so a tight joint can be formed -- your situation would be unaceptable to me. We (KMG) use epxoy at that joint with no cloth patch. The jury is still out regarding uisng a solid wood cap on top of the joint.

Ken

www.kennethmichaelguitars.com

Jul 25, 08 | 4:25 am
Bill Cory

Total Topics: 158
Total Posts: 3584
Kyle -- Some builders feel as strongly as Ken does, but not all. The only real need for a patch arises out of the need to seal off the endgrain exposed by Stewmac's brace cutting technique. (Martin kit braces are cut the same way as Stewmac's.) Granted, it's a weaker brace intersection, and can also act as a vibrational node (deadening point), but it is only one of many on the guitar.

You can coat the end grain with shellac before gluing to seal it, and also put a .22 cotton gun cleaning patch (or any cotton patch of similar size) on the joint and saturate it with cyanoacrilate. Sure, a perfectly square joint would be a better joint, and if you feel it's a major thing, get some spruce and make one -- however, it is not (in my mind) all that major a thing for a beginning builder unless you are going to build only one guitar and expect it to compete with an Olson or Ryan.

The wood cap on the joint is used by many major builders and it is more rigid than cloth, but it is obviously ruled out by Stewmac's carving technique.

Many guitars are built without anything done to this joint. It is just one of many finer points of constructiont that will come up as you build.

Stewmac's kits make excellent guitars. I've built three of them, and my dreadnought competes with my Goodall RCJ for "favored guitar" status. It has no cap on the Xbrace joint. Don't get too hung up on the minor details -- just cap it with cotton and CA and move on in the learning experience.

Bill



Jul 25, 08 | 4:57 am
Kyle

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 45
I tend to get bogged down in details, so I'll probably do my best to fill the gaps with some spruce and then use the cloth patch.

Last night I used an inspection mirror and took a look at the top bracing on all the guitars I have in the house including a Taylor 510, Guild D52, and a Huss&Dalton OM. I was surprised to see how massive the X braces were in all of them, even the H&D... compared to the scalloped braces in my kit. Maybe this partly explains why my pre, non "revoiced" Taylor sounds relatively thin... but not the Guild, it's a cannon.

Another question... I decided to use the Martin forward shifted brace layout, which typically does not use the "popsicle" brace, but this makes me a little nervous about future stresses in that area. I was thinking of using a smaller, thin trapezoidal brace extending from the neck block down to the main upper traverse brace. Maybe I'm overthinking this, but I see all these pictures of old Martins with cracks in that area. I did come across one luthier who does something like this with forward bracing, but I think that was with A frame bracing pattern.

Any thoughts on this?

Jul 25, 08 | 6:34 am
Ken Cierp

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 2262
Why not brace it like the Guild D52 ??

Ken

Jul 25, 08 | 6:48 am
Kyle

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 45
Lol... good point. The guild is build like a tank, but actually it's bracing more closely resembles stewmac's. The X braces are scalloped right thru the intersection with a cloth patch.

Also, I just noticed the Guild does not appear to have a popsicle brace. Instead is has a very thick brace which is like an extension of the neck block down to the big traverse brace above the soundhole... kind of like what i was proposing, only thicker. Then it uses a little brace on each side that fan up and out from the traverse brace towards the upper bout area.


Jul 25, 08 | 7:05 am
Kyle

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 45
Forgot to mention that the Guild is a DV-52 (Vintage edition). Maybe that has something to do with the bracing. I'll have to look into that.

Jul 25, 08 | 7:08 am
Ken Cierp

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 2262
I really like this stuff

http://www.rtaylorguitars.com/Woods-Bracing-02.aspx

It falls in line with results of my VERY LIMITED research, not to mention my lack of skills and equipment. But to me all Bob's signature model concepts make sense.

Ken




Jul 25, 08 | 7:22 am
Kyle

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 45
Ken, looking at those Taylor pics of Bob's modified bracing, do you notice what looks like a big trapezoidal pice of spruce from the soundhole outline all the way up to the neck block? And then two little finger braces on top of that? The piece of spruce looks very thin.


Jul 25, 08 | 9:26 am
Ken Cierp

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 2262
I believe that the two lines you see on the trapezoidal reinforcement are scribe marks or pre-cuts. With the Taylor neck system there is a rather large neck/fingerboard reinforcemnent that gets routed out to accept the entire width and length of the neck/fingerboard assemble. Just a guess.

Ken

Jul 25, 08 | 9:42 am
jhowell

Total Topics: 37
Total Posts: 676
Kyle--

What some people do in lieu of the popsicle brace is to put in plate of spruce about 0.100" thick between the end of the neck block and the forward edge of the main upper bout brace. This is typically a tad wider than the neck. Both of my kits had the Martin pre-carved braces and I used a .22 calibre cleaning patch soaked in LMII white that was diluted about 50/50 with water. No ill effects. Great link Ken has given on the Taylor site. Bob Taylor never ceases to amaze me in how he shares this craft with all.

--Jim

Jul 25, 08 | 10:10 am
Bill Cory

Total Topics: 158
Total Posts: 3584
Ken's right about the scribe lines, etc. If you look at this page
( http://www.taylorguitars.com/guitars/features/ntneck/features.aspx ) there is a small photo of the NT neck where it seats into the top. The area marked by the lines in Ken's link above is completely removed from the top (in both Taylor and R.Taylor designs), and the stress that our "normal" fretboard extensions put on the top is almost eliminated, since this portion of the top is cut away. The wide brace under that area of the top provides support without the problems caused by the so-called "popsicle" transverse brace.

It's fascinating to watch them cut these things at the Taylor Factory. Anyone on this forum should include the tour on any trip to San Diego.

Bill

Jul 25, 08 | 10:27 am
Kevin Sjostrand

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 981
Bill,
What problems does the "popsicle" transverse brace cause? Should I be concerned? I am getting ready to make that brace and glue it to my top, and my understanding is that I want it flat across most of the brace surface, with just a radius on about 2" on either end to blend in with my side radius. The reason being so I maintain a flat area on the top for the fretboard extension to lay on. Do I have this right? Should I be concerned about this brace for any other reason?
Thanks.

Kevin

Jul 25, 08 | 11:55 am
jeremy3220

Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 242
"What problems does the "popsicle" transverse brace cause?"

I don't think it's so much as to what problems it causes but rather the problems it doesn't prevent. It's suppose to prevent cracks and help counteract the force of the fingerboard pushing down in that area.

"The popsicle brace has been useless since day one, and has never prevented a single crack, as is evidenced by how many are cracked...." ~Mario Proulx

Jul 25, 08 | 6:53 pm
Kevin Sjostrand

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 981
Jeremy,
I have never had one of my guitars crack in this area, but then, I can't tell you if there was a transverse brace on any of those guitars. Back then I had no interest or ever looked inside at the bracing.
I imagine this area under the top needs some kind of bracing. How does a plate vs this kind of brace vs having no brace in this area affect strength and tone?

By the way, I got a really close, tight joint on my X braces and I got so excited that I forgot to take them apart and put glue in the joint before I glued them to the top. I was going to just wick some super glue into the joint for good measure.

Kevin

Jul 25, 08 | 7:12 pm
jeremy3220

Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 242
"How does a plate vs this kind of brace vs having no brace in this area affect strength and tone?"

I'm not sure what two braces you are comparing here but just to make sure... there are two transverse components. The 'upper transverse brace' is a large tall brace that is crucial. The 'upper transverse graft'(nicknamed popsicle brace) is a second seperate 'brace' that is wide and flat (about .100" thick usually) and is questionably useful.

Here's a picture of a Martin top, they also use different names.



The 'Number 1 Brace' in the pic is the upper transverse brace. The 'Top Plate' is the upper transverse graft aka popsicle brace.

It's hard to say for sure what practical impact on the sound it has but it has to kill vibrations in this area. If there's a big difference between a top thats .120" and one thats .100" then imagine the difference when the thickness is doubled at .200" with the grain running perpendicular!

Jul 26, 08 | 4:18 am
Bill Cory

Total Topics: 158
Total Posts: 3584
Kyle -- I haven't (yet) personally witnessed any problems from the pospsicle brace, but have to go by the views of others (since I've been doing his only for a few years). Mario Proulx is one source of concern about it, but also Bryan Kimsey ( http://www.bryankimsey.com/popsicle/ ), who gives a good explanation of problems he has seen and attributes to the popsicle brace.

Also, thinking about the effectiveness and placement of this brace, it appears to have been added to some guitars to cure a problem, but was not always effective. It might also affect the sound of the guitar, which is probably the reason Taylor doesn't use it. (And why Martin came up with their patented "style 2" or "A-Frame" bracing system -- photo at http://www.frets.com/FRETSPages/History/Martin/MartinBraces/martinbraces.html .

On my most recent Martin build, in order to allow access to the truss rod, I had to basically remove the center section of this brace anyway, which takes away the only benefit I can see of having it in the first place, which is to keep the top from cracking alongside the fretboard extension. Maybe there's not problem keeping it ("maybe"), but it seems to me that leaving it off doesn't present any problem, either, and might add to the guitar's treble response.

But, as I said, I am but a grasshopper.

Bill

Jul 26, 08 | 5:07 am
Kevin Sjostrand

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 981
Jeremy,
Yes, I was speaking of the "top plate" brace.
I am not even a grasshopper here, I am a pupa! Should I just install the braces per the plans, or, should I experiment a little in this area, and exchange the popsicle stick for a couple of short "A frame" braces in its place. Seems it would still provide some support and strength for the fretboard, leave an area clear for truss rod access, and minimize the mass allowing for more top flex. Are these the reasons Taylor does it this way and gets that wonderful sound????
I think I will read a bit more about this today before proceeding with this brace. I might be best off with my first build to stick to the tried and true.
Any other opinions are welcome.
Thanks Jeremy and Bill.

Kevin

Jul 26, 08 | 6:42 am
jhowell

Total Topics: 37
Total Posts: 676
My take on the popsicle brace is that it doesn't much matter! :) One of the big arguments against it is that it stifles tone. IMHO, there isn't much tone to be had from the upper bout of most X-braced guitars anyway. My first two have the brace installed and have really nice tone. I'm working on a cantilevered, adjustable neck system that will make the upper bout bracing a moot point. I'll post some pics when I have a working prototype. I've borrowed heavily from Rick Turner, Kevin Grant, Howe and Orme, etc. in my thoughts on this. Freeing up the upper bout completely will potentially gain a noticeable increased in tone and volume.

I really think that on the first few builds it doesn't hurt to put it in, even if it gets cut through installing the truss rod.

Jul 26, 08 | 8:08 am
Bill Cory

Total Topics: 158
Total Posts: 3584
Kevin --the two A frame braces in the Martin configuration extend into the neck block, where they are glued into the block and also glued to the underside of the top and fretboard extension. (Their top edge is flush with the top edge of the neck block extension.) So, installing them without that additional leveraged bracing wouldn't so much.

About the Taylor sound -- I think it's generated by many factors, possibly one of the smallest being leaving that brace off.

It won't hurt to "stick with the tried and true," since so many thousands of guitars were built with that brace in place, and there would have to be additional causes of the cracking on some guitars -- the wood could have been slightly, almost invisibly cracked when the guitar was built, or the wood could have been weak, or a particular kind of stress was put on it (like the guys who stress the necks and bodies of their guitars to get a little flat bend in ending notes, etc., [ l Tommy Emmanuel]). I wouldn't avoid in hopes that it would make a noticeably better guitar or longer lasting one.

Jul 26, 08 | 8:15 am
Ken Cierp

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 2262
In the grand scheme of "wood working" designers try and avoid cross lapping grain than gluing parts together. The simply fact is, humidity change and the expansion and contraction of the wood in different directions can and will cause cracks ---- this is a force of nature that cannot be over come with just two plys of material. So guitar tops and backs are at risk of cracks in many different locations. Instuments built in low humidity and always stored at a higher humidity are at less risk --- still, cracks can occur. Side bar --- the last few guitars I have built -- the FB extension is not glued down! The entire neck assembly is held in place with two allen screws into brass inserts.

Ken

Jul 26, 08 | 8:46 am
Bill Cory

Total Topics: 158
Total Posts: 3584
Ken -- that's an interesting idea about not gluing down the fretboard extension. I had a similar though awhile back but haven't ever tried to act on it. Seems to me one could secure the fretboard extension with small allen screws (similar to those used in Taylor's Big Baby but smaller) whose heads would be buried in the fretboard and hidden under two or three pearl fret marker dots at the 15th and 17th frets. Alternatively, they could be screwed in from the inside up into inserts in the fretboard that were hidden under fret marker dots. If it was a bolt on neck, no glue would be needed at all.

Kyle -- another thought on the hefty X bracing intersection you observed on many commercially made guitars. Remember that these guys are offering long repair warranties (often lifetime for the original owner). This is one reason many builders claim that factory guitars are overbuilt, which is in part the reason for that beefy X-brace joint. Building that heavy might make the guitar last into the 2080's, but will anybody care? I'd rather build light and have the guitar open up quickly and sound great during my lifetime. --- Just a thought.

Bill

Jul 26, 08 | 9:05 am
Ken Cierp

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 2262
Regarding not gluing the FB extension. I found (at least with my build process) that the expansion force of the fret tangs tends to put a very slight down curl on the FB extension --- so when bolted in place the extension compresses against the sound board. The newer FB's with the fret pockets don't curl as much if at all. In line with your idea Bill I made a couple of prototype FB's with "T" bolts/screws epoxied into the extension -- I have yet to build a guitar to test the idea, I see no reason why it will not work??

Ken

Jul 26, 08 | 9:29 am
Kevin Sjostrand

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 981
I was wondering how much tone developed from this upper bout area myself, and thought probably not much, and in as much, placing the brace there probably doesn't effect the sound very much, it at all. I would think the stiffness added there would be benificial in support of the fretboard extension. A sort of sandwiched affect between brace, top and fretboard.

I had been thinking about the fretboard extension and why it isn't just "fastened" rather than glued to the top, something along the lines of what you are suggesting Bill. My first thought is that the screws might somehow deaden the area.

Of course, for a first timer, I am probably still just thinking too much!!!!!!!!!

I believe I will put the brace on per the plans and see what I get. On the next one perhaps try something different. This guitar is being built in very low humidity and will pretty much be maintained there, if not only a small increase in humidity. My next guitar, which I'm strongly considering building from scratch will end up in India. It will be for my son-in-law who lives close to Bombay.......a very high humidity place most of the year. I really have to consider this in my building. He currently has a Cort guitar I bought for him here in the states. It has been with him in India for 7 years, and I was there last fall, played the guitar, and it has held up fine. No swelling that I noticed, no warping.

From very low build humidity to high humidity for use and storage, what would you all recommend? Hmmm, perhaps this should be the start of another thread. I am building in my garage shop with no means of adjusting the humidity. Inside the house is no better, very low humidity. We are talking most of the year below 25% and in the winter, maybe occasionally around 45%.

Kevin

Jul 26, 08 | 9:30 am
Bill Cory

Total Topics: 158
Total Posts: 3584
Ken -- Seems to me it would work just fine, heck, why not? Are your T-bolts glued to a recess in the bottom of the fretboard, then bolted from below? I wouldn't think the weight would be a big deal, either. I was thinking if you could use small allen machine screws; they could actually bolt into a single wooden bar with inserts underneath the fretboard, or even with two plastic or wooden knobs with brass inserts that would allow tightening/loosening with the fingers. Then, the guitar could even be disassembled for traveling in carry-on luggage. (bonus!) Heck, the bolting on of the NT neck works fine for Taylor -- so, why couldn't it work?

Kevin -- I wouldn't expect the screws to deaden the area any more than glue would, since the glue permanently (more or less) bonds the entire extension to the upper bout.

As far as building in 25% humidity and having the guitar live its life in a normal humidity range ... it could be risky. Is it not possible to get a room-size humidifier for the shop and let it run all the time? Just an idea.

Bill

Jul 26, 08 | 10:07 am
Andy

Total Topics: 57
Total Posts: 350
My SM Dread was built in 2006 and I pretty sure Ken C first posted then about leaving the f/board extension unglued. When I was doing the initial setup I realised that it was a great idea.

So I haven't glued the f/board extension down and theres be no ill effects for that guitar. Sounds great plays well. And is easy to get to the hot shot truss rod to adjust it by taking the neck off. Thanks Ken great tip !

Jul 26, 08 | 1:37 pm
Andy

Total Topics: 57
Total Posts: 350
BTW to add to the initial topic question. I used a cloth patch on the preshaped SM Dread braces, but now I'm leaving the "square" section of the SM 000 braces just glued with a smear of glue inside the joint. I glued them up yesterday and had a tiny bead of glue squeeze out. So that resembles the same approach as Larrivee has used on my L-03.


Jul 26, 08 | 1:49 pm
Kevin Sjostrand

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 981
I didn't get as far today as I hoped, other "things" loomed.
Here are a couple of pictures. One of my very tight X brace joint, the other of my feeble attempt at scalloping the X braces. I didn't want to take them down too far. Would it be safe to go deeper on the scallops?
Another question: I pretty much just rounded off the top edge of the braces rather than pyramiding them as I've seen on some braces. Will the shape in this area have any affect on anything?
Thanks.

Kevin





Jul 26, 08 | 8:31 pm
Kevin Sjostrand

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 981
Whoa......sorry those came out so big. I thought I had downsized them first.
I apologize for taking up so much room, but you got a close up view!!!!

Kevin

Jul 26, 08 | 8:32 pm
Andy

Total Topics: 57
Total Posts: 350
Kevin, I think you're being a bit hard on yourself. Nice work and nice looking bracing.

"Will the shape in this area have any affect on anything?"

I think the consensus is that the shape of the bracing is just one of the many factors that make up a particular guitar's sound. Within reason there's no right or wrong. But I know very little about the finer points of brace shaping. I just have a general understanding.

Take a look at all the different bracing on Frank Fords site Bracing Gallery. All different from luthiers confident that what they've shaped will work. So your bracing should make your guitar unique.

Jul 27, 08 | 1:47 am
Bill Cory

Total Topics: 158
Total Posts: 3584
Kevin -- Andy is right on the money. That's a good looking job!

The shape will affect tone and volume in some way, but exactly how...? Heavier bracing is more likely to emphasize trebles; lighter bracing will loosen the top and accentuate bass. Beyond that generalization, it all depends on the individual guitar top -- its stiffness and other characteristics of the individual piece of wood. Keep working as precisely as shown in the pictures and your guitar will look and sound good!

Bill

Jul 27, 08 | 4:38 am
jeremy3220

Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 242
Looks great to me. How deep you can go on the scalloped depends on so many design factors. I think pre war Martins went as low as about .300" on the treble leg of the X brace.

Jul 27, 08 | 7:12 am
Ken Cierp

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 2262
Bill pics on this link make it impossible to view on some computers -- anyway

1938 Martin Herringbone bracing

"X" -- 5/16 wide, 5/8" tall scallop starts 5/8" from intersection (not the center) low point 21/64", peak 2 3/4" from kerfing 1/2"tall

Bass bar -- inside peak 1/2" tall 1 1/2" from "X" brace, outside peak 1/2" tall 2 3/4" from kerfing, low point 21/64

The good news is, this is really neat information -- the bads news is, these guitars were pretty much hand made so if I had another one to measure it may be different!!!

Ken

Jul 27, 08 | 8:43 am
Bill Cory

Total Topics: 158
Total Posts: 3584
Ken -- What is your point about the photos? In order to reduce the size of the photos I would have to download them, open Photoshop and resize the photos, upload them to m own website and insert them back into the thread.

That's why it is important that people reduce the size of their photos before uploading them. The size of photos is not a function of the forum program; they are shown here as they are in the original link.

Or, would you want me to eliminate them altogether if they are too big to be viewed conveniently?

Bill


Jul 27, 08 | 9:33 am
Andy

Total Topics: 57
Total Posts: 350
"Would it be safe to go deeper on the scallops?"

Kevin, I think as a rule of thumb that scalloping to 60% of the original Xbrace height is a good depth. Any lower might depend on the stiffness the brace and top timber.

Jul 27, 08 | 12:25 pm
Ken Cierp

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 2262
Bill I thought that the adminstrator of a given forum could control pic sizes -- guess not? For some operating systems it not a matter of covenience -- the tread simple will not fit on the screen and cannot be scrolled into view -- no big deal.

Ken

Jul 27, 08 | 12:50 pm
Bill Cory

Total Topics: 158
Total Posts: 3584
Ken -- Depends on the software.

Jul 27, 08 | 12:54 pm
Kyle

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 45
I'm probably wrong on this, but it seems that the absence of the popsicle brace is mostly associated with the forward shifted bracing pattern... insinuating that the forward shift somehow lends a little stiffness (protection) to the upper bout area, but I can't see how. That is the basis of my original concern about doing *something* there instead of just eliminating it entirely.

When Martin decided to add that brace because of the cracks resulting from heavy steel string use at the time, why did they design the brace to cover the whole upper bout area when it seems a mini version of it under where the cracks would usually form below the neck block would suffice?

I'm going to use the pre war forward shifted pattern, and will probably do something below the neck block in place of the popsicle brace... just trying to decide what.

When I bought the kit I told myself I would play it simple and safe for the first build to gain experience. Oh well...

Jul 28, 08 | 7:12 am
Bill Cory

Total Topics: 158
Total Posts: 3584
"When I bought the kit I told myself I would play it simple and safe for the first build to gain experience. Oh well... "

Ha Ha -- Kyle -- You're not the only one! I didn't build one "stock" until my third kit (Stewmac dread); I wanted to see how it would come out, and it is now my 2nd favorite guitar (close behind my Goodall RCJ!). I haven't built another "stock" until the one for my Martin manual. I think we all want to hotrod each one a little bit.

Jul 28, 08 | 8:15 am
enalnitram (Martin Lane)

Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 332
This is a really interesting thread to me. I hope no one minds if I attempt to bring it back to life.

Like Kyle I have a kit with some pre-cut braces that don't form a snug fit when they intersect. I'm wondering if I should cut slivers and glue them in like he suggested. or do something else. Kyle doesn't mention what he did. or did he and I missed it?

what have others done, in a similar situation?

Jan 19, 09 | 5:28 pm
Kyle

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 45
That's what I did... cut slivers and glued them in then sanded them flush. Ended up looking pretty good, but I went ahead and also glued one of those gun cleaning cloth patches over the intersection to further reinforce it.

Jan 19, 09 | 6:34 pm
enalnitram (Martin Lane)

Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 332
ok, thanks. I'm gonna do that too.

what did you do in place of the popsicle brace?


Jan 19, 09 | 10:30 pm
Kyle

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 45
In place of the popsicle brace I did two thin, small, almost vertical braces in a sort of A frame. These butted the corners of the neck block and then came down on an angle to butt up to the main brace above the sound hole. The idea was to get a bit of reinforcement where old Martins with original forward bracing would crack, this was usually along the edges of the neck block down to the main brace.

Time will tell...

Jan 20, 09 | 5:02 am
Charles Kuo

Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 222
This thread goes to the heart of one of the problems with my stewmac build. As stated before, those preshaped and scalloped braces from stewmac make the tight brace harder to achieve. Had I known better, I would have made a new xbrace for sure. Chalk up another good thread in this forum.

-Charles


Jan 20, 09 | 9:44 am
enalnitram (Martin Lane)

Total Topics: 47
Total Posts: 332
so I also carved a couple of thin wedge-shaped slivers which fit the gaps in my braces. then I sanded them.

I'm just a first-timer. I do appreciate criticism, but, take it easy on me. here's before:



and after:



another view:



thanks, Kyle.

Jan 23, 09 | 5:42 pm
Charles Kuo

Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 222
Hi Kyle,
It looks a lot tighter than what I achieved with my brace. Make sure that the top is showing the proper geometry - a dome. My brace was not nearly tight enough and I started getting a reverse dome which I am in the process of fixing right now.

-Charles

Jan 26, 09 | 6:33 am



Deprecated: Function eregi() is deprecated in /home/bluescreek/domains/kitguitars/pm/lib/member.fns.php on line 2298

You must be a registered and logged in member to post in this forum