Could this be adapted for SS guitars?

[John Parchem]

James Lister makes very good looking guitars. I am sure this would work but I do not think this is an easier or safer method from mistakes. The sides would need to be profiled at a finished size. From his post

It works for the back bindings as well, but you need to get the shape of the ribs exactly right before bending them. Not a problem once you have an accurate template for each plantilla you use. Once you've cut the ribs to the template, you have to bend them in exactly the right position (i.e. the high point has to be exactly positioned at the waist), but again it's not significantly more difficult.

He says no problem, I have yet to achieve that level of craft when I profile and bend the sides. I still profile my sides tall to allow room to fix up the profile if I bend the waist off a 1/4" or so.
I guess my view is that this requires a bunch of steps that require a high level of craft to get right.

[ken cierp]

I guess my view is that this requires a bunch of steps that require a high level of craft to get right.

Exactly -- My thoughts as well

[Dave Bagwill]

I like the idea, and developing the requisite skill could only be a good thing, but I probably won't try it.

I seem to always get push-back when I post about different ways of approaching certain tasks, and I'm not sure why. I'm not attacking the conventional ways to do things, just sharing things I find to be interesting. And will continue to do so.
Philosophically - I'm not a small production shop nor do I aspire to be such. In fact, my practice is, more and more, to SLOW DOWN.
Getting faster is not my main concern; developing my skills is, and part of that is lessening my dependence on blades spinning at 100,000 rpm - I am NOT criticizing the use of those machines - I AM saying that I get satisfaction from training myself to do it myself. I'm not there yet as to binding channels, and in fact I'm happy with the KMG tool for that purpose.
So let us go forth, my friends, and flourish in the craft, each in his way and each for his own reasons, but still in the Brotherhood. :-)

[John Parchem]

Sorry Dave,

I thought you posted these alternatives for discussion. I read your post, took the time to go over the original post and spent some time thinking it through. I gave you an honest assessment on the issues I would have with it. I am personally fascinated by some luthiers skill with the use of non-powered hand tools and would love to have the same level of craft that they display. I know I currently do not have it. On classical guitars with a Spanish neck joint I have had to cut the binding channel near the neck with hand tools. For me it was way harder than the area I cut using a router mounter in a binding jig.

Like the Luthiers that posted in the delcamp thread I would like to try to use more hand tools like cutting binding channels with a gramil and chisel. James method is for a classical with a true flat top or a flat top with a dome. That gives him at least a reference plane to work from. The profile of the sides on a steel string are a little more complex with either a radius on both the top and back or the upper bout of the top sloped for the neck angle. I think because of that the steel string might be harder to get right. If you want to incorporate hand tools for binding I personally think that a gramil and chisels would fit better in the process you have.

[John Link]

Dave, I positively love it when you post this sort of alternative process. That has always been the basis of my comments. I hope that has come across.

About your comment on "dependence". That is on target. I also like your comment about cutters spinning at 100,000 rpm. I'm glad I bent my first sides on a hot pipe. I don't feel dependent on the light bulbs and heating blankets I acquired later, rather, just that I choose to use them instead as a new way to deal with the phenomenon of getting wood to relax under just the right amount of heat. Since there is not much money to be made competing with advanced factories, the feeling we can do it "by hand" stands out as one of our rewards. As far as that goes, even a Fox bender seems somewhat primitive and "by hand", compared to the benders Taylor uses.

What comes out of the "by hand" experience is direct contact with specific pieces of wood: feeling them, smelling them, looking at them, orchestrating the various necessary changes to them to get them somewhere close to where we want them to go, every part of the instrument considered by the single person responsible for taking it all home. When that has been part of the experience I think it extends into the process of using less direct techniques, such as the router, the bending machine, the sander, etc. I like to think (but cannot prove) there is a difference when I use a drum sander now as part of thinning a back because I once used a plane and scraper (and still might, before it is all over).

Romantics, such as myself, usually lose the argument when it is framed in terms of a scientific double blind test of one sort or another. But, as any decent philosopher of science will tell us, science limits the inputs in such a way as to ensure that its result is free of what romantics value most. Another way to view this is to say romantics include information that science cannot cope with. That said, there is no doubt in my mind that some factories offer incredible "bang for the buck".

[Dave Bagwill]

Thanks John - I appreciate the input. I have in fact used a gramil and chisel on a couple of instruments and find it a relaxing and rewarding task. But generally I use the kmg table router jig, with good success.

Still, I would be happy to not have to cut channels whatsoever.

[Dave Bagwill]

I should have said thanks to both Johns! I did not see JL's post until just now, I was responding to JP.
Thanks to both of you, and Ken as well.