SG new build

Discussion in 'Luthier's Corner' started by Silvertone, Oct 13, 2018.

  1. Silvertone

    Silvertone Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2018
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    37
    Hello everyone. I am embarking on a new build. This will not be a replica build as it will not have a G headstock and will be made with completely different wood. I would however like to create this as a close approximation of the fabled SG.

    I have scoured the internet and downloaded some free plans. I would like to get some confirmation of dimensions and construction practices. Please feel free to comment on any aspect of this build. I have not posted a build thread here prior to this but I have built quite a few full guitars and part kit type projects.

    Let's start with the plans I found. Here are some screen shots of the plan.

    Overall -
    drawing01.jpg
    section through sculpted areas -
    drawing02.jpg

    Headstock angle -
    drawing03.jpg

    These are drawings for a custom but I Will probably be doing more of an SG standard - 2 pups and no multi-ply binding and regular trap inlays.

    Does anyone have any comments regarding any of the dimensions posted here. I guess the main ones being body thickness, neck angle, headstock angle, and depth and extents of the carve including the body symmetry etc etc. Thank you in advance.

    I am thinking of going with a one piece black walnut body with a 5 piece maple neck with black walnut skunk stripe. Comments are welcomed relating to my choice of wood as well. Thank you and I look forward to getting the design worked out and getting on to making some sawdust.

    Cheers Peter.
     
    PermissionToLand likes this.
  2. Silvertone

    Silvertone Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2018
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    37
  3. Silvertone

    Silvertone Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2018
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    37
    OK first kick at the cat. I have not mentioned this yet but I have a small CNC machine and a background in 3d modelling, so I normally do as much as I can with that. So the first steps, for me, is to model up the guitar. I have a friend that is good with 3d modelling complex surfaces and he usually helps me out in that respect. So it took him a few hours to knock out the body with the carves. I will add all the routes in my CAM software as it is much easier to do 2d extrusions in that program and I usually want to do them in a certain "order of operations" anyway.

    So here is the model as of now in Fusion 360 (I received a step file from my friend) -

    [​IMG]

    I have to confirm dimensions and then I will add the CAD drawings as a reference to cut out the routes on the CNC machine. Here are the preliminary dimensions from the model. These are the ones that will have to be correct.

    [​IMG]


    rendered image -
    Fusion02.JPG
    Regards Peter.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2018
    musicman2242 and Gahr like this.
  4. 4wight

    4wight New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2018
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    8
    Have you considered moving the input/output jack from the surface of the guitar to the edge (as in Firebrands and certain other models)? The only thing I don't like about the aesthetics of the SG is the position of the jack on the front of the guitar, especially if there are 4 control knobs and a switch. It makes it all too cluttered. The side (or edge) mounted jack seems to me to be both practically and aesthetically superior - I wish all SGs had side mounted jacks. And once the control cavity is routed it is a simple matter of drilling a hole through the side for the jack. What are your thoughts?
     
  5. Silvertone

    Silvertone Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2018
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    37
    Actually my Firebird has the output jack on the front just like the SG. It would make more sense to have it on the edge of the body like an LP Standard. I will consider it now that you mention it. Thanks.

    Regards Peter.
     
  6. PermissionToLand

    PermissionToLand Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,447
    Likes Received:
    987
    Well, first of all the beveling and knob placement on that blueprint are wrong. In fact, the more I look at it, the more I feel like the whole shape might be wrong. I have a template made from a real 1963 Junior, PM me your email address and I'll send it to you. That won't help you with knobs and pickups, but it will be a sound basis to start from.

    Edit: It's the same template that's linked to in the thread you linked. I think the discrepancy he found is due to the changes in the SG's shape over the years as well as the degree of hand shaping that was done back then.

    But to answer your questions, the body thicknes is correct, the neck angle is basically correct (specs vary, but vintage SGs are either 3 or 4 degrees I believe). However, the headstock angle is only right if you're going for a post-1965 specification. 1961-1964 SGs had a 17 degree pitch. Personally, I prefer 14 degrees for the easier bends and less binding at the nut, but most vintage purists prefer the 17 degrees for enhanced sustain.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2018
  7. Silvertone

    Silvertone Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2018
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    37
    Cool man. Thanks for the info. I suspected the 17 degree neck angle would be more vintage correct but I am with you on the 14 being much better. I would probabl even like it a little shallower just for me.

    Cheers Peter.
     
  8. Silvertone

    Silvertone Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2018
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    37
    So I'm back on this again. I've created a dwg file that overlays a few of the different models / plans I have downloaded or purchased from the internet. Here are my results. I will be measuring a '65 standard soon, so it will be interesting whether it matches up with any of these.

    Here are the 3 plans I have aligned to show the discrepancies with length.
    comparison01.JPG


    There are some obvious differences like the body neck edge and clearly the length is quite different. But the shape of the bass carve is substantially different in all 3 cases. The 1961 model has the carve ending quite far away from the centre line, the next seems to end at the centre line, and the top one seems to end beyond the center line. That is a little perplexing as it would mean much different templates.

    Here they are overlapped -
    comparison02.JPG

    Similar colours to the above named plans. I am welcoming any and all comments regarding what looks right and what looks wrong. Thank you.

    Cheers Peter.
     
    musicman2242 likes this.
  9. musicman2242

    musicman2242 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    27
    Location:
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Very interesting to see the different body lengths. Never would have guessed there was such a difference
     
  10. cerebral gasket

    cerebral gasket Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2017
    Messages:
    1,581
    Likes Received:
    1,714
  11. PermissionToLand

    PermissionToLand Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,447
    Likes Received:
    987
    Well, carving has varied substantially throughout the years. Also, remember that in the '60s, beveling was done by hand, so there was a pretty good amount of variation. I've even seen some where the treble bevel continues along that entire side, and doesn't stop halfway like all modern SGs do. I wouldn't worry about getting the lines for the bevels perfect, especially where they meet each other, you're probably going to be going by photo reference for that more than anything.
     
  12. Silvertone

    Silvertone Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2018
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    37
    Yeah - I have noticed that in pictures. The bevels seem to be all over the place with where they start and where they end. I went and measured the '65 Standard yesterday and the body shape and size are almost identical to the '63 SG JR. I'm just starting to add the control cavity as per the measured guitar. I've already added the pup routes and neck route so it's coming a long. I like the JR style neck joint. It's so much simpler than the tenon style like the LP standards.

    [​IMG]

    This one had the lip / ledge underneath the heel of the neck. I think some it's not obvious that it is there because it sits directly under the neck and may get sanded into the heel profile.

    Cheers Peter.
     
  13. PermissionToLand

    PermissionToLand Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2013
    Messages:
    1,447
    Likes Received:
    987
    Awesome, you can't beat having the real deal to measure yourself!

    I agree, the early '60s SG joint is unfairly maligned. For one, most people just look at the exterior and assume it's weak, without knowing how large the tenon is, compared to a LP. Also, vintage SGs were not treated with care until they started gaining vintage status in the '90s. That's much later than LPs. And you still do see LPs with neck breaks at the joint as well. Throughout the course of 50+ years, it's bound to happen to a number of them.

    The heel design was another aspect that had a lot of variation back then. Even in the same year, you'd see a style go away and then return randomly. Some had the stepped hangover, some had a smooth hangover and some had no hangover at all. Funny enough, I've not seen one exactly like the Historic Reissue's heel.
     
  14. Silvertone

    Silvertone Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2018
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    37
    Yeah I'm not too concerned about the neck body join. Probably more of a chance that the head stock breaks off because of that 17 degree neck angle. I added the control cavity and control holes to the body. I have to check some dimensions to confirm because it looks really close to the edge but may be because I have hard lines around the radius in the 3d model. Also changed the wood material in the model so the body showed up better. Maybe I should cut one out of maple? ;-)
    front -
    [​IMG]

    back -
    [​IMG]

    Cheers Peter.
     

Share This Page


Recommended Links: PAF Pickups, Luthier Forum