I have plenty of poplar, I can finish it with that. Saturday I have all day,the day is mine mine mine anybody can come over but I am not leaving the my man cave. I want to get all the wood parts glued and start sanding, I will have some photos next week. Also looking for some tin. Thanks for the advice on the teak.

Chuck - I'd avoid Teak. It just does not glue well. Great wood for boats (I ive on a boat with lots of teak) but not good for instruments...

it's Looking good Chuck can't wait till I can hear it'

Thank You I appreciate your thoughts, I have some ideas about the fretboard getting more surface on the soundboard. I can use some of the wood I cut away or I have a whole basket of scrap teak I use for making seats in some toy trucks I make. The wheels are turning.

I am looking at what you have called a brace inyou instrument, I was thinking this might be a termed a baffle. Many instrument makers (guitars ukes viloins) experimented with baffles , redrecting air flow, and sound waves to eliminate accoustic feedback. Say a lrger lower chamber to ehance a lower base response, and asmaller upper to enhace the higher frequencies. You may want to give your Baffle a try and see how it affects ,the resonance ,you may be pleasantly surprized. I for one expirement with bracing to see how it changes the sound quality of my instruments. If you never try something new ,who knows what you might be missing. If C.F Martin would have never designed the X bracing for his guitars who knows. Yes the fretboard needs more contact with the soundboard, to more evenly distribute the vibrations. This build in my opionion is looking very good. Just my thoughts.

I'm thinking that that fretboard is going to be a disappointment, sound wise. First purpose of a fretboard is to give you changing notes. Second purpose of a fretboard is to transfer those sounds to the rest of the instrument so the large planes of the instrument (top, bottom, sides) can vibrate and made the sound. Your fretboard will not do that second thing very well at all, because so little of the fretboard touches the instrument, and the parts that do are very thick, heavy and not prone to vibrate.

Many dulcimer builders have spent a lot of time and effort separating the tail end of the fretboard from touching the end block, as the feeling is that that deadens the sound - end blocks being thick and heavy and hard to vibrate. You're doing the opposite - only allowing the fretboard to touch at the ends.

Arched fretboards still have significant wood touching the top causing it to vibrate.

With yours, the sound waves will transfer into those thick end bits of the fretboard (not unlike head and tail blocks) and from there into the edge of the end planks, not to the face of a plank where vibration is optimized.

I think, if you stuck to a convention arched fretboard or a solid (but hollowed for weight reduction) you'd have a much better sound. It will be interesting to hear what happens.

Thank you for the information, I will take that brace out. another concern I have is the fingerboard being suspended, I have seen it done and have one that is scalloped, I just hope that I have enough fingerboard on the soundboard.

You really do not need a brace of any kind, either on the top or the bottom, in that stretch, with those wood dimensions. All a brace will do, in this case, is deaden things. Rather than even your Swiss Cheese brace, just increase the scantling of your top from 1/4" to 5/16". TMB type dulcimers do not seem to benefit from thin scantlings or modern ideas like braces.

I haven't installed it permanantly yet, I am thinking of just putting a flat brace accross the bottom. The brace in the picture might be too much.