My version of the Fleishman binding machine

Storebought or Homemade: Tell Us!
MaineGeezer
Posts: 1711
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 12:14 pm

Re: My version of the Fleishman binding machine

Post by MaineGeezer »

Now I may have to build one of those! <grin>

One advantage I see is that it needs only a single cutter to cut any width or depth, instead of a cutter with a collection of different diameter bearings, one for each depth of cut.

It also seems to eliminate the tilted-side problem.

Watching the video, it looks as though it may be a trifle more inconvenient to use. Maneuvering the guitar body looks like it might be a bit cumbersome compared to swinging the router on the Fleishman arm. Whether that would be a significant issue -- or whether it even exists -- I don't know.
Don't believe everything you know.
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
When things are bad, try not to make them any worse, because it is quite likely they are bad enough already. - French Foreign Legion
tippie53
Posts: 7011
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: Hegins, Pa
Contact:

Re: My version of the Fleishman binding machine

Post by tippie53 »

I can tell you in all my time I have used about every jig out there. Here is what I can tell you . A each unit has its strength and weakness. Any system that relies on human control has more variables that those that lock things down. I have used this and yes it works but I wouldn't use it to do a D45.
The control can be tricky and you can pitch the body. That is the strength of the cradle and towers. Yes they require a bearing for cutter control but the variables are easier to control.

Set ups and learning your technique are always important for any system to work so what ever you choose accept that there is a learning curve and note what variables you have. Learn to control them and you control your process
John Hall
Blues Creek Guitars Inc
Authorized CF Martin Repair Center
president of Association of Stringed Instrument Artisans
http://www.bluescreekguitars.com
Diane Kauffmds
Posts: 3246
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 8:13 pm

Re: My version of the Fleishman binding machine

Post by Diane Kauffmds »

rcnewcomb wrote:Can anyone compare the Fleishman style machine to the Ensor style binding jig? Has anyone used both? What are the strengths and weaknesses of each?
I've not used the Ensor binder, so I can only give observations. I watched the video and a couple of things struck me. First, I had a jig that was hand held, but used the same type of adjustments for a single bit without the use of bearings. The big difference is that I held the unit and guided it around the guitar. I used it on a couple of guitars. I had feedback, both visually and in my hands, through the feel of the router, as it cut, like using the Fleishman jig. Although the Fleishman requires the use of a bit with various bearings, since the router is mounted, it's much lighter to use than my old jig. But, I get the visual and tactile feedback.

The Ensor requires the user to hold the box, while moving it around. You would lose the feedback that I mentioned. I had a vertical binder in which I moved the guitar around (The SM TruChannel). I couldnt feel the router cutting. I could hear it on the deep cuts, but not on the shallow purfling cuts, because the rigid router cuts smoothly. Even at eye level, it was hard to see. Without the visual cue, and tactile feedback, I pushed the guitar a little too firmly into the cutter, and the bearing jumped the shoulder, routing a shallow 1" spot on the shoulder.

Secondly, you'd better have a good grip on the box while maneuvering it. The guitar was in a cradle with the SM jig. I have some problems in my hands and I have Parkinson's Disease. I know that, for me in particular, the Ensor wouldn't be a good idea. But, even without those problems, losing sight of the cutter would be a very huge issue for me. Cutting a binding channel causes anxiety for some of us. The additional worry of dropping the box is an added attraction that I personally wouldn't welcome.

Like anything, you have to practice and get to know your equipment, and develop a technique and rhythm that works for you. A bit and bearing set requires an investment, and the Ensor doesn't need them, so from a financial standpoint, I can see the advantages. The unit looks well built and a lot of thought went into it.

But, after using the Fleishman, you couldn't rip it out of my grubby hands. I've not found the extension arm to be cumbersome at all. In fact, it glides nicely and if my hands get tired, I simply pull away from the guitar, turn the router off and leave it suspended.
Diane Kauffmann
Country Roads Guitars
countryroadsguitars@gmail.com
ruby@magpage.com
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:03 am
Location: Chestertown Maryland

Re: My version of the Fleishman binding machine

Post by ruby@magpage.com »

I have used one of these inexpensive ($35, KGM??) jigs for 8 instruments now with no mistakes. A little scary til you get used to it. It is essentially the Ensor style, but you adjust the tall wooden fence for width/thickness (?) and don't need any bearings or dumbbells, just a good 1/4" bit. You clamp the body and run the tool around the edges, pressing the tall fence straight into the side. The dark brown flexible masonite finger sticking out takes the place of the donut.

I had recently seen the Ensor when I did this uke, so I made a clamping arrangement for the router in the vice and passed the body around the jig - boy was that easy. I may do that with a full sized body next time (coming up soon)

Ed
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Ed M
ruby@magpage.com
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:03 am
Location: Chestertown Maryland

Re: My version of the Fleishman binding machine

Post by ruby@magpage.com »

Here's how it turned out - don't know why the forum gives you a fourth spot to put a photo but then tells you that three is the limit

Ed
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Ed M
Diane Kauffmds
Posts: 3246
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 8:13 pm

Re: My version of the Fleishman binding machine

Post by Diane Kauffmds »

Until I bought the Fleishman, I made a jig just like Ed's and used it. I find the Fleishman easier to use with my weak hands, but for the beginner, Ed's type of jig is great.
Diane Kauffmann
Country Roads Guitars
countryroadsguitars@gmail.com
Stray Feathers
Posts: 677
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:39 pm
Location: Ladysmith, BC

Re: My version of the Fleishman binding machine

Post by Stray Feathers »

In response to John, here are some photos of the form I used (made by a friend from Jonathan Kinkead's book. He suggests the small blocks to bring the sides above the form for gluing.)I've come to think a) the spreaders should be deeper to help keep the sides from buckling, b) I'd like to try a lengthwise spreader, and c) as I mentioned, I don't like the method of clamping the plates to the body with the plywood rim. (The stick is a spacer so the plywood didn't have to bend so far at the neck end.) I am not sure why, as the form seems symmetrical, but somehow the bodies came out a little asymmetrical (not as bad as it looks in the photo) but my mentor Steve assured me it would not make a huge difference. It is one of the reasons I chose a mortise and tenon bolt-on neck joint. I don't see the asymmetry now that they're finished, and they sound way better than I hoped. I think I will make a new form of mdf or baltic birch rather than use this one again.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Post Reply