How much sanding?

[Ron Cox]

Happy Holidays to all.

Well, I didn't get the Saga kit that I asked for for Christmas, but it's on it's way for my birthday. I had wanted to wait until I read every thread here about said kit, as well as redigest my Siminoff book.

My goal with this kit is mostly to learn what goes into making a mandolin since there are quite a few complex operations in assembly, as well as attempting to create something a little be more me as far as sound holes and finish are concerned. Though I will do my best, I won't be too fussed if I ruin it completely. I think this kit will give me a greater appreciation of how hard those of you who build for a living (of fun) really work.

One thing that didn't stand out in any of the threads, was how much more thickness sanding this kit could really use? Is the top and or back almost right there, or will I be removing quite a bit of material.

Another thing I may attempt, before I assemble the kit, is to try and make, from scratch, another top and or back out of some other woods, only to try my hand at carving from a blank. Right now, making a neck, headstock and fret board kind of scares me, but I'll get there eventually. Also, if I get into this kit and find that building isn't for me, I'm not out huge money.

Thanks in advance for your input. I learn so much just by logging on.

BTW, the kit will be the IV a-style kit without holes cut.

[billhay4]

The best way to tell how much material you need to remove is to measure and compare those measurements to a known instrument. This is approximate at best because two pieces of the wood are going to be different and produce different tones, but it's the best you can do. Secondly, as you remove material, tap the instrument. When the sound it makes pleases you, you're close. This, too, is highly subjective and only a rough guide, but the two together have made many a nice sounding instrument.
Now for "sanding". This may or may not be the best way to remove material depending on how much you need to remove, where it is, etc. You can also use a gouge, a small violin plane, and a scraper. All are faster than sandpaper and better for some things.
Good luck and have fun.
Bill

[Ron Cox]

let me rephrase my original post.

Has anyone who has built a saga kit noticed having to remove a more than conspicuous amount of material. Since on average, I believe, you want the top to be about .25" depending on the curve and tap tuning, In some cases going down to as little as .20"

Has anyone found these kits to be so thick as to have to be carved down instead of just sanded? I don't have the fine fingerplanes nor do I wish to purchase any until I figure out how much I care for building. Some scrapers may be able to be improvised, and the gouges and tools at my disposal are mostly for doing furniture.

This of course will be an excercise in patience as well, as I do tend to want to jump ahead and rush things, so that will be something else I hope to learn.

[billhay4]

You can get by without the finger planes. A good sharp gouge will do the trick. I use a #3 sweep, but you can even use a flat chisel. Scrapers are cheap and easily made yourself, but hard to sharpen just right.
I don't have an experience with this kit. Why not tell us how thick your plates are? You can get thickness diagrams on the web of plates. Again, I'd approximate those.
Bill

[Danidog]

I've bought three of these kits recently and the graduations on each were different. Hand sanding to an acceptable thickness might be a bear. I have a drill press and used one, two and five inch sanding disks inserted in the drill press for quick removal and then used a r.o. sander to take it down the last bit before going to hand sanding. Good luck with it and have lots of fun!

[Seattle]

One thing I've noticed about many of the kits, if you are trying to make something different or more to your personal tastes, is that too much is already finished.

If you want a neck without binding, it's already applied. If you want a body without binding, it's already routed. Maybe this isn't an issue for your tastes however.

[Tom Haywood]

I built one of these in 2008. The initial thickness of the top after sanding it fairly smooth on both sides was .273" at the center. I took it down to .199" in the center. That's 1.88 millimeters removed at the center. Can't find the initial thickness for the back, but I'm guessing a similar amount was removed to get it to .165 in the center. I spent days attempting this with 100 grit sandpaper as shown in the instructions. You won't get very far on hard maple with that. Finally used an 80 grit disk on a hand-held power drill followed by more hand sanding. Tricky but it sped things up dramatically. I would definitely recommend a curved cabinet scraper as a main tool for this job. You can purchase a set of three that contains a curved one for around 10 bucks.

[Bill Snyder]

I built one 10 years ago. After I sanded everything inside and out smooth I did not need to remove any more wood. Just about everywhere I checked I was at or less than the graduation diagram I was referencing.

[Ron Cox]

@billhay: the kit hasn't arrived yet, so was planning my material removal ahead of time.
@danidog: that was my thought if the thickness warranted it.

Where would I find these thickness diagrams?

I'm actually only contemplating soundhole variation and possibly changing the binding to another style or color. right now, it's just me doing the steps and cutting a sound hole (which I may bind as well depending on the design). I may take a stab at inlay on the headstock, though that is a pipe dream, though I do have the tools, just no practice for something that thin and small.

[Seattle]

If you want to change the binding on the neck, I think you have to remove the binding from the neck first as it's already glued on. Someone correct me if I'm incorrect.

[Danidog]

The graduation diagrams are typically listed in things like plans and books, but, there are enough discussions here in MC to give you a pretty accurate idea of where to take the soundboard and back. One recent thread is called, "Loar Specs", if I remember correctly. I don't know how to link them in this thread, maybe some of the others will do so. Or do a search for A style mandolin graduations or A style mandolin plate dimensions or thicknesses and you should find plenty.

You can do as much or as little as you are comfortable with in the IV kits. My first was just to get to know the process and now I'm modifying and customizing the second two kits (changing binding, narrowing fretboard, compound radius on the fretboard, scooped/shaped fretboards, changing frets to EVO frets, headstock inlays, cutting F holes, or ordering with F holes. It's all what your comfort level is. For me personally, it is a great way to learn without a lot of $$ risked.

[Danidog]

I built one 10 years ago. After I sanded everything inside and out smooth I did not need to remove any more wood. Just about everywhere I checked I was at or less than the graduation diagram I was referencing.

My first was scary thin to start with.

[bernabe]

Id be careful with sanding disks, meaning only use if there's a lot of material to get rid of such as the .27" top mentioned, go slow, smooth out before checking measurements again, and don't "go for" the final grads too aggressively. Smoothing out the rough surface they leave [@80grit], leveling any high spots that are hard to see [use a low angled light], and going through the grits to prepare for finish will leave you thinner than you want before you know it if you're not careful. Id also recommend "good" sandpaper to remove material faster by hand sanding. Big difference between something like Klingspor and what you find at Lowes or Home Depot. Just my opinion.

[Ron Cox]

I'm hoping that the top will mostly need finish sanding, but was preparing for material removal from the back.

I have a 3 speed drill press that has a pretty low speed and was thinking of higher grits than 80 since the wood may be a bit softer than I am used to.

All of this depends on the thickness to begin with and the surface quality of the wood. If the exterior needs a lot of work and the wood is thin, then I might be sanding with newspaper followed by a diaper (LOL).

So, what I'm gathering, is there could be inconsistencies in the thickness of the tops, even from kit to kit. Have gouges if necessary, thinking of investing in the scrapers I saw on the IV site. Might just make some. time will tell, once the kit arrives.

[billhay4]

Scrapers will not remove a lot of material. They are more of a substitute for sanding or a small finger plane.
Bill

[Ron Cox]

Kit will be here soon and I am planning to make a custom sound hole after some inspiration from looking at the Jacobson mandolin site.

Instead of starting a new thread, I opted to ask here, how much surface area should a sound hole encompass? I don't remember seeing a formula anywhere, but aren't oval holes and f-holes about the same amount of void in the top plate? I do hope I am saying that right. And yes, I purchased the kit without sound holes cut.

[bennyb]

Ballpark number is around 4.5 sq. in. total combined hole size. Larger "lets" more trouble out, smaller lets more bass out.

[pointpergame]

I don't remember seeing a formula anywhere.

The oval is easily measured. The F's take a bit of folksy integral calculus. ( lay the shape on a piece of graph paper and count the squares ).

[AaronVW]

Making your own finger planes can be pretty easy, inexpensive and a good project by itself. I made some for building my first mandolin and they worked well. You can find good step by step instruction to do this here: http://www.dunwellguitar.com/FingerPlanes/MyDesign.htm

Try modifying shape and size as you have need. I think I even made some using a piece of scrap oak flooring. Not the prettiest planes but that's what I had on hand and it worked. For a blade I cut an old butcher knife blade into strips with an angle grinder.

[Ron Cox]

Sorry for the late replies.
Thanks Benny for that measurement. I know there is some scientific way to determine optimal value, but I'd rather have the ballpark figure so I can start sketching it out.

Aaron, thanks as well for that link. I am sure I will need that life-hack sooner or later.

As of my birthday my kit had not arrived, but is scheduled to arrive today while I am at work. Since we are expecting snow (lots of it) this weekend, when I'm not on the snow-blower, I will be checking thru my kit and planning my moves (so to speak). I thought I had an idea in my mind of colors, but it all flew out the window. I don't want to attempt the sunburst, but do want the grain to show up.

[Ron Cox]

Well, my kit came in. I don't know if I'm more disappointed, or afraid.

The kit itself seems complete, but absolutely no documentation came with it, just the parts in a box. the body (soundboard and sides pre-assembled, back mostly carved and sort of shaped) were in a plastic bag. There was a parts bag and the neck assembly sitting in the box.

There are pock marks throughout on the soundboard and back, as well as the ribs. Headstock, though pre-drilled, is barely shaped and there is some putty filling the back of the headstock in one place. That by itself wouldn't deter me, but the fretboard looks damaged on the first fret and I don't know whether it is bad enough to need to be fixed or just get IV to replace the whole thing.

However, without measuring, I am sure there is enough material that I could sand out the pock marks, and I am sure that some finishing of the neck (very rough) is in order. The neck joint (dowel type) needs some material taken off as dry fitting left the fretboard above the soundboard quite a bit.

All in all though, for $135, the kit is actually rather nice. I already own Roger's book, but his method has us shaping the peg head prior to the other steps already accomplished in my kit. I hadn't really thought of a shape for the peg head, so I need to put some thought into that as well. I will try to lay everything out and take some pics of the kit so those of you considering one will see what you get.

[billhay4]

Are the pockmarks on the outside? How deep are they? Pictures would help. My guess is that they are remnants of the plate shaping. Many use a drill press jig to drill guide holes (though I can't figure out a kit maker doing this; it's slow) and it can leave pock marks on the opposite side. Pock marks on the inside aren't that big of an issue IMHO, but they are odd looking. Sand or plane them out if you have the space.
As for the headstock, you have to be very careful laying out any pattern to make sure the tuner holes are in the correct place vis a vis the tuner shafts. You have to leave enough shaft so you can operate the tuner. Is this an A or F? If it's an F, the sides of the headstock will have to curve correctly.
You also need to be very careful modifying the neck joint. The fretboard is supposed to be above the soundboard, but how much is the trick. If you need to lower it, planing the neck top must be done so it is kept in the correct plane relative to the top. In other words, the fretboard will have to be left in the correct orientation. If it's not, it will be hard to get the instrument to look right or play right.
Have fun.
Bill

[bennyb]

Howdy again, Ron
I might keep my eye on this thread, as I'm currently playing(and remodeling) my first IV kit, it's finally sounding good...after 8? years. Since I had it destringed in order to refret(big frets, like 'em), I sanded and scraped some wood(and finish) off the top of arch, and it made a lot of difference. I also reconditioned the tuning machines, and they work acceptably - they turn easily and hold pitch well enough. I'm also "random hippie sanding" and scraping the back; that hasn't changed the sound much, but can be done with the instrument strung and playable. Anyway, as far as your kit's defects, post the pictures, and the various assembled will opine - ultimately, it's your call. The headstock wasn't really shaped on either of the two I received and the neck joint required some work on both; it's a feature not a bug . Additionally, although mine are from many years ago, the center joint on the back plate was not perfectly tight at the tail end and I put a patch across the joint(inside, of course). One other thing, because the top had been glued to the sides and out of a form for some unknown amount of time, the sides were splayed out a little and back didn't quite cover. I bound one and not the other, don't remember the details. I'll keep my eye for ya.

Oh yeah, I was going to mention a "method" figuring out the hole size. Boondocks Calculus. Measure the two holes(on a single f hole) on Roger's plans, do your pi are squared to get the area of the holes. For the slot, take the narrowest measurement(near the hole) and a wide measurement at one of the notches, average them and multiply by the length.
Example: 1/4 inch at the narrowest, 5/8 inch at the widest, totals 7/8 inch, divide by 2 to get 7/16(.44), times 3.5 for the length, equals 1.53 plus the area of the holes, times 2(both f holes). I did this to one of the IV kits and came up with 4.34 sq in. total. More later.

benny

[Danidog]

Hi Ron,
I remember the disappointed/afraid period of my first build. I had a blast with mine (all three now), and I'm sure you will also. For a buck thirty-five, you just can't beat these IV kits, and Ken is the best to work/deal with.

Most everything is self-intuitive, just take your time and think your way through it. If you have questions, many here are happy to help and we all love pictures!

Enjoy!

[Ron Cox]

skip this