Weissenborn Lap Slide Style Scale length and plans

[Bob Connor]

I understand that the original Weissenborns had a scale length of 25" with a 19 fret fingerboard.

I've almost finished 3 of these now and after following Gwenn's and the Stewmac plans I found that I could only squeeze 18 frets in (using a 24.9" scale)

On the last one I built I decided that I could.

a.) Make the neck longer

or

b.) shift the soundhole south.

I chose to do b.)

I noticed on some of the other pics of lap slides that have been built by Alan and Gwenn that their fingerboards started life with 20 or 19 frets and were shortened when they were glued on to the body. Also looking at Richard Wilson site that some fingerboards had as few as 17 frets and some had 18 (I don't know which scales he uses but maybe he'll chime in)

Just an observation, but I'm wondering whether anyone else had noticed this and what the best method of fixing it is. I tend to think that lengthening the neck may have less impact on the sound of the instrument.

Any thoughts, ideas or suggestions would be welcome.


Another thing I've noticed is that Weissys have bugger all "bong" off them untill you install the bindings, whereas a normal steel string sounds fine until you route the binding channel and then the "bong" returns after the bindings are installed.

And if you think I'm rambling I haven't been using a "bong"

[Matt Bach]

You say you want to "fix" it, but how many frets do you want in the end? Aren't the frets somewhat decorative anyway? Sorry being for the devils advocate. Bong on.

[Bob Connor]

19

[Richard]

I'm using a 25" scale.

On mine I've shifted the nut from the headstock onto the top of the body but kept my soundhole in the same place. The end result is that my fretboards extend further over the soundhole so I generally lose a bit of room there. My fretboards are all cut such that they end neatly on a fret line... so what you'll see as 17 or 18 frets is effectively 18 or 19 without the extra material.

I do things slightly differently on each guitar... altering the neck length is the easiest way I have of changing the bridge location and so my number of frets can vary depending on the relative soundhole location, rosette design (namely quality of join at the fretboard end) and finish (how/where I've masked off the fretboard area prior to grain fill and finishing).

[Dave White]

Bob,

My first instinct is to say if you want them to look like the original Weiss's then use that shape/layout and put your own bracing on it. Mine have 18 fret markers and a 630mm scale length but I don't see it as a problem that needs "fixing". With a lap slide you've got an infinite number of frets and lots of "stinky notes" as David Lindley calls them. Which piece are you struggling to play without the 19th fret marker

Personally I wouldn't shift the soundhole south as this reduces the lower bout tonal area, loses you a little bass and makes the structural area between the soundhole and fingerboard more of an issue for shoring up. If I really wanted 19 fret markers I'd probably make the fingerboard overlap the soundhole slightly or slightly lengthen the neck.

As for the "bong" I can't fully recollect - I think mine have pretty muched bonged before binding but all instruments really BONG when you bind/purfle them way more than they bonged before the binding channels are cut. My little brain reasons that this is because the top/back is "bound" more into the sides/linings and compressed from the top with the purfling giving a different and more effective hinging/coupling than with the plates just on the linings and butt joined to the sides.

I have a baritone lap-slide on the building horizon so I'll remember to do some thorough bong testing then and report back.

[Alan Stassforth]

How about shortening the scale length a bit, shifting the hole a little bit, and making the f.b. a little longer.
Three little bits can make a big difference,
and won't change the playability much.
I can change playing on a 25" to a 23" scale length with no problems.
A "bong" is better than a "boink",
or a "plink", or a "thud"!

[ozziebluesman]

G'day Bob,

The weiss guitars I have built where off the MIMF plan. The latest one was also the same brace plan but I used a big xmas tree bridge plate and a small footprint bridge. The bridge plate and bridge act as one. The bridge wings do not cross over the xbrace. So far the top has remained absolutely flat. I used the 25" scale and 18 frets to the soundhole.

I reckon a shorter scale like 24.5 would work! I would leave the soundhole position, neck length and bridge position as per the Stew Mac plan. The bridge footprint should sit nicely over the xbrace as well.

Bob have you seen a Kona guitar? These where built with a 25" scale with a spanish heel neck join to a solid neck.

Here is some info http://www.guitarbench.com/2009/04/22/1 ... -database/

These where usually tuned to open E. Interesting design, one I would like to try one day.

Cheers

Alan

[Bob Connor]

Thanks for your thoughts everyone. It just confirmed what I had thought. I was interested as to why the plans that are out there don't seem to mirror the original 1920's instruments.

I'm just going to massage things around untill I get everything where I'm happy with it.

I've seen the Kona's Alan but I like the idea of a holow neck so I'm going to play around with that for a while. I think the next one may be a deep bodied job with a slightly thicker top.

I have to say that I also prefer a bong over a boink but a bonk may be preferable.

Regards