# Help! Body Top-Wood type for a conversion to Semi-hollow



## bcmatt (Aug 25, 2007)

This may seem a little crazy, considering that it's supposed to be an SG ("Solid Guitar"), but I have always wanted a semi-hollow and, this guitar is anything but stock. The only original hardware are the tuners and the pots (and those will likely be changed too).
Ever since I mounted the bigsby and tried to disguise the old stop-tail piece's mounting holes with some classy, painted on F-Holes, I knew I eventually wanted this to be a semi-hollow for real.










Anyways, I am thinking of getting some wood later this week to make it happen while am down visiting my folks in Chilliwack next week. My Dad has a wood shop so that would be the chance.

Anyways, I need some advice. I can hollow from either the front or the back and put on a cap with some new wood. The body right now is mahogany (which I was sure I wanted most of the body mass to be that remains). But, do I want the top to be Mahogany and drill from the back so the front look s the same (but with one real F-Hole), or do I want the new, thinner piece of wood to be on the front?

I am leaning towards the top cap, but am not sure. I don't know what sorts of woods I will find, but I wonder about a maple cap or even looking into rosewood. Would you guys have any other suggestions or preferences? I guess I think of Thinline Teles as sort of a guide or inspiration. I think they are usually ash, Maple, or Mahogany. I like real middy tones and use the P-90 bridge selection the most. I'd like a guitar that will be way more feedy-backy, while still being able to play at decent volumes.

I am quite uncertain about finishing, but I don't mind a bit of a rough/ worn sort of look and am thinking of just a couple coats of laquer or something. My thought behind rosewood is that it would go ok with the remaining white body, seeing as it could match the fretboard. I guess I could try stripping all the paint off the guitar and trying some other paint or a natural wood with a thin coat of laquer... 
Help?!?!?


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

if you mount wood on the top it will change the set up of the guitar ( think about it).. why not just build what you want? Tele's are an easy first build


----------



## bcmatt (Aug 25, 2007)

shoretyus said:


> if you mount wood on the top it will change the set up of the guitar ( think about it).. why not just build what you want? Tele's are an easy first build


 Ya, I've thought about it, but I was thinking that I would plane the top down a bit. I quite like the feel of the neck on this guitar. Also, (and probably even more significantly) I have too many guitars to justify already. Since I've already personalized this guitar to death, I figured I keep going since I'd never get out what I put into it already if I were to sell...
Your suggestion makes a lot of sense, but I already have a modified tele I quite like and I have limited time to spend at the wood shop...

Edit: I guess what would still be an issue is trying to get the holes for mounting the roller bridge to exactly line up with the old ones underneath. That could be a challenge. And imprecision may make the roller bridge less than stable... Yikes!


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

If it's a bolt on neck you could use *all* the parts.....


----------



## bcmatt (Aug 25, 2007)

shoretyus said:


> If it's a bolt on neck you could use *all* the parts.....


It's a set neck.
Also, I think I figured out to line up the bridge post holes. Just carefully drill a small hole in the centre of where they should be. that shouldn't be hard because it will be close to a pickup hole. then I would carefully chisel or file it wider when the new top is fully glued on... not worried about that now.


----------



## al3d (Oct 3, 2007)

don't waste time with a SG really, the tickness of the body is not enough to make a hallow guitar.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

bcmatt said:


> It's a set neck.
> Also, I think I figured out to line up the bridge post holes. Just carefully drill a small hole in the centre of where they should be. that shouldn't be hard because it will be close to a pickup hole. then I would carefully chisel or file it wider when the new top is fully glued on... not worried about that now.


Then your strings will be that much higher off the fretboard....


----------



## bcmatt (Aug 25, 2007)

shoretyus said:


> Then your strings will be that much higher off the fretboard....


No, I mentioned that I would plane the top down a bit before adding the new top on top; probably almost the full 1/4" thickness of this new top. Another alternative to planing so much is to thin down the top wood above the centre block where the bridge and puckups are mounted. This might feel weird though because it would be a very slight inverse arch-top (ditch instead of the hill of the Les Paul). Believe me, I would be sure to make that bridge exactly the same height as before. Another way is to mount those bridge posts even deeper...



al3d said:


> don't waste time with a SG really, the tickness of the body is not enough to make a hallow guitar.


 You may have a point here. My body is currently 1 3/8" thick and a Thinline tele is more or less 1 3/4".
That would be a good argument for routing from the back instead and putting the new wood on the back without planing down; thus making the guitar practically the same thickness as a Thinline Tele.


----------



## bcmatt (Aug 25, 2007)

Well, I see the polls are hot on this election!!!

I'm going to go to the city tomorrow and look at woods; see what inspires me.

Absolutely no feedback on this one at all I see.

No wood preferences?!?!?!


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

I'm bouncing between the first two options.

If it were my guitar--I wouldn't rout anything out, but if I were to do it, I would rout it from the back as that would be less work, and less chance of messing something up, and it keeps it closest to what it is--if you want a different look--go ahead and refinish it--but routing from the front would mess it up too much.

Of course I don't have the skills to do any of that--so take that into consideration as well.

And how do you like the P-Rail?


----------



## bcmatt (Aug 25, 2007)

We'll see what happens and what sort of wood I find. I feel like I still could go either way (front or back). If I left the front and routed from behind there is the danger of ruining the body when trying to cut the f-holes. It would be easier to cut the F-holes for a new top (well, less risky if I botch them)

We'll see....

The P-Rail is pretty handy. I use the P-90 mode most; and switch to the series humbucker once in a while for more saturation. I never use the rail, and I don't currently have the option of parallel mode. I'd like to try it though; supposed to be PAF-ish. If I were to do it over though, I would have just got some P-94s or something in both positions. My tastes do not require the extra expense of a P-Rail and the TV Jones in the neck.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

Thanks, I too anticipate I will use mine mostly in P-90 r series, although I do like a humbucker in parallel, so maybe I'll have to get that wired in that way.


----------



## John Watt (Aug 24, 2010)

Why the focus on f-holes? 
Is is just the looks, or are you interested in what's supposed to come out of them?
Because something's going to come out of them, and be a dominant aspect of your guitar.


----------



## bcmatt (Aug 25, 2007)

Well, the painted ones are just for looks, but I do want them to be real for what comes out of them. I want a guitar that will feedback easier and resonate like a semi-hollow.


----------



## bcmatt (Aug 25, 2007)

So, there has been some progress. I'm not sure if you guys want to see all the pics here, but here is the ongoing blog-post about the modifications:
Guitar Amp Talk: If you hollow out an SG, is it still and SG?

The most significant change in plans involve finding some nice book-matched (possibly Brazillian) rosewood in a box in my dad's basement.


----------



## blacktooth (Jul 3, 2010)

interesting... are you giong to take the top down in thickness, so that it stay's the same thickness it originally was? if not, is the top now thick enough in the control cavity that you need longer shafted pots?


----------



## bcmatt (Aug 25, 2007)

I routed the control cavity a bit more so that when rosewood is added, it will be the same thickness as before, so the same size pot shafts will work. I may replace the pots with new ones, we will see. I didn't route right through because the rosewood is too thin to safely support the pots and jack safely on its own. 

I am not worried about the bridge being too high either because I know it was screwed up almost an eighth of an inch before and the rosewood is only about that thick. If I have to, i can burrow into the rosewood a bit for the bridge posts, but I doubt it will be necessary after all that sanding.

Not much progress on this so far this weeks unless there are elves at my parents house because we are all in Mexico for my parents 40th anniversary trip that us kids got for them. ...I should really get to the beach instead of sitting on my sisters iPad in the lobby. It rains some days, so I am missing out on some special skin cancer possibilities unless I take advantage of this sun. I am missing playing guitar way too much though. People in Canada dream of Mexican beaches, and I lay on a beach and dream of my amps back in Canada. I am sick.


----------



## bcmatt (Aug 25, 2007)

I got back late last night and today have been researching "french polishing".
I'm trying to figure out how I will finish this top. I'm thinking I may try a basic amateur version of french polishing, supposing that I can find the following things nearby:

Shellac flakes (or some premixed french polishing compound)
alcohol
pumice 

I've been reading online and watching youtube videos all morning.
French Polish Intro 1
This seems to be the most extensive tutorial on french polishing (with unfortunately no pictures). 
The youtube videos help me wrap my head around the whole idea though.

or maybe I will go with a type of varnish, since it is just the top of an electric...


----------



## bcmatt (Aug 25, 2007)

Well, I hae resumed progress on this project and amp almost finished. Here is the current state:








If you are interested in seeing pics and description of the recent work, check out the latest blog entry:
Guitar Amp Talk: If you hollow out an SG, is it still an SG? Part 2

I ended up doing a rough and dirt version of just shellacking the top. It actually is looking a bit prettier than I wanted it. I may have to0 scuff it up to make it a bit more "rock and roll". We'll see how it is once this dries and I get all the hardware back on. 
I ordered a tripleshot pickup ring in order to avoid those extra toggles this time. I also awaiting some new tuning machine heads. I ordered these ones (in chrome), and I hope they fit:
Buy Hipshot 6GNO Classic Guitar Tuning Machines 3+3 Set | Tuning Machine Heads | Musician's Friend


----------



## bcmatt (Aug 25, 2007)

Here it is all finished for now:









Here's the last blogpost about finishing it too:
Guitar Amp Talk: If You Hollow Out An SG, Is It Still An SG? Part 3
It sounds pretty good. I'll have to try it in a couple days at my practice space to see how well it feeds back. For now, it is giving a very sweet semi-hollow sort of tone (I don't think it is just my imagination).

Can't wait for my Tripleshot pickup ring to come, but in the meantime, I have the P-Rail wired in Parallel Humbucker mode and I am VERY impressed. Very vintage PAF sort of Humbucker tone.


----------

