RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Full Version)

Foro Flamenco: http://www.foroflamenco.com/
- Discussions: http://www.foroflamenco.com/default.asp?catApp=0
- - Lutherie: http://www.foroflamenco.com/in_forum.asp?forumid=22
- - - RE: Building Guitar Number 100.: http://www.foroflamenco.com/fb.asp?m=209908



Message

koenie17 -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 18 2012 16:39:43)

Beautifull!!



Anders Eliasson -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 18 2012 21:05:49)

Ruphus. Look at the picture with the FP scraped off. You see two small holes. The bridge is pinned and wont move when gluing. The pins go through the soundboard and the bridge strap which has the grain running across the grain of the soundboard. So no risk of cracking anything.

Scraping off FP is easy. Its very thin. I use a 15mm chisel. Its a matter of being in peace with one self and taking your time.



Ruphus -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 18 2012 21:55:11)

Thank you for the explanation, Anders!

I have been hauling around some weird assertions on guitar building which I don´t even remember of where from they have come about. Whether I might have claimed about myself or heard of them somewhere, or maybe read in some silly early magaizine, I dunno.

One was the claim that the best headstock would be the one carved out in one piece together with the neck. ( A good joint provided: nonesense claim )

Another one was that a resonating units element like the neck shouldn´t ever be mounted by the means of screws ( excpet of with solid bodies), until I learned that Hauser would not only do so, but even employ suspensable systems ( for exchange of necks / adjusting action on the fly ).

And finally that idea according to which a bridge of an acoustic guitar shouldn´t ever be attached with the help of retention ( hence by all means only flat glued on ). Hence watching screwed on bridges in the way some steel string guitars have ´em like a sacrilege.

It has been funny to see these claims toppling as baseless one by one over the decades.

Ruphus



Jeff Highland -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 18 2012 23:07:24)

I'd agree that the first two are rubbish, but I think metal screws to retain bridges as Gibson do is a really bad Idea. They just add a lot of mass.
Gibson uses them because they don't trust their glue joints (unfortunately a valid concern with Gibson)
I use locating pins in the saddle slot like Anders, but they are only to hold the bridge in position before gluing not to perform any structural function afterwards.
Some use metal pins and pull them out after gluing, I use 2mm plastic rod and leave it in (below saddle bottom).



Andy Culpepper -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 18 2012 23:16:12)

quote:

I use locating pins in the saddle slot like Anders, but they are only to hold the bridge in position before gluing not to perform any structural function afterwards.


Same here, 2 small bamboo pins about the size of a #41 drill. Small skewers are perfect. I use different size bamboo pins sneakily throughout the guitar for different things... locating the top-neck joint, gluing stacked heels, etc.



Ruphus -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 19 2012 5:55:00)

Hello Jeff,

I have no overall experience on Gibson except of with one of their top of the line 12 stringers that was offered to me for 500 bucks by a studio owner whose broken clients had left the guitar behind as pawn.

This guitar was a precious dream beyond description, voicing like a chorus of angels / playing like all by itself. Its handmade leather coated case alone was something to behold.

I´m kicking myself still for not having taken the opportunity of obtaining it.

Treasures like these seem to go for around 15 grands or so these days.

Ruphus



Jeff Highland -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 19 2012 7:05:51)

Hi Rufus,
I have a couple of es125 gibsons mid 50's and mid 60's
Had a es175 that was a boat anchor.
The last Gibson acoustic that was brought to me for setup, an two year old AJ which is a $4000 dollar guitar here had the bridge wings separating from the top already.
Looking in the soundhole at the X braces one was quartersawn, the other was flatsawn which is not a good idea at a notched joint. The sound was very subdued.
You get good ones and bad ones, quality control is not impressive, and some of the design features are poor, like the huge pocket around the truss rod nut which leads to fractures at this point through the one piece neck /head.



Ruphus -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 19 2012 8:45:28)

Thank you for the info!

I have heard of great inconistencies with the brand´s acoustics before.
- And it makes you wonder how an extreme range between duds and gems can come about from a same manufacturer at all ...
( Concerning the contemporary e-fraction connoisseurs distinguish between US and Mexican made, but I wouldn´t expect this to be background to the vintage acoustics mystery. Should I?)

Sorry for spoiling the thread!

Ruphus



Anders Eliasson -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 19 2012 14:53:42)

The pins I use, I make out of rosewood.. Its a rosewood bridge.....



Anders Eliasson -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 21 2012 11:31:38)

Some closeups of the purfling and bindings.
The purfling on the back is complicated to do because you have to miter it wit 45 degrees in both ends. So when you cut, you cut and if to short, to short.





Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px



Ruphus -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 21 2012 15:01:31)

Another weird whisper ( definitly not from me ) goes in the sense of that finest makes would be recognizable by a heel base that would be covered by the backs continued sheet.

Insuring not much more than needlessly enlarged back blanks, I´d say.

You´d think such moonshine would be spread by who just couldn´t discern a good guitar when they play it, but this one I heard from the mouth of a classical guitar teacher who otherwise really knows his ****.
-

I run into the 45° thingy every other time too, for being lazy while drawing / constructing on the fly by hand ( mostly working out that way, and sometimes not ).

Provided the inlayed stripe to be parameter I could think of a simple home-grown circle-like tool to ensure the right measure.
-

One thing I come to mention every once in a while ( as I consider it a valuable point in tactile and ergonomical respect, while it should be a breeze of taking into account. - To me it actually presents the most plesant and easy of finishing steps with a work piece ):

What ( other than possibly future repair / disassembling needs ) keeps you luthier folks from rounding those corpus edges a distinct bit more?

Have you not experienced how a box appears so much more solid and dapper with tastefully smoothed edges than with sharp ones?
And those player´s limbs would be thanking you too.

Ruphus

PS:
It now feels as if I had mentioned this to you before. If so: Sorry for repetition, Anders!



Anders Eliasson -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 21 2012 15:34:40)

quote:

Another weird whisper ( definitly not from me ) goes in the sense of that finest makes would be recognizable by a heel base that would be covered by the backs continued sheet.

Thats just the usual blah blah from some wise guy..... Its a matter of taste and nothing else. The back is glued to the foot inside the guitar. I have made guitars where the heel is covered with the back and I will do so again if someone ask me to do so. But when building something to my taste, it ends up like this.
Why do you think the binding is not rounded? Remember that is only 2mm thick, so there´s a limit on how much it can and should be rounded. Its main purpose is to protect the guitar edge



tmock -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 21 2012 17:12:12)

Anders, thanks so much for this thread. Like Lendador, I haven't posted in it because I have nothing of value to offer, but I wanted to thank you for taking the time to show us your art in such detail. I'm sure this thread is a somewhat time consuming distraction from your work, but we really appreciate it.



Jim Kirby -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 21 2012 18:37:20)

I don't use locator pins in the bridge but see a lot of reason to start doing it. Now, I build a big wall of tape around the bridge before clamping, so that the bridge can't slide. Of course, the tape has to be pulled off before effective glue cleanup can be done, plus you have to deal with the possibility that a sliding bridge will catch a little tape under an edge.

Yep, I'm going to try pins next time.

And on Gibsons - I'm not much of a fan of modern ones, but I really wish that someone would ask me to build an L-0 or L-00 for them.



prd1 -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 21 2012 18:53:23)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ruphus

Insuring not much more than needlessly enlarged back blanks, I´d say.




More rubbish. You'd be best looking at the art work and deciding if it appeals to your eye and fits the guitar.

if Anders put Santa on his rosette I think your "friend" would damn Santos Hernandez for not considering it earlier.



Escribano -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 21 2012 19:10:10)

quote:

I have made guitars where the heel is covered with the back and I will do so again if someone ask me to do so. But when building something to my taste, it ends up like this.


You made mine with the heel covered by the back in a kind of dart - rather nice. I like it.



Anders Eliasson -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 22 2012 8:01:52)

quote:

You made mine with the heel covered by the back in a kind of dart - rather nice. I like it.


Your guitar has a 3 piece back and no purfling on the back. Building like that, I also prefer what you call the ´dart´style.



Escribano -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 22 2012 8:26:08)

quote:

Your guitar has a 3 piece back and no purfling on the back


I see, that would explain it.



Ruphus -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 22 2012 9:24:36)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anders Eliasson

Why do you think the binding is not rounded? Remember that is only 2mm thick, so there´s a limit on how much it can and should be rounded. Its main purpose is to protect the guitar edge


On the last pictures the edges appear like rounded, but only slightly. As if there could be taken off a tad more till yet a mm or so of still protective binding.

How if tops sides of upper bout and the backs lower one would be stuffed with thicker bindings to allow for miniature bevels ( for right arm and slouching brest)? With the tops outer edges constantly glued to the inner linings I suppose laying in deeper bindings could go alright; correct?
Or would thicker bindings exceed the bending limits?

Ruphus



Ruphus -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 22 2012 9:50:13)

quote:

ORIGINAL: prd1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ruphus

Insuring not much more than needlessly enlarged back blanks, I´d say.




More rubbish. You'd be best looking at the art work and deciding if it appeals to your eye and fits the guitar.


Are you saying there is no economic factor of blanks in terms of at least ~ 6 cm more length, with corresponding limits at portioning off trunks / upcharges with purchasing from wood suppliers?


quote:

ORIGINAL: prd1

if Anders put Santa on his rosette I think your "friend" would damn Santos Hernandez for not considering it earlier.


You are smart yourself, I suppose?

The person I was referring to might have left the western hemisphere a bit too early to further educate himself on luthiery ( he is still all swearing on Ramirez ), but in sight of knowledge and repertoir in classical music and guitar playing I am certain him to be embarassing you easily.

He besides also has a terrific technical ear, as he proves with recording and post working his stuff in a living room with cheapest gear and yet really impressive sonical results.
-

In my eyes there´s much more dramatic cluelessness around to excite about than with missing knowledge on guitar building.

Ruphus



Anders Eliasson -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 22 2012 15:08:01)

There´s no economical advance in making a heel cap. The wood is always a lot longer than we need. maybe some 5 - 10cm.
Bigger bindings would be horrible to glue on. Already, if 2,5mm thick, they can be a pain to get them glued well. Besides has it really ever been a problem this with the edges bothering you or is it mainly theoretical?



Anders Eliasson -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 22 2012 15:10:08)

¡¡¡Number 100 Finished!!!

So here she is all ready to be played. Now I only need to make a video.







Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px



Anders Eliasson -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 22 2012 15:12:05)

And some more:
The last one has some weird reflexions from the light that I didnt see when taking the pictures.







Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px



ralexander -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 22 2012 15:22:27)

Count me as another who doesn't have much to add, but who has greatly enjoyed following the progress of this thread. I think these types of threads should be good for stirring up some interest in one's work - I know in the steel string community of luthiers, they go crazy with these build threads. I personally appreciate the work that goes into documenting this stuff, especially when you're talking about a guy who just wants to be in the shop and not in front of a computer uploading photos and explaining himself. So thank you Anders for taking the time to share with those of us who want to see this stuff.



Leñador -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 22 2012 15:29:23)

She's a beauty! I love your rosettes, very classy.



Ruphus -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 22 2012 15:53:31)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anders Eliasson

Besides has it really ever been a problem this with the edges bothering you or is it mainly theoretical?


Not what I would call a practical problem yet. All in all overcoming hours of playing alright, still.
But I expect in best case of say full bevels like in these pics

to experience a relief similar to what one´s ears feel with sudden silence after a noisy period of time or so. - You know, when you feel the convenience in contrast.
-

Your baby has come out really beautful. Looking great from all angles, but specially the central pic of the soundhole with even yet the label ton sur ton looks just superb!

Ruphus

Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px



Jim Kirby -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 22 2012 16:05:24)

Beautiful! Thanks again for all the detail.



Wayne Brown -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 23 2012 0:49:38)

Anders,
Beautiful guitar! Congrats on #100. I have just joined the forum and have been following this thread with interest as I am beginning a build of my first flamenco. Thanks for the info and great photos in this thread.
Wayne



Jim Kirby -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 23 2012 1:57:27)

Beveling as Ruphus shows involves inserting a substantial block of wood in place of the linings and then carving appropriately. The most recent video by Robbie O'Brien (check his forum or OLF) shows how this is done. I think they work well on steel strings where weight isn't an issue. You'd have to be very careful on a classical or flamenco guitar, I think.



krichards -> RE: Building Guitar Number 100. (Oct. 23 2012 7:40:31)

Another great thread Anders.

Thanks for posting



Page: <<   <   2 3 4 [5] 6    >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET