Moderators: Random Orbital Bob, nev, Charley, CHJ, Noel

 Reply
By D_W
#1207795
I wouldn't buy it in a guitar then. I've never had a guitar that's had neck stability issues. At one point, Heritage was trying to make guitar necks out of curly maple, and they had some neck stability issues, but eliminated them by laminating the necks instead of using a single piece of curly maple (IIRC, it was a guitar that they called the 555 or something, which you'd call a copy of the Gibson ES-355, except the guys at Heritage building the guitars were the ones who built the ES-355s - they just stayed behind when Gibson moved out...anyway).

I wouldn't pay extra for it, but the instrument manufacture world is always starving for a gimmick, be it a strange intonation gimmick, extremely high upcharges for figured tops (figure about $750 of upcharge for $100-$150 of lumber cost, etc). If I knew what I know now, I would've ordered the plainest hand finished and hand fitted guitar from a reasonable custom maker. That'd be about 2gs, but the gotta-haves (binding, inlays, figured top) double the price of the guitar while adding relatively little extra work for a maker - probably 30% more work and cost for double the price. I don't really have faith that I could get a custom maker to make the same effort on a no-option guitar, though.

Plus, I don't play guitar much anymore, and double plus, I want to make some guitars, and perhaps something more difficult once I get done with the planemaking gimmick.

(edit: and to be fair, I don't think the really small builders would be able to continue making guitars without knocking over the buyers who are willing to purchase the options. Ford doesn't make their profit on a 2wd F150 with standard cab, either).
By patrickjchase
#1207818
D_W wrote:I wouldn't buy it in a guitar then. I've never had a guitar that's had neck stability issues.


To be clear, the guitar makers use it to alter the tonality of the wood, not to address neck stability issues. It's the same basic technique that Veritas uses but for a different reason (and probably carried to a different point in the process).

Torrefaction drives volatiles out of the wood without burning, by heating it in an Oxygen-free atmosphere. Those volatiles are basically the same ones that make their way out over the course of decades of seasoning in a dry environment, so the claim is that the guitar has a more "free" tone like a much older instrument.

I'm not a guitarist, but I am a cellist and we definitely see tonal changes with aging. I have no idea whether or to what degree torrefaction accelerates or emulates those changes.
By D_W
#1207828
Neck wood doesn't really do much on guitars. It's nice to say that it alters tonal quality, but that's generally determined by the back and top wood on a guitar, the bracing pattern, and especially, the weight of the bridge on a guitar that doesn't have the bridge fixed right into the top.

If it's used on tops and sides on otherwise little used woods (not rosewoods - there's no good reason to alter their tonality) that aren't that stiff, maybe it could improve them. That could become a use given that Cites now covers all rosewoods (what a pain) and a lot of people won't want to pay what they paid for rosewood without a gimmick attached.

Just my guesses - last guitar I bought was a Bourgeois slope D almost 12 years ago. Great guitar - no gimmick would improve it (and I see that Dana Bourgeois is a fan of the torrefied woods due to their ability to sound old when new. He was a good enough builder to thickness tops for consistency with "regular" red spruce, though).

If it can make lower cost guitars sound like higher cost guitars without making them more expensive, though, more power to them. I'll go look at prices. Thanks to the toolbuilding bug, I'm finally immune to buying more guitars.
By D_W
#1207830
Martin charges several thousand dollars for it. Yuck. when I got a "real job(TM)" earlier in life and had the money, I bought the D-28 that I slobbered over as a kid. By then, it was still only about $1750 or so here - probably $3K now. I "lucked out" and got a real turd of a D-28, and that solved me of ever paying the Martin premium again. Tidily made little guitar that had no life in it, no boom.

On the other end of the cost spectrum, Recording King makes a drednought for $425 with it (Adirondack spruce, even) ...(/kip voice) that's what I'm talkin about.

Dana Bourgeois's folks charged me an extra $200 or $300 for adirondack instead of sitka. But the guitar is good enough that I don't care what they charged. Better made than anything I'll ever be able to make, and as loud as two martins (and much more lively).
By patrickjchase
#1207854
D_W wrote:Martin charges several thousand dollars for it. Yuck. when I got a "real job(TM)" earlier in life and had the money, I bought the D-28 that I slobbered over as a kid. By then, it was still only about $1750 or so here - probably $3K now. I "lucked out" and got a real turd of a D-28, and that solved me of ever paying the Martin premium again. Tidily made little guitar that had no life in it, no boom.


Yeah, $10K for a brand new "aged" D-28 seems... extravagant.

As you say Bourgeois is a big user of torrefaction, and from a technical perspective his remarks seem to reflect a solid understanding of the process and its tradeoffs. I'm not a guitarist, but he strikes me as straightforward and well-informed.
By D_W
#1207856
Bourgeois was probably one of the first manufacturers to say that you can't tell the difference between a bolted neck and a dovetailed neck. The former is a lot easier to repair and adjust (acoustic guitars are time bombs more or less, they'll need repair if they live long enough to see it). He was also one of the better top voicers in that he worked for stiffness rather than thickness.

It sounds like he likes it, but I couldn't hear much difference in online videos. I'm not in the market for anything, though, but would like to build unconventional guitars at some point in the future to see what they sound like.
By D_W
#1207941
Separate and aside, I finally opened the lv shooting plane that I got last week and sharpened and tested it. It's fantastic to say the least. If I'd have gotten it first, I might have built a infill panel plane instead of a shooting plane.

Trying to match it is going to be a real challenge.
User avatar
By Ttrees
#1207945
Since were back on topic I was going to ask
I should have been more specific on what tools I needed.
Do you use a punch for piening atall?
What size of hammer is this you are using... Is it a ball pien hammer ?
Guessing you might need one when you get close, or do you just use a block of metal as a punch?

Is there things not to do, like a scenario which could work harden the mild steel?

Thanks again
Tom
By D_W
#1207972
I use ball pein hammers. They're cheap, and since I'm cutting all of this stuff by hand for the most part (and certainly finish filing the pins and tails by hand), there's usually some metal to move - so no punches, it becomes too tedious and you get in a rush trying to move a lot of metal with large punch strikes.

This is only the 6th plane that I've peined, so I have a different strategy than I have previously (where I just bashed them to get them closed), but I intend to use a hammer.

I think softer metal and accurate work from machine tools (if you've ever seen karl holtey's blog) makes punch peining more sensible, because you're only moving little bits of metal very precise amounts. I've got a couple of gaps that I need to close that are probably a thirty second to a sixteenth in size. Not sure what happened.

I've only ever had work hardening with O1, so no plans for that here - it shouldn't be a problem.

In the event that a pinhole appears while you're flattening a side, etc, you can usually pein it lightly and then remove the peining marks and have a closed joint. These are the kinds of things you just figure out. I'll take a picture of the tails and pins area on my last infill. There were a couple of those during the process, but they're long gone now.
User avatar
By Pete Maddex
#1208008
I usually use a ball pein hammer a couple of different sizes including a very small one, and a X10 loupe to see it things are closing up.

Pete
By Bodgers
#1208011
D_W wrote:Separate and aside, I finally opened the lv shooting plane that I got last week and sharpened and tested it. It's fantastic to say the least. If I'd have gotten it first, I might have built a infill panel plane instead of a shooting plane.

Trying to match it is going to be a real challenge.
That's sort of made me feel a bit happier about what I have recently done...

Finally bit the bullet and ordered the same plane yesterday. Lee Valley are out of stock until late Feb now. Not a problem for me as relatives won't be bringing it across until late March. I went all in, and got the PMV11 blade.

Totally over kill really, but it will be interesting to see how good it is.

Need to start thinking about a couple of shooting boards for it...

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk
By D_W
#1208045
Just use a simple shoot board to start. The plane is so good that it doesn't really need all of the gadgetry and tracks that most people bling it up with.

In my earlier days, I would've scoffed at the idea of paying $350 for a shoot board plane, but it's looking pretty inexpensive compared to the effort involved in the infill in this thread (it's a more sensible thing than building the infill, unless you can build the infill well enough that you could sell it for a premium).
User avatar
By Derek Cohen (Perth, Oz)
#1208101
I've posted this review before, but the timing is that some may want to be able to read it, either again or for the first time. It compares the LV/Veritas Shooting Plane and LN #51, and the different blade steels available.

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... Plane.html

Image

Regards from Perth

Derek
By D_W
#1208169
The only complaint I have about it is that the iron still gets dull. Plus, it may work better than my infill ends up working, and that'll be like a kick in the pants.

In the front.

I've got a mild interest in making an iron out of O1 and tempering it really hard. My last infill smoother has an untempered O1 iron from stjamesbay tool co. I'll temper it at some point, but what surprises me about it is that it doesn't really seem to chip. It is almost completely resistant to most stones, though (extremely slow even on something like shapton).

I might like to try making an O1 iron like that for this plane, and I need to take another look at why the white suita that I tried this iron on turned black so fast (generally expect abrasion to be a little bit slower). It could just be a favorable match for the stone - it doesn't feel soft, but the same stone doesn't want much to do with the untempered O1 iron from stjames bay.

(of course, that untempered iron sharpens no problem on diamonds - I'm just a bit surprised that it doesn't chip more easily).
By D_W
#1209254
This picture is behind now - I've actually got the plane mostly peined, but didn't take pictures.

I ran into a problem, though - a fairly considerable one. In making the cross strap (which I'm doing just with hacksaw and files), I realized that there's really no great way to drill a 20 degree hole (that isn't time consuming, like making a jig to hold the drill in place - it's just not that important), so I solved that by drilling the hole through perpendicular to the sides and then (because I have a good quality jobber set), just grabbing the sides and tugging them until I'd angled the hole 20 degrees. This makes an oval hole that's much larger than the ends to be peined on the cross strap.

Structurally, it's not really an issue. The cross strap is already tight enough, and the peining doesn't need to be perfect, but between that and undersizing some of the end pins on the cross strap, there is zero chance that I can pein the hole shut with those pins.

Image

Image

The cross strap really deserved to be made better, but I'm not selling this plane and I really didn't want to make two or three patterns to get it perfect.

I intend to try to melt some brass and dribble it onto the gaps and then pound it in before I pein everything.

There will be other challenges with this - namely that after the peining, I may have to remove enough material at the tail side of the plane (to get square to the bottom) that gaps will appear. We'll see.

Compared to making a plane with everything square, this really isn't pleasant work.