Official Luthiers Forum!
https://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/

binding jigs
https://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=48384		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Rbello [ Mon Oct 10, 2016 1:50 pm ]
Post subject:  binding jigs
Seems like there are 2 major types - tower and parallelogram contraption. Anyone who has experience with either (or both) that can offer some advice as to which is preferable. Or maybe its a coke/pepsi thing and really doesn't matter since both utilize bearings and a sled. Thanks.
Author:  bcombs510 [ Mon Oct 10, 2016 2:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: binding jigs
I use the tower version. I believe the one I have was a very early LMI version. It's really basic, just a holder for the router attached to drawer slides that let it ride the body. I have always followed the guidance here for cut direction: http://www.stewmac.com/How-To/Online_Re ... rings.html

I haven't really had any issues so far. I always try to make sure any glue is scraped away that would prevent the bearing from riding cleanly. So if your looking to make your own I think the tower type with a decent router like the Dewalt 611 would be a pretty good way to go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Author:  Jim Watts [ Mon Oct 10, 2016 2:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: binding jigs
I have both. I built the tower first many years ago. I never had a problem but it was always nerve-racking. I decided to build the parallelogram after reading an article in American Lutherie in which Harry Fleisman describes his parallelogram design and binds a guitar blindfolded! (well at least for a photo op). He's more talented than I am. It's still a little nerve-racking but I'd give the nod to the parallelogram style.
Author:  MikeWaz [ Mon Oct 10, 2016 3:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: binding jigs
There's another style worth considering -- Kett style. A forum member was selling it, but looks to be sold out. I've done 3 guitars with it so far and really like it. Very accurate results and easy to use. http://www.canadianluthiersupply.com/pr ... inding-jig


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Author:  ernie [ Mon Oct 10, 2016 3:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: binding jigs
I have the LMI old tower DIY with a ridgid router . I also purchased a binding jig cutter from chris at luthier tools in puyallup wa. tricky to use on ukes
Author:  Colin North [ Mon Oct 10, 2016 3:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: binding jigs
I used a parellelogram type for several guitars but recently changed to a tower style.
Both work, tower type just inexpensive and quicker to make (my older parellelogram one had too much slop)
You need more space to move the cradle round, and it takes a bit more concentration, but upside for me was the tower jig/cradle etc. is more easily stowed.
I've stopped using the stewmac "how to guide" method, and now use a climbing cut all the way, usually in 3 stages of cut depth (2 for binding, third for the purfling)
I believe this helps prevent chip-out.
Author:  Jeff Highland [ Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: binding jigs
Gore style, tower mounted small parallelogram. stewmac cutter and bearings
I had it slider mounted on the tower before, this is much better, solid with no friction or slop.
Author:  Michaeldc [ Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: binding jigs
I've got the Stewmac tower style and think it makes more sense for my shop because it doesn't take up much bench space when not in use. Maybe a 25 square inch footprint..? I've never tried the other style.

M
Author:  doncaparker [ Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: binding jigs
I owned a Stew-Mac tower and it worked OK, but I currently use an LMI tower, and I think it is ideal. Features I like:

1. The curved donut that registers the vertical carriage on the top of the guitar has a screw in, screw out depth adjustment. That's very handy for sneaking up on the perfect depth of cut.

2. The tower can be bolted down to your workbench for use, then removed after use. It doesn't take up much room.

3. The body carriage is the best ever. It takes some adjustment, but it holds the body better than anything I have used so far.

4. I am firmly committed to the use of concentric bearings on a cutter to cut binding channels. Trying to keep a finger guide perfectly perpendicular to the curve of the guitar is not fun.
Author:  James Orr [ Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: binding jigs
I've had a William's style jig specially made by my good friend, Mr. Don Williams. It was beautiful, with a few special figured maple touches, but I personally never felt great moving the cutter around the guitar.

So I tried the latest LMI jig. Let me tell you, it's fantastic. I really like the fine adjustment mechanism and the way the donut glides onto the work surface. Their jig uses some contraption that makes the router's up and down movement really smooth and perfectly counterbalanced. I also liked the small footprint and preferred moving the guitar into the cutter as opposed to moving the cutter into the guitar. I just felt like I had more control -- I felt more confident.

MikeWaz wrote:
There's another style worth considering -- Kett style. A forum member was selling it, but looks to be sold out. I've done 3 guitars with it so far and really like it. Very accurate results and easy to use. http://www.canadianluthiersupply.com/pr ... inding-jig


But now I have this, and let me tell you, winner winner chicken dinner. At least for me. It took all of five minutes practicing to feel confident moving the guitar around, and the adjustments are so simple and quick it feels like cheating. Just clamp it into your vise, screw in the right dumbbell, and go. Chris ensor has a similar jig if Josh is sold out, and Chris' version has some really fancy adjustment options.

One caveat is that it's really best if you permanently mount a laminate trimmer or router onto the jig. I bit the bullet and bought a dedicated laminate trimmer for it and have no regrets. Josh sends a centering pin for the initial setup, and it was pretty easy to get the trimmer mounted on there perfectly.

The second caveat is that the dumbbells are numbered in sequence, not by their resulting channel size, likely because metric folk will want to measure in mm, and imperial folk like me will want thousandths of an inch. The first thing I did (and this really helped me get comfortable using it) was to get a scrap 1x3 and run through every dumbbell, making a list of their depths of cut.

Before getting the jig, it would take me nearly an hour to get the body set up in the cradle well, and then I'd have to re-adjust for the other side. The cradle situation is why I went to Josh's jig, and after cutting either the binding or purfling off my current project three times ( gaah ), I'm completely sold and have never felt more confident cutting those channels.
Author:  Chris Ensor [ Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: binding jigs
James Orr wrote:
Chris Ensor has a similar jig if Josh is sold out, and Chris' version has some really fancy adjustment options.


I have made some updates to the jig recently as well that allow it to be used with two different laminate trimmers as well as now offering an attachment that allows the jig to be used on smaller instruments like thin bodied acoustics, ukes, electrics, etc.
Author:  jfmckenna [ Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: binding jigs
MikeWaz wrote:
There's another style worth considering -- Kett style. A forum member was selling it, but looks to be sold out. I've done 3 guitars with it so far and really like it. Very accurate results and easy to use. http://www.canadianluthiersupply.com/pr ... inding-jig


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That's the style I use as well and you can make on pretty cheap that does a good job.

Image
Author:  kencierp [ Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: binding jigs
Certainly are more ways to get precision channels routed -- some more thoughts here:

https://acousticguitarforum.com/forums/ ... p?t=444772
Author:  sdsollod [ Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: binding jigs
I originaly used a hand-held jig with some success and a tower, but I found it problematic holding the body guilding it into the router. I borrowed the parallelagram style jig from a friend, measured it out and built one just like it. It works great for me. I feel like I have good control and it has made this process with less of what Robbie O'Brien calls the "pucker factor".
Author:  Bri [ Tue Oct 11, 2016 9:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: binding jigs
I have on very similar to what Steve has pictured, though I have the body cradle set on a turntable bearing.
Easy but a little bulky..

B
Author:  Josh H [ Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: binding jigs
MikeWaz wrote:
There's another style worth considering -- Kett style. A forum member was selling it, but looks to be sold out. I've done 3 guitars with it so far and really like it. Very accurate results and easy to use. http://www.canadianluthiersupply.com/pr ... inding-jig


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


After having a bunch in stock all year I just sold the last one yesterday! I am temporary out of stock on one piece to complete my kits and should have them available to ship again in a few weeks. If anyone is interested in one of my jigs send me a PM or email and I'll put you at the top of the list for my next run.

My jig does differ from Chris's and one of the other pictures posted in that mine uses fixed sliders that centre on the cutter. It is a great design originally developed by Jean Larrivee, Sergei de Jonge and Mark Kett. While it is not as common as the carriage style system it is used by many of the top luthiers.
Author:  Rbello [ Wed Oct 12, 2016 3:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: binding jigs
Thanks for all the replies. I realized in looking at all these jigs that I have a very basic understanding of the geometry involved in using them. I was hoping to inspire a discussion maybe help myself and others similarly challenged better understand what to expect in using these devices. The challenge seems simple - create a square channel(s) along an edge where the horizontal (width) and vertical (height) distance from the edge remain constant along its length. If the horizontal planes were all square to the sides, flat and at the same elevation throughout then it would not be a problem but clearly they aren't. I understand that there are many different schools of thought regarding the angle that the top and back should make at the edge. Some techniques seem to result in a relatively flat surface before they start to curve and other carry the curves all the way to the edge. I assume this variability is why most jigs reference off the side. I also now see how important it is to assure that the cradle for the bearing jigs holds the guitar parallel to the vertical plane of the router (therein I presume lies all the "fussing"). My workbench is not particularly flat so I would need a plywood platform of some kind. I think this could get complicated so I will start with 4 questions.

Assuming (for the moment) a flat top and back, or curved plates that have a constant height along the length of the donut contact point.

Attachment:
IMG_1996.JPG


For the (bearing/cradle) jigs, as the side elevation changes, with the cutter remaining vertical:

1. Would we expect the height of the channel to decrease in proportion to the size of the angle?

2. Would the width of the channel remain unchanged?

3. Would the bottom of the channel be rounded as the face of the cutter contacting the wood is now radiused.

4. Would the Kett style eliminate this issue? I think it would since the cutting edge would always be the same distance from the dogbone but I'm having trouble visualizing it.

I fully realize that, even of these "problems" exist, they may be totally irrelevant in the real world but going through the exercise helps me to understand. Hope someone else is interested in some mental exercise. Illustration exaggerated by design. Thanks.
Author:  Josh H [ Wed Oct 12, 2016 8:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: binding jigs
Hi Richard,

I can't speak to the other styles of binding jig as I've only used a Kett style jig since I started building. But as far as the Kett jig goes it is designed to cut a consistent channel in height, width and depth around the entire body.

I think that some of the things you are illustrating in your drawing can be issues with different binding jig setups, but my guess is they may not show up as much in real world as you think they would. People with experience using cradle style jigs can hopefully chime in and give you more feedback.
Author:  Rod True [ Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: binding jigs
I have used both the Kett style and Williams style and have liked both. I've never had a problem with either type.

In the real world situation your not really (relative of course) making such exaggerated angles on the guitar body and the cutter really doesn't see a great range in cutting depth from "flat" to "angled" plate orientation so you don't really have to worry about it. You do however have the thinking correct, but the scale is IMO considered miniscule.

As for the jigs, if you've not used any before I'll give some insight.

First off, all the afore mentioned jigs work fine, some are more "fool proof" than others but really all require attention of the operator.

Set up: ALL jigs should be tested prior to doing the real work on the body....

Bearing jigs require the most time to set up, "leveling" the body in the cradle as well as setting the depth of cut and width based on the bearings. However it's the leveling on the cradle that takes the majority of time if you've marked the bearings well an store accordingly.

The Kett style jig is very quick to set up, still requires a test cut.... There is no set up of a cradle either which is nice.

Personally, I think the bearing style is a little less intimidating to use, especially if you've used a router for other woodworking tasks in the past.

It takes time to get use to running the body along the "dumbbells" of the Kett style jig but once one is familiar it's pretty quick and easy.

Storage space of each jig does play a factor too. The bearing jigs and the cradle require more storage space, with the Williams style requiring the largest footprint for storage. The cradle does come in handy though when installing the binding or holding the body for scraping the top or back binding/purfling flush.

I first stared with a DIY version of the Kett jig, it worked fine but wanted something more refined so I bought a high end parallel arm style jig and Stew Mac binding set. It worked perfect and I honestly really liked it a lot. Took up a bit of space to store though so I recently sold the entire set up and went with the Kett style from Canadian Luthier Supply. I've used it once and it works fine but I did honestly miss the ease of the Williams style and being able to see my cut as I went along (you can't see the cut with the Kett style at all while cutting).

The other thing I didn't think about when I sold my Williams style jig was the need for the rabbet set up for binding a headstock. Now I need to buy another rabbet set just so I can bind my guitar headstocks.

There's my $0.02 worth.
Author:  meddlingfool [ Wed Oct 12, 2016 10:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: binding jigs
Add the headstock binding to the veneer before you glue it to the headstock...

Oops, off topic....
Author:  Tim McKnight [ Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: binding jigs
I have a Kett jig and a Williams style jig, both for sale. Pm me if interested.
Author:  Dave m2 [ Sun Oct 23, 2016 5:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: binding jigs
Slightly late reply but I built this contraption a while back and it works very well. (loosely based on Trevor Gore's design) I had to add the pulley and counterweight given the weight of my router. I use the LMI cutter and bearings.

Although there is a fair amount of play in the system it does give a nice clean cut.

Sorry the photos are too big but you should get the idea.

Dave
Author:  Casey Cochran [ Thu Oct 27, 2016 9:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: binding jigs
+1 for the Williams/Fleishman. I like that it puts the tool in my right hand.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/