My Tele was routed out alot under the PG !!!

Always wanted to try it--- Tele a bit heavy, but did it for sonic experiment.
Got it back from the repairman last wk.

I asked for more than a swim-pool route and he did it.
Left 1/4" thickness on the bottom of the body, and for strength he left a 1/4" wide 'beam' running from the right of the neck pocket---to the back of the PG near the rear pup area.

Yes, it is lighter.
But sonically it rings out much better!!!
Before -the open high E was muted---thought it was the graphite nut, even though it was pro cut.
Rings out definitely better on the higher notes.

On a scale of 1-10 of sonic improvements, I'd give it a 2-3.
Fer sure, worth it.

Thanks to Mark Kaiser of Fret Repair in Franklin, OH.

Where's the picture?

No pics-- but routed clean, perfect.

The 'structural beam' was a good idea---Mark's.
I just asked for a little more wood than the trad pool route.

I think when I ordered the WD Tele body 2 yrs ago, it was about 4 lbs 12 oz or so.
I could live with the wt.---no biggie, was just excited about doing the sonic thing.

Anyone else do this??

You're not going to get much interest in this subject if you don't post a picture.

dang

you're probably right.

BTW: It is an alder body, was about 4 lbs/12 oz before.

Folks---it sounds better!!!!

Doug,

What would you say the wt. is after?

Thanks,
chip

never weighed the whole guitar before.

Probably lost close to a 10 oz or more .

<li>I haff dunn it several times and the weight loss is almost nill.
<li>Tone difference also almost nill.

http://personalweb.sunset.net/~barron/smuggler4.jpg


0le FUZZY

Good points

Where on mine---definite sonic improvemnts--- it is 'bit' lighter.

I've told others that I don't know if I can generalize for other Teles-- and guitars in general from my results.

I would venture that doing this on a lt wt sw ash guitar would be a disaster!!

Thanks for the pic!!