Headstocks

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm

Tony...if (I mean when) that happens, book me a room at Fawlty Towers...

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:41 pm

Tony, shaving the headstock is not too difficult an operation. It's matching the finish that makes it or breaks it, and because of this, reshaping a headstock is not something to be attempted lightly.

The guitar needs to be unstrung and the neck and body well-padded and -masked, as the guitar will inevitably get bumped a couple of times before the job is through. A plastic bag is fitted over all and taped tightly. This is dust and solvent protection.

The tuning machines need to be removed, as well as the TRC. I mask the truss rod cavity as well, although strictly speaking it's not necessary.

The shaving itself is accomplished by first covering the headstock with masking tape and tracing the new shape onto the tape with a ballpoint pen. Then the trimming is done, not with a saw, but with a stationary tool called an oscillating spindle sander, with a 4" diameter drum fitted. This makes quick work of stock removal along the outline which has been traced.

Fine sanding is used to remove all of the headstock finish. If the guitar is a 12-string with the routs in the headstock, these should be carefully chemically-stripped. The aim here is to get the wood bare of finish and natural in color.

I then use a lacquer sanding sealer--just a couple of coats over bare wood. I then sand and apply the appropriate finish. If it's a transparent finish like FG, it has to be built up carefully until it matches the body and neck (they have to be unwrapped partially and briefly for this operation, then re-wrapped once the match is OK, before applying the catalyzing finish clear coats.) Solid colors should have a chip sprayed up before any masking to check color match against the guitar's original finish to allow for fading or yellowing of the conversion varnish.

The finish is allowed to cure overnight, then color-sanded and hand-buffed to a high gloss. The guitar is unmasked and carefully detailed and reassembled.

It's about 15-20 hours' work if done properly.

tony_carey · Post by **tony_carey** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:42 pm

Sure thing Dane. Classic series.....

tony_carey · Post by **tony_carey** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:45 pm

Paul, what about the tuners position. I should go down stairs & have a look, but it's 1.40am here & I can't be bothered. Are they in the same position? (BTW...6 string mapleglo)

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 3:28 pm

Same position, but the TRCs are different.

jonpaul · Post by **jonpaul** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 9:22 pm

Hey Paul (Jingle J), I 've got a 325V63 JG that has had some damage to the neck heel of the which was repaired but not refinished very well. Is this something you might be interested in fixing for me? Also there's a few minor nicks in the face of the guitar along with some clear coat seperation on the bottom edge close to the input jack. Do you think a complete refinish would be more appropriate? Let me know if you have any interest. Thanks, D.B.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 7:22 am

Dave,

I'm sure that I can help. Can't tell if you need a complete refin without seeing some good pictures.

tony_carey · Post by **tony_carey** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:54 am

Here's an interesting photo. A vintage & a modern headstock superimposed. The tuners do not seem to be in the same place. If you wanted to shave a modern headstock, then you would have two choices as far as I can see. You could just shave the length...but that would just give you a short, fat headstock. Or you could plug the tuners & re-drill for the new ones....it would take a braver man than I. If you left the tuners where they are, then you would have the top row dangerously close to the edge of the headstock & the tuner shafts sticking out a long way, which would look odd to say the least
I think I'll leave well alone!

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:18 am

Tony:

It seems like there are several and some would not shave into the shapes of others!

tony_carey · Post by **tony_carey** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:40 am

This is really interesting. The vintage style headstock in your pic Paul is almost as long as the modern one, although if shaved to the width of the vintage, the tuners would still be too near the edge. The bottom length is too long as well, which means that it could never be totaly accurate. If this is the case (that vintage headstocks vary in length) then clearly some would work better than others, but none would be without major compromise?

What a great thread!

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:04 am

I'm intrigued as well. It seems like there is some variance, and here again JH is the Man of Authority. I know that, up until the mid-80s (maybe even late '80s), Rick tooling and manufacturing methods were nowhere near as precise as they are today. But I don't think it's a matter of tooling precision alone. It seems that there is quite a bit of variance between eras and models.

In the two I overlaid, the laminations of the neck/headstock even line up, and the holes for the tuning heads seem to be in the same place within about a 32nd.

We need to get someone with a lot of these of various years, to take some photos on a gridded background or with a lenticle to figure this one out.

tony_carey · Post by **tony_carey** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:18 am

I have a 1980 330 with the small headstock, a '92 1997 & a '97 360V64 that I can measure over the next couple of days. I also have a new 330 with which to compare. Homework!

jwilli · Post by **jwilli** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:38 am

I'm not taking a picture of either of my lenticles.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:45 am

Put them in your soup.

jwilli · Post by **jwilli** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:49 am

but then it would have to be "Macho Balls Soup". Ok, I'll stop here. Sorry Peter......;-0