Official Luthiers Forum!

Here's my problem. I just finished a batch of three Selmer-style guitars. The problem is that I just played another original and I really liked the sound compared to the other originals I have played. The braces I have been using are quite different and I want to reduce the heights of the bracing (top and back). Problem is that the Selmer's oval-hole soundhole is not big enough to get a hand in, so I can't shave the braces through there.. so what do I do? I'm thinking the best way is to remove the backs but I am unsure of the best way and I'm wondering about how one covers this up (wider purfling?). Can I remove a back without removing the neck and still get an invisible repair? Any help greatly appreciated. Thanks, Peter

Seems I remember Bruce Dickey (??) talking about shaping braces via the soundhole. I mean, they can stick a tube up one's posterior and remove things 3 feet away. Surely we can do the same here? Orthoscopic lutherie? Yes!

Very nice job on the Selmer!

Seriously, there has to be a better option than full scale back removal. Consider a flexible shaft rotary tool (note that I am purposely avoiding the term "dremel")

Mike

FOREDOM!

Seriously, though. I can't help but think it would be difficult to do any accurate brace shaping through the soundhole on a closed box... You'll have less control than you normally would and limited visibility. I would think this problem would only be magnified by using any power tool just because of the amount of wood it can take off with so little effort. That is, unless of course I'm missing something...

I should note that my experience is with non-luthier wood work, but a significant amount of that on many varied objects. That said.

I have adjusted many things in tight spaces using a semi-flexible fiberglass rod fitted with a piece of sandpaper fitted to a properly shaped wooden piece. Using that a bright flashlight and a small makeup mirror, I carefully sand the surface. A similar type operation was done on a hidden drawer mechanism that had become partially unglued and partially swollen so it didn't work. It's slow work, but sounds a lot easier and less messy than tearing off that beautifully joined and finished back.

You might use some of that formable plastic material on the end of the rod to create a shape to hole onto the brace, then use self-stick sandpaper to reshape them. Of course it depends on how much reshaping you think you need to do and how complex your back bracing is.

Edit: You'll want to mask off the entire area so you don't damage the finished area. Even padding it with felt or something to absorb the potential shock as you work.

This will work:



Sorry - just kidding. I think that you need to remove the back but I would not want to do this unless the sound that I wanted was VERY different from the sound that I had. I'll let the repair guys weigh-in as to the proper method.

One thing is those Selmer originals are old as dirt and well played in, your brand new guitar is not. Maybe you will like it better in a couple months from now.

_________________
Build log

In many ways the bracing of the top IS the sound of the guitar. McCaffery guitars had ladder bracing (IIRC). I don't know what your bracing is but I doubt that shaving the braces on a completely different pattern is going to get you to that original sound. Which leads me to my next question. Why did you brace the guitars differently in the first place? I'm not saying that you shouldn't have. I'm just curious as to what your objectives were. If you were trying to recapture the sound of the original instrument, a different bracing pattern is an unlikely approach. If, on the other hand, you were trying to address some issue with the original than changing the bracing is a logical course of action.

Back to your question. You might consider adding an access panel at the tail of the guitar. I've seen discussions on this in several places. Check the OLF archives and the MIMF library.

I have removed and replaced many tops and backs, and it is no walk in the park the first couple of times. On an instrument where vintage originality is not a factor, i like to rout off the bindings to expose the joint. On an instrument like yours with side purflings, i prefer to rout to just above the side purflings, if you use similar binding material you can get away with installing your bindings just above the side purfs, avoiding re-doing the miters. I have done this many times with rosewood bindings, with good results. Put a layer or two of masking tape on the sides where the bearing will contact them, to avoid messing up the finish too much.

So you rout away your bindings, now you have to get the back off, which is quite tricky to do well. There have been several threads here about this, and the only thing i can add is that too much heat around the center joint of the back will cause it to separate. This complicates things, because the joint is over the blocks, and the blocks are the hardest part to release. On valuable old instruments that i knew would have difficult to remove backs or tops, i have sawed off the plate with the thinnest kerf saw possible. It takes forever, but if you go slow and throw away the saw blade as soon as it starts to feel slightly dull, it can work. This makes the body just a hair thinner, not enough to worry about.

OK, so maybe now the back is off without major damage to the back plate, blocks or linings. Keep it in its mold for as long as the back is off.

Now the back is glued back on, as carefully as possible, aiming for an even overhang. Sometimes the sides warp a little, even in the mold, and sometimes the back will shrink widthwise after it is released from the sides. You can now re-bind, with slightly wider bindings/purflings to make up any gaps. Then you are on to the fun task of major finish touchup.

If you have a traditional, removable neck joint, i would pull the neck first thing. All of those steps are just a lot easier without the neck in the way, especially when it is time to re-bind.

It is a lot of work, almost as much as building a guitar, only with more things that can go wrong. If you go for it, and i have no way of knowing but kind of think you should not, good luck.

_________________
Jordan Aceto
Ithaca, NY

If it were me, i'd build another one with the desired bracing and leave that one as is.But i don't buy my wood from others and all it would cost me is time.I just can't see tareing a new guitar apart for that reason.Does it really sound that bad? There is a possibility after rebraceing,it still won't sound the way you want.Not too many guitars sound the same anyway.They are like people, no two alike.That's why i keep building,maby the next one will sound better to you.Good Luck, Mark

I'm with mark.

_________________
Jordan Aceto
Ithaca, NY

I understand that the original Selmers are all well played in.. I am actually comparing the sound and bracing of an old Selmer vs. another old Selmer, not an old Selmer vs. mine. My dilemma is that the bracing heights, cross-sectional shape and tapers are remarkably different over the years they were built, as is the sound. My guitars have the character of the Selmer I copied, minus the 50+ years of aging... My (new) goal is to move towards the sound of the "other" Selmer and if I could learn more from one of the guitars I have built before I make the next batch, that would be great. Thanks everybody - Pete Z

Come on Hesh!

Everybody knows you use Shaped Charges for shaping braces, . Claymores are for multiple sound ports

_________________
Matt Jacobs

"Don't tase me bro"

That's funny right there, iontcare who y'are. (ala Larry the Cableguy)

Darrin

I recommend you make your changes in the next batch.

_________________
Howard Klepper
http://www.klepperguitars.com

When all else fails, clean the shop.

I’m with Alexandru and Howard. Give it some time and make changes on the next one.

_________________
Rich S

"The inconvenience of poor quality will linger long after the thrill of a bargain has been forgotten"

Laughing my arse off!!!

Mike

I had some old hide glue so I glued up some wood scraps, and will start trying to take them appart without damage. Its just a form of practice to get into the HHG and what it takes to take things apart. I tried taking off some back braces, and it was a disaster. So I think its important to know how to do!

_________________
Here is what a Parlor Guitar is for!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEa8PkjO6_I

That was kind of the point of my ranting jerky post earlier. The normal advice of go slow, be patient and carefull and you should be ok does not really prepare you for the complications that spring up during major disassembly in the real world. I hope i dont come across as mean, I just hated the idea of that beautiful looking guitar turning into a nightmare. Even when everything goes smoothly, i would always much rather build a guitar from scratch than remove/rework/replace/rebind/finish touchup a plate on a completed guitar. A lot of the "work" part of my work involves removing and replacing tops on spanish guitars that were damaged in shipping, i have done this a lot and it is just more fun to build a guitar.

_________________
Jordan Aceto
Ithaca, NY