Official Luthiers Forum!

I want to first sate I am in no way bashing any product. I am going to use the Ryan Zipflex ablam purfling strips only as a point of reference. I happen to think the product is a good product if it does as it says it does.

Now to the topic

One of the things that for profit builders have to keep an eye on is material cost and labor costs. Any product that can reduce labor is great. There are many products out there that claim they save on labor costs and most do save on labor cost. But often over looked is the fact that there is more to the equation than just the labor savings.

In order for a product that saves labor hours to really effective in reducing unit cost, it must off set its material cost with labor savings. More often than one may think many labor saving products do not save and much in labor costs to account for the extra material cost of said product

I am going to use Zipflex as an example.

The cost of a material for a single dreadnaught D45 natural shell Paua purfling is 450” of shell+ or – at $.70/inch plus for discussion lets say 6 hours of inlay labor at $30 per hour. That is $315 in material cost and $180 in inlay labor cost for and inlaid unit cost of $495

The Zipflex cost per inch is $1.50 per inch for a material cost of $705. Now not having a known time frame for inlaying I will be overly fair and assume 1 hour inlay time for the Zipflex at $30 per hour, which is $30. bring us to a standard inlaid unit cost of $735

$735 (Zipflex inlaid standard unit cost)
-$495 (natural shell inlaid standard unit cost)
= $240( inlaid standard unit cost variance)

Now this shows that it cost $240 more to use Zipflex due to the difference in material cost vs. 5 hours of labor savings. But as they say time is money so this is not the end of the equation. You can take the 5 hours of labor savings and put it to use. 5 hours of saved labor equals $30/hour at 5 hours or $150 in gained labor savings. Keep in mind that this prospective labor savings is not a given. The time must be used to advance some other standard unit cost to pay out but for this example we will accept it to be more than fair to the example product.

$240( inlaid standard unit cost variance)
-$150(earned labor savings)
=$90( assumed variance)

So after the wash is hung up and dried the Zipflex inlaid standard unit cost is $90 more than the natural shell inlaid standard unit cost. That is $90 that has to be added to the bottom line unit cost and is $90 that comes off of the profit margin.

One more consideration that has no monetary value but to some may have a personal value is convenience. Convenience is not an easily measurable thing. In this example for instance you may not be well versed working with natural shell and may assume a greater loss rate than I do so that too will play in but the 450” I use in the example accounts for my norm wastage.

Please I am not knocking any product Zipflex included. I am only giving an example of how to go about realizing a products of convenience’s real cost value.

This is an open topic discussion to a product criticize!!!!!

You make some valid points Michael, which is why I found discussing all this in that thread to be appropriate. But at the same time I understand those who feel like we may be "raining on Peter's parade" so-to-speak. It's hard to find the balance, eh?

Part of the equation you mention is the value placed on your time. Some folks will value their time more highly than others do, and some will take substantially longer to inlay any of the alternatives into a guitar. And also as you say, placing a value on one's free time as saved by the use of a product has to be made by the individual. So in the end, you really must weigh everything out and decide which road to go down.

_________________
"I want to know what kind of pickups Vince Gill uses in his Tele, because if I had those, as good of a player as I am, I'm sure I could make it sound like that.
Only badly."

Any an all posted amounts is based on my standard costs no one else’s

The dolor amounts and which way my example turned out is to this discussion irrelevant. What I wanted to show was an example of looking at a product of convenience and how to determine if it pays off to use it on a per unit cost basis.

I really suspect many may think quicker of easier is always cheaper. I just showed a specific case how for me that may not be monetarily true.

However, if you charge what Don's plumber charges, for labor, you could do two guitars in the saved money.

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

Waddy i know this is hummor and do not really say this to to you directly, but I do want all to understand I am not talking about what I charge (sale price) I am speaking of my cost one will affect the other but they are not the same

Also these are my numbers and may or may not reflect any other builder's labor time or cost

Hey guys,
don't worry about me.....I have an umbrella!

I see a lot of valid points but to me its kinda like saying "why use Madagascar Rosewood for $300 when I can build a mahogany guitar for $50?"
A lot of builders struggle with the fact that guitars take many hours to build and when you are busy every hour counts. Kevin's ZipFlex is the end result of many, many hours of R&D in order to come up with a product that is efficient, easy to install, fast and looks great.
Is solid shell cheaper? Sure is..... but why was there a need to invent Abalam?? Because its better. And easier to use.....

_________________
Peter M.
Cornerstone Guitars
http://www.cornerstoneukes.com

Pete in good humor I have to call you on one thing, but knowing that there is differing points of view and different usages where one’s attributes are better than the others.

Ablam is simpler to use on flat surfaces and is simpler to use on surfaces where it can be inlayed flush with little or no sanding causing variances is thickness. Tops, backs and rosettes are prime examples of where ablam shines for most builders

On curved surfaces where Ablam required sanding to a varied surface thickness like a fretboard and (zipflex excluded) sides, Ablam can give a pretty funky looking pattern because of more than one lamination being visible. Then even on flat faces if you prefer to inlay a tad proud and sand back there is the chance of sanding a lamination layer so thin that the layer below it is visible through it. These two issues are my gripe about Ablam. Neither of the issues happen with natural shell.

Now on the other hand natural shell is easy to delaminate at times. The loss or waist factor is higher So here again a singular statement about one or the other being better is bias at best and predigest at worst. Each has different attributes. Each must be worked different neither out shines the other except in the eyes of individuals.

To me I much prefer to work with natural shell for the combo of price and not having to worry about how it sands no mater where I use it. To others the delamination factor may be a headache they will pay twice the price to eliminate.

Michael, I have to agree with your method and applaud you for sensibly thinking the real costs through. As a for-profit builder, you are wise to do the math carefully before changing your build methods or materials. I'd love to know how you manage to make ends meet on $30 an hour though. If I were doing it for-profit, I'd be at somewhere between $60 and $90 an hour at least.

For the not-doing-it-for-a-living builder like me where it doesn't really matter how long it takes to do the work, innovative products like Kevin's ZipFlex are great to have around. What matters most for us is the quality of the finished work. Great new products like ZipFlex are the beesknees!

In the case of ZipFlex, I am more than willing to pay more in order to get better overall color match, finer breaks, uniform width and depth, fine black lines either side, and not to have to spend the extra hours fiddling with filler strip and solid shell pieces.

Cheers,
Dave F.

_________________
Cambrian Guitars

"There goes Mister Tic-Tac out the back with some bric-brac from the knick-knack rack"

I understand this and do not disagree with your statement for most part but there are some skill fallacies tied up in the Ablam looks better mind set. You can chose pieces that match up pretty darn good and fit them to close to invisible. It takes experience but here again it is personal thing. I am not knocking any one that thinks Ablam looks better for purfling. I have used Ablam for purfling a few times and my opinion is it looks fake to me because of some issues that show up some times form sanding. different strokes.

Apples and oranges I think, it would be better to compare ablam to ablam and not solid shell regardless of what you like to use better. Solid shell costs less than ablam does.

Lets use ablam straight strips from Rescue pearl to make it more like apples to apples shall we?

Resucue pearl has shop cut (not CNC cut) 0.047" wide laminated paua abalone blue for $5.95 per 5.25" long strip ($8.99 for CNC cut strips [more accurate]) and if one needs 450" for a full D45 that's 86 pieces for a total of $511 not including the side purfling lines on either side of the flexiab and if you want the precision of the zipflex you'll be paying $773 for the CNC cut ablam plus the side purling lines on either side of the zipflex.

Now you can compare apples to apples and it sure looks like the zipflex is a dog gone good deal to me.

There's also something to be said for the accuracy of Kevin's product versus the hand cut shell that Andy DePaule sells. Take 1000 pieces of Andy's product, using your vernier calipers measure them all and see what the varience is between them. What does that do for your inlay? Does it matter at all? Looking down on the inlay is it noticable that one piece may be 0.005" narrower than the one behind or infront of it?

Quality is different between the two products and that's what you're paying for.

As a home appraiser I see many houses which all look the same from a minor distance but why does one cost 20% more than the other. You're paying for the quality of the product and that generally has a high price to it.

As an engineer Michael I'm sure you see all levels of quality when you sub out work to other companies. You have to choose what is more important in some instances right.

apples to apples I think says the zipflex is just a superior product because of it's convenience and level or accuracy in which one can work with it. That costs something too doesn't it?

_________________
My Facebook Guitar Page

"There's really no wrong way, as long as the results are what's desired." Charles Fox

"We have to constantly remind ourselves what we're doing....No Luthier is putting a man on the moon!" Harry Fleishman

"Generosity is always different in the eye of the person who didn't receive anything, but who wanted some." Waddy Thomson

First if you compare Ablam to Zipflex solely on cost value it would with out a doubt be a wash. or tilt toward Zipflex due to the ease of installation.

Now this has been the second time it has been implied that Andy's natural shell product is inferior to Ablam. That is a personal bias. I agree Ablam has some attributes that natural shell lacks but there are attributes natural shell has that Ablam lacks. I have said 5 times in two topics that I had no doubt that Kevin's product is top notch. All I have ever said was that FOR ME the numbers did not work. I even said that for some it very well may. I did state that Ablam has advantages is some areas and natural shell had advantages in some but I never inferred or stated one was better than the other. However this seems to have rubbed some wrong despite the fact that I took pains to be sure that it was understood that I was not knocking the quality of either Ablam or Zipflex.

Rod I have used Andy's strips for years and as an engineer I would not mind taking you up on a challenge of visually finding noticeable width problems in any purfling inlays using Depaule products. I am not saying every piece is dead perfect but by the time it is fitted and inlaid it is not a visually noticeable issue. But I am sure we could all pick on something about each others work if we chose to. when I by natural to purfling inlay I buy 5% extra and have never had to use inferior pieces to finish a guitar more less 60%.


My point in this topic had nothing to do with quality of a product but rather how to calculate if the a time saving product also saved or add to cost. However it seems that this has turned into an Ablam vs natural shell spitting contest which was never my intention.

I think Rod hit the nail on the head. Apples to Apples
With the ZipFlex its not whether its more expensive than solid shell or better.

The fact is Zipflex is cheaper than Abalam and far easier to install than any other product. That you can take to the bank. As a matther of fact, I get my solid shell for less than $.70 per inch but in the end the ZipFlex works out better.

_________________
Peter M.
Cornerstone Guitars
http://www.cornerstoneukes.com

Not apples to apples???? It seams to me that they are all three used for the same purpose so exactly how did I not compare apples to apples in reference to the context to my comparison is was more than an appropriate comparison considering the the task was to determine if Zipflex saved me enough time to justify paying 2.24 times more.

I am sorry but I will stand behind my analysis and I will stand behind the quality of natural shell I use even compared to Ablam. that said I do not nor have I said that I feel ablam or Zipflex in a inferior product in all cases nor do I feel natural shell is a better product for all people or purposes.

I just wanted to add that the hypothetical 5 hours of saved labour is not just saved labour, but labour applied to other earnings.

So, you need to multiply that 5 hours by what it is earning you, and add that to the expense that it has saved you.

_________________
Expectation is the source of all misery; comparison the thief of joy.
http://redrivercanoe.ca/

He did. I'll snip and bold it for you.

_________________
John Mayes
http://www.mayesluthier.com

If you read the entire break down you should have seen that I accounted for using those 5 hours on an other project. That is how I got the cost from $240 more than natural shell to $90 over natural shell. You can't use that time more than once.

If you read the entire break down you should have seen that I accounted for using those 5 hours on an other project. That is how I got the cost from $240 more than natural shell to $90 over natural shell. You can't use that time more than once.

Oh and I do think you've made a valid comparison MP. I, personally, don't like much abalone on guitars so I wouldn't be using much of either the flex stuff or natural pearl. If I were I'd be inclined to give the flex stuff a whirl, but that's beside the point. I think your reminder about costs is valid and important.

_________________
John Mayes
http://www.mayesluthier.com

Michael,
I have read about Abalam versus solid shell arguments many times before. Personally I prefer Abalam
but that is not the argument. I came on this forum with the intent to extend a one time offer of a new product at a very competitive introductory price. The thread was meant to be an offer to the OLF not to start an argument. If it doesn't work for you I understand.

But it was like I was offering Brazilian Rosewood Sets and you come in saying that East Indian is only $120 per set and its more stable so why pay 8 times more for Brazilian?
To me apples to apples would be comparing same materials not a product that as a raw material starts out at half the price or less....
If you feel that using solid shel and mitering every little piece by hand works better and the time difference is not a concern? Than good on you.

You have all right to your opinion and to disagree, but starting a whole new thread to do it seems a little too much...

Just my 2 cents,

_________________
Peter M.
Cornerstone Guitars
http://www.cornerstoneukes.com

I'll get away from the ablam, zipflex and solid shell as I can see the you might be getting frustrated with those examples (although you did start out the post with them as the example).

So lets use something else of equal subjectiveness shall we?

OK, I want to buy myself a high end custom guitar. I have lots of money so that's not the issue but I'm confused because builder A who's been building guitars for 10 years, has about 100 under his belt sells his guitars for $5,000 and builder B who's also been building guitars for 9 years, has about 90 under his belt sells his guitars for $3,000

Both of them when played by me make music, both have been built out of the same perceived materials (as far as I can see anyway) and both do what I've come to expect from a guitar of that level of quality.

But why can one cost more than the other? Is is that one of these builders is just better than the other? Is it that one of these builders has marketed their product better thus can sell for more? Why the large difference in price. Looking further at the two guitars and asking around I find out the builder B has a reputation amongst his peers to be more focused on his "tone" versus his fit and finish and builder A has a reputation amongst his peers to be more focused on his fit and finish yet has good tone. To me both guitars sound great. Both "DO" the same thing but one can command a higher price because of what, perceived superior quality (although I can't see much of a difference between them).

The fact of the matter is that business sense is often limited to perception of what is apples to apples and what is not.

I see it all the time in home appraisals. The Jones' always have something that is perceived as being better than the Johnston's. What does quality matter in a house if they both keep the rain off your head?

I may think that my VW is a better built and engineered car compared to the Toyota across the street so I can justify paying more for the VW because I think it's better. Someone else will think that the Toyota is a better built and engineered car compared to the VW and just can't see why anyone would buy the VW over the Toyota. When in reality both do the same thing, get you from A to B maybe with a few different features but essentially they are the same thing right?

Honestly it's all left up to personal perspective and we can most likely agree to disagree. Life if full of this dilemma isn't it? what car to buy, what school to attend, what computer to buy, who to vote for, what magazine is better, what table saw is better, what breakfast cereal is better etc....

Thank God that we are all individuals with personal perceptions of quality, appeal, character and style or else we may all be driving fords or.....

_________________
My Facebook Guitar Page

"There's really no wrong way, as long as the results are what's desired." Charles Fox

"We have to constantly remind ourselves what we're doing....No Luthier is putting a man on the moon!" Harry Fleishman

"Generosity is always different in the eye of the person who didn't receive anything, but who wanted some." Waddy Thomson

oops, double post.

_________________
My Facebook Guitar Page

"There's really no wrong way, as long as the results are what's desired." Charles Fox

"We have to constantly remind ourselves what we're doing....No Luthier is putting a man on the moon!" Harry Fleishman

"Generosity is always different in the eye of the person who didn't receive anything, but who wanted some." Waddy Thomson

One issue is the relationship "time to money" as flat rate! I.E. Time=Money is not always correct as considered. Labor resource for a small builder is very small. Freeing up the hypothetical "5 hours" may allow a much bigger advantage because in guitar building, as with any industry your not always making the theoretical "$30.00/hour" for any specific part of a build.

I was building tooling for an Aerospace company that used a very old tranfer mold/thermoset plastic process because of it's dielectric properties. This was a horrible choke point for overall production. The company couldn't easily buy new machines to up production because the machines were custom made.

It was easily observed that even though cycle time was static we could up the tooling capacity per cavity of the mold therefore increasing production output for the whole company exponentially. We're talking millions/month. This had to be done, at first, with only the new tooling to max. capacity because upgrading the old was extremely expensive.

Inlaying, is a labor intensive area that could easily improve the overall output of a small company and save wear and tear on the luthier.

In short, sometimes it's better to pay a little more in the specific to gain in the overall.

Theoretical, or not, the Zipflex sound like a very good deal all the way around in more than "per hour" considerations.

_________________
Billy Dean Thomas
Covina, CA

"Multi famam, conscientiam, pauci verentur."
(Many fear their reputation, few their conscience)

For those of you who use Ablam, try the new product. It will save you time with similar material costs. If, however, you prefer to use natural pearl, the labor savings won't offset the material cost. I think Mike's numbers reflect that and I suspect they are pretty accurate.

These numbers are also true for Ablam vs natural pearl yet Ablam has been a successful product. That implies that for some people the negatives of natural pearl or the ease of use of Ablam outweigh the difference in cost. Zipflex changes the equation by making an easier to use Ablam. It also increases the utility by allowing you to do side purflngs which Ablam doesn't do so well.

So, if your cost analysis says that Ablam is a win for you, Zipflex should be an even greater win. If Ablam was not a win for you than you have to do a new analysis to see if Zipflex makes a difference.

But, let's change the equation a little bit. Instead of comparing the cost for a D45, let's just do a sound hole rosette. At LMI prices, curved green abalone shell strips costs about $25 for a rosette (15 strips). The equivalent Ablam costs about $39 ( 3 strips) or a premium of slightly over 50%. How much time do you save by using Ablam on a rosette? For me the difference is about 50 minutes. (10 min vs 1 hour). At our hypothetical $30 an hour labor rate, that's $25 saving by using the Ablam. That's a net savings of $6. If, however, you are a lot faster at inlaying strips than I am, say 2 min for Ablam and 10 min for shell, than the difference in labor costs is only $4 instead of $25 and the natural shell is cheaper.

as I mentioned in the other Zip thread .. if you are paying 70 cents an inch for real shell, you are paying too much - by a lot if you order it 500+ inches at a time ...

_________________
Tony Karol
www.karol-guitars.com
"let my passion .. fulfill yours"

yeah I see you can get it for like .30 cents an inch. never knew about that place, but they seem to have quite a selection. www.mopsupplies.com

_________________
John Mayes
http://www.mayesluthier.com