Hello to all, have been reading this great site for a couple of years, have only been attempting to play for a year on a D.Daye half set and am keen to have a go at making my own chanter (am fitter machinist toolmaker by trade) with small workshop on the farm. Have bought the plans by A.Ginsberg and am wondering has anybody had success using these and are there any hidden anomalies with the dimensions given.Any advice on dimensions or alternate sources of information would be greatly appreciated ..thanks to all 
A general advice: Better use the 3-dimensional thing itself than copy from a plan (nothing said against Mr. Ginsberg´s plans). The measurements always are more precisely to get. Use D. Daye´s hints on his site at making measuring-tools for the inner diameter of the cone. billh´s site that shows how to make reamers unfortunately is closed at the moment. Try to find out why a chanter is great and why a reed is great.
I have the ginsberg plans and have compared the regulators with the dimensions from david quinns cd-rom for a rowesome set. both the tenor and baritone are within 1 or 2 mm in every dimension! I didnt check the bass. the chanter dimensions are also nearly the same as the famous oflynn rowesome chanter that many makers have based there work on. the slight variations in the rowesome taper are not represented in the ginsberg plans unfortunately, so good luck making it work! only the throat and exit bore are given. 
[edited since I mis-read Tim’s message the first time - thanks Alan 
]
I presume you’re talking about lengths and tonehole placement being “within 1 or 2 mm”… what about the bores? And toneholes sizes?
Tonehole size differences much smaller than 1mm can be hugely significant, as can very small bore variations. Which of the DMQ Rowsome reg sets are you referring to, the Al Purcell set or t’other one?
For that matter, a couple of mm difference in the regulator length can affect tuning, as anyone who’s ever experimented with a regulator “plunger” cap can attest…
the chanter dimensions are also nearly the same as the famous oflynn rowesome chanter that many makers have based there work on. the slight variations in the rowesome taper are not represented in the ginsberg plans unfortunately, so good luck making it work! only the throat and exit bore are given. >
Not sure what “nearly the same” means here either… From what I’ve seen of the Ginsberg plans I would not agree. I would certainly agree, though, that throat+bell alone are insufficient to characterize an actual Rowsome chanter.
I would recomment the DMQuinn CD-ROM for more detailed plans and constructions hints for drones and regulators (or the DMQ Pipers’ Review articles for drones, if you are a member), and the Pipers’ Review article (1999?) by Craig Fischer “Phrenology” which gives sufficient detail for an early Leo Rowsome chanter. (As an aside, that particular chanter is about the closest to an actual straight-sided cone of any Rowsome I’ve encountered.) Armed with those, and Benedict Koehler’s reedmaking methodology from the NPU DVD, you should have the makings of a good design.
Bill
So imagine if it were regulators Light years?
I should note that I am not coming from a place of great knowledge on what signifigance a couple of mm here and there means, (but it definately means more in some places than others) or anything else to do with pipe design generally cause Im pretty amateur. I quickly compared the lengths and placement of the toneholes from the ginsberg and the most recent dm quinn cd rom for the tenor and bari regs, just out of curiosity and they were close enough for me to think that they came from very similar sets, it also proved that ginsberg did actually measure a rowesome set which I had some doubts before, although there is still question as to how accurately (very strange he doesnt see any significance to what is going on between the bell and the throat, this says alot about his attitude towards pipemaking). I would have to look again at the bores, but I know they are in the ballpark. there seems to be flexibility in the reg bores because they would be rushed anyway. I would go with the quinn measurements before the ginsberg. from my personal experience with this stuff the level of accuracy needed in this craft is somewhat exaggerated by some. no offense intended to anyone, but lets be real! working to close tolerances from proven designs is generally a good idea, but it is very obvious that many many things can and do work. when I say nearly the same I mean that if you hold one chanter next to the other you would possibly think it was the same design. I do not have the measurements from liams chanter directly, but I do have two measurements of chanters “copied” from it and they are very similar. my idea of close may not be the same as some!
I have some pictures of two chanters I made side by side showing the similarities, but cant figure out how to post I have a mac and the directions I found are for pc. one on the left is based on the ginsberg and the other from dimensions from david days website from the quinn oflynn copy.
Here are the photos from ttoberer:
The plans, no matter how good or how accurate and detailed, are only going to get you the first 5% there…the remaining 95% is something else.
Nice work, Tim! 