Other choices and considerations

The Coban kit’s instructions consist of two densely typed pages of A4 and a wiring picture, not an electrical diagram. The paucity of instructions is readily acknowledged by the company and the buyer is urged to explore and learn from the many kit guitar building websites and YouTube videos. Hmm. That’s my reaction based on more than 30 years experience of making television and video programmes. 

Like the majority of YouTube videos, most of those about building guitars are not professionally made. There’s rarely any evidence of a script. Production values are virtually nil. In more than one video the demonstration stops and is replaced by a title apologising that the camera battery ran out before the critical stage was recorded. The sound levels are very variable, a characteristic often made worse by unnecessary and unnecessarily loud guitar music. The images are often out of focus and editing is rarely polished. All of this means the videos are sometimes hard work to watch. More than once my heart sank when I saw that a video lasted more than 60 minutes and still only covered a small part of the guitar-building process.

Ironically it’s not just the home-grown videos that are low on production values. One of the best-known kit guitar company’s videos is fronted by a luthier who evidently believes he is a stand-up comedian. You can tell he’s a luthier because, like all those claiming to be qualified, he stands in front of the world’s supply of tools. Luthier he may be; comedian he’s not. Sadly his attempt at humour is rambling and laboured which only reduces the value of his videos even more.

So what help is the internet?

Frankly not much. For a start it's inconsistent. For example, Coban recommends preparation of the guitar body with up to 2000 grit wet and dry; the famous luthiering company with its putative comic recommends a maximum of only 240 grit. Take your pick, they can't both be right. 

For every YouTube video recommending an oil, urethane or water-based treatment for the wood there’s another declaring that product to be useless. Add to that, big differences in the market; for example, Tru Oil is a staple of the gun-owning fraternity in the USA who use it to maintain the wooden stocks of their guns. In the UK it’s as difficult to locate as the guns it’s made for. Other treatments require annual or bi-annual work to maintain their looks and efficiency – hardly practical for a youngster’s instrument. 

On my evidence, the quality of the management of the companies in the market is very variable. My guitar was supplied with holes drilled for an Adjustomatic-type bridge and a stop tailpiece. Yet the hardware supplied was a Stratocaster-type, combined bridge and tailpiece and a tremolo unit accessed from the back of the guitar. 

In fairness, another measure of the quality of a company’s management is the manner and urgency with which they endeavour to correct mistakes. On that basis, UK Music Suppliers/Coban can’t be faulted. I reported the flawed packaging on a Saturday, the replacement hardware was despatched at once.

Finally, before getting down the actual build, the one element that needs serious attention by the builder is the fretboard. To say the frets need attention is an understatement. The frets shredded the wet and dry I used to smooth the neck and some of the frets are clearly lower than the others. The solution isn't one of ability or experience though clearly fret dressing requires the proper gear. I've always held that cheap tools are a poor investment but even middle-range luthier kit isn't cheap. It's specialist equipment and has to be regarded as an investment.

The trouble is if you're only envisaging building one or two guitars, you'll never see a return on that investment. The solution is to pay a luthier to do the work for you - a suggestion that's easier to write than to achieve during lockdown but which is obviously the solution. Happily, it doesn't prevent you from getting on with other parts of the build.