Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
I edited my original post. And I can't upload pics from my phone without reducing size and chaning format.
My question is about the top of the heel block that sits under the soundboard and fretboard, located aft of the ribs.
On the Reyes plan I am using, this block does not extend all the way across to cover the entire width under the fretboard. It leaves a gap under the low E and high E. I'm wondering why..? I looked through a bunch of other plans and they don't have this gap.
It was suggested to me that both of the E strings may sound uneven with the middle strings because of the lack of mass under those strings caused by the gaps.
It probably means Reyes cut it that way for no real reason, except he felt like it. And if it worries you, place a graft brace between the upper transverse brace and the heel which will run parallel to the upper transverse.
Although, I'm quite certain that if you wait, in a short time somebody will offer a lengthy, useless and protracted exegesis as to why it looks that way.
It's highly unlikely to matter, in my opinion. The 1968 Ramirez Modelo Sabicas that I have has the part of the heelblock that the soundboard sits on in the shape of a half circle.
I think you could build either way without any worries, either by following the plan or by extending the width of the block to equal the width of the fingerboard.
Maybe Reyes was trying to save a bit of weight, or perhaps doing it this way made setting the binding easier for him later on in the build. Or it could be there was something like a knot in the wood or slipped saw cut that he wanted to remove and this was a one-off occurrence. I think items like this one come down to the personal preference of the builder.
During your first few builds it’s not always easy to determine the significance of a design aspect or build deviation. I think you’re taking the right approach to ask about stuff like this in the Foro, otherwise there’s the danger of getting bogged down with analysis paralysis and never completing the build, lol. It also helps others with their first builds, I know I’ve learned a lot over the years following the discussions on the Foro!
I suppose there is no particular reason and that it doesn’t make big difference. It’s true though that some makers add some mass under the fingerboard with the purpose to improve the eveness of the notes played in the high frets positions of the fretboard. I recently studied a Reyes and that guitar was quite different from the 2003 plan. My suggestion is to use a stiff spruce top and then to use single peones (not touching each other), to use a shorter under-bridge patch, to avoid the fragmented closing bars behind the bridge, to keep the thickness a couple of decimals less and to thin 1 decimal of mm on the treeble side. These features will get you closer to the Reyes I inspected and to the 88 Reyes reported by Brunè in the Urlich book. Hope this can help.
Following on that, we can’t ignore the possibility that for this particular guitar Reyes was trying to influence the characteristics of the outer strings. To be safe, maybe follow the plan as it is?
You guys rock! I wasn't loosing sleep over this detail, I'm loosing sleep over "did I just take too much wood off such and such or get that measurement right".... but it's really nice to have you guys around in the lonely world of flamenco building. Rob, you pretty much summed up my thoughts exactly.
I had a hunch too that Reyes did that for some unknown/whatever reason.
Echi, you've got my attention regarding those modifications. I might have to pick your brain a bit more. I thought that bridge plate on the 2003 plan was really strange. As far as the top, you say a stiff top, but a hair thinner? I'm embarrassed to say I don't know what closing bars are yet lol! Im researching as I go.
Hi, in my opinion Reyes used to discipline the lateral stiffness of the top through the under bridge patch: short patch for a stiff top (lateral stiffness), longer patch for a top a little floppy. All the 3 Reyes I saw, had a shorter patch than shown in the 2003 plan. Again, in internet you can find picuters of Reyes assembly a guitar and you can notice that he first glues the under-bridge patch, then the 2 transverse bars and eventually the 7 fan struts.
My guess is that the 2003 Reyes is made using a low density top or at least floppies than in Reyes standard. In my understanding in normal conditions he would use a shorter patch and would keep the top at around 2 mm on the bass side and 1,9 on the treble side, thinning a little more on the area in treble side close the lower transverse bar. The guitars I saw had no continuous linings but single tentellones and didn’t have the 4 little “closing” struts.
I build the guitar just like the plan but with a raised fingerboard nut level to compensate for the string height at the 12th fret.
I seek the highest level of quality and sound.
Kenny Hill once told me that he could make the guitar sound better than the plan but I encouraged him to build his first guitar by the plan, as a prototype and then try other ideas to see the difference.
Otherwise, how would he know he could do better than the plan.
The guitars I saw had no continuous linings but single tentellones and didn’t have the 4 little “closing” struts.
As far as I know, all of Manuel's guitars have tentellones for the lining at the top and sides and solid for the bottom. The reason I designed a solid 2 part lining for the top is that it gives the sound more brightness and volume for its projection.
This is not known by many, but Chris Kamen mentioned that the first prototype was louder and projected better than his original. This is due to the solid 2 part lining from the Miguel Rodriguez design.
I for one would stick on the original feature. The single - detached tentellones go towards lowering down the box pitch. I’m not saying the other method is worst or better; I’d just follow what Reyes did, given you want to make a copy.
Tough choices. Oh great one, born of the Sybl what will I do?
I obviously don't have much experience, nor will I have a fine selection of tops to choose from, but what you are saying Echi makes sense to me about the top stiffness and bridge patch. I'll have to think on the solid binding. I didn't realize that was not original, but I do respect your experience Tom.
Echi makes sense to me about the top stiffness and bridge patch. I'll have to think on the solid binding. I didn't realize that was not original, but I do respect your experience Tom.
I have a student and great wood worker coming for a guitar building course the first of 2018. He does excellent aircraft furniture and wants to learn guitar building.
We'll take about 2 months for the build. And I'll hold him strictly to my way of building. However, when he is not in my shop, he can build anyway he chooses. And this goes for your choices, as well. I only give suggestions to help you along the way.
What you do with them is your business. BTW, I use a medium stiff Engelmann spruce top for my build, and the finished product tunes out to G-F# on the top.
All of my builds generally act as a honorarium toward Spanish master builders so this is not my ego speaking so much as it is my desire to share what I know with other builders. So you can accept or delete anything I say; I won't be offended :-)
Printable Version
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread