Official Luthiers Forum!

Colin,

Where does that division occur exactly? What about dovetail neck joints vs. bolt-on's? Is a Fleta a Spanish guitar?

_________________
Jim Kirby
kirby@udel.edu

I'd imagine if Fleta, Sr. were still around he would assure you that his guitars are as Spanish as can be. But he learned from a violin maker so what does he know anyway...

So, while we are on the subject... What about spray on finishes vs. french polish?

I really don't want to go down the rabbit hole about which is "better", what I am more interested in is - in classical guitar circles is this generally perceived as "acceptable"? I am quite certain a thin sprayed finish will sound good, but will it be accepted is another question entirely.

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

Personally, I think you could get away with a sprayed finish. Some high end classical guitars have Ntro on them, however, it's probably not the preferred finish. Depends on what you think your market would be. If crossovers, certainly Nitro would be accepted.

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

A lot of well respected classical builders have used the separate neck method including Greg Byers, Richard Brune and of course Fleta.
The advantages of this approach are easier handling of components and easier finishing of certain areas, especially around the heel to body join etc.
Conversly the thing that originally attracted me to the building of the Spanish guitar (away from steels which is what I had only done at that time) was that with the Spanish construction technique I could achieve the preferred method of construction in a small shop with a minimum of tooling.
Setting neck angle and the determination of body geometry is far more reliable with the solera method. The combination of neck "lift", fretboard taper and bridge height gives a great flexibility in achieving a proper playing action.
As for sound......who knows, though I will say that the exceptional stiffness and strength of the intergrated neck seems to enhance the response, especially when it adds a little extra mass to that area of the guitar.

Brock;
you opened a can of worms !

Any neck joint will work.
But use the one your most comfortable with.
Unless you need to experience the thrill of making a different one.

Use a proven design(for a first guitar)
Bracing ,body depths ,scale -etc....
This will give you a base line to expand from .
There are so many good plans out there that you really can't go wrong.

You will be amazed of the tap tone of the body with classical bracing.
it actually is alive .
As Alex. M said -leave 4 -5mm of room from the high e to the edge of the F.B.
This will prevent string pull-off.

I'm with Dave Laplante -I use Fish glue !

I like Sp.Cedar for the neck.
But I use lite in weight Mahogany also -
reinforced with a carbon fiber rod of 3mm X 10mm
I plane & scrape a forward bow into the f.b.

These guitars are used for a totaly different style of music .
The players use their nails and they can vary the tone with right hand placement .
Traditional technique is still a big influence on these players.
But that is changing slowly.
Listen to some c.d.s of classical & Flamenco guitar players and get an idea of what you want yours to sound like.
Then go for it !!!

Make one Brock !!!!!

"bet ya can't make just one"

Mike

_________________
Mike Collins

I suspect you are right. That is my fear in tackling this, it might send me down an entirely new rabbit hole.

Thanks for the advice. I agree the first needs to be built to the plan. When considering a plan, are there any that are better or worse then others?

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

Maybe I should be more specific. I know on the steel string side of the house that most of the plans are overbuilt. I am wondering if the same is true for some of the classical plans, if so which are better, and which should be avoided.

I am not really asking which is better Torres, Fleta, Ramirez, etc. I am quite certain there is no definitive answer to THAT question. (But any opinions are certainly welcome. I am starting at ground zero here.)

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

Brock,
Don't worry about the plans being over built. Most of the classical plans out there,at least the ones from GAL, are based off of detailed measurements from the actual instuments. Also, they are done by master luthiers like Brune, Elliott, Blackshear, etc.

_________________
Matt Jacobs

"Don't tase me bro"

Of the plans that I'm familiar with, I think the two best ones are the GAL plan of the SE 114 Torres drawn by Jeffrey Elliot and the 1937 Hauser I drawn by Richard Brune. These have a wealth of detail, and, are similar enough (at least from the point of view of a builder new to the construction of classicals) that either would be a good starting choice.
Avoid the Romanillos plan by Kevin Aram, there is very little information included in it to make it useful plus the guitar (Bream's) from which it was drawn has been repeatedly reworked.
The Courtnall book would be a good companion for either of the above plans mainly as a construction guide, though as I've said before, his plans in the book are very generic and sometimes not accurate (in contrast with the two I've mentioned above).
GAL also has a nice 1952 Barbero Flamenco plan by Brune which is quite good if that type of instrument appeals to you.

If you pick the Torres plan, you will be absolutely shocked by how lightly built that thing is!

_________________
Build log

David, do you have Brune's plan for the 1912 Manuel Ramirez? Is it good? That guitar seem to be a Torres copy, based on the 1880's Torres repaired by Ramirez (SE 49 or smth like that from what I recall from Romanillos book)

_________________
Build log

I would agree with David. I have been building to the Romanillos plan, but, I believe, that it would not have been a successful build without a ton of information from David, Shawn, Joshua, and Colin, not to mention some others, who filled in a lot of empty spaces in that plan - and that's even with the Courtnall book and the GAL article about that guitar's construction. The 1937 Hauser plan is in great detail.

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

Brock,

If you are going traditional I highly recommend these: http://elderly.com/recordings/items/DYNAMIC-CD433.htm

I have these plans and they arrive well drawn and accurate on clear vellum.

However, if you want to dabble in the grey area of Nylon Crossovers, you cannot go wrong with Matt Mustapick's shop reports. With a little research he reveals dimensions, bracing, scales, and a whole lot more. The pictorial journey gives great insight into lattice bracing a nylon instrument.

Ray

_________________
Guitar Building = Continuous Improvement Process

Brock I have built 3 prototype classical with M&T bolt-on necks. I created a neck block shaped like the internal part of a Spanish heel neck on one and the other two with just conventional steel string neck block construction with upper FB extension support flange. The results were good all the way around. No noticeable loss in sustain.

now comes the issue of trying to retail a M&T Bolt-On. I have to say; and I say this with all due respect to classical players. It is difficult to market an M&T neck on a handcrafted classical instrument. The clients you will be marketing to are, for the most, rightly or wrongly bigoted towards M&T necks.

The arguments I keep getting from prospective client is the old strength and sustain argument. And of course the M&T neck shows lack of craftsmanship argument.

Once they find out I am a steel string builder that will kill any chance of selling them anyway. I really don't have any plans on selling these. Steel strings will remain my staple, I figure one lifetime isn't enough to get THAT guitar mastered.

However, I do have some interests in exploring the other types of guitars. I suspect getting out of my comfort zone will have nothing but positive effects on all of my building. But, my goal is to build a respectable classical.

This is really a great discussion, thanks for all the advice.

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

If you really want a different experience, then you should build in a solera. It would be a huge departure from what you have been doing, and it would give you excellent results. If you are going to do it, why go half way? I do plan on building a few steel strings, sometime, in the near future, but I won't build them on a solera. I'll make, or buy a mold, and build a box, and attach a neck in whatever manner I choose, bolt on, M&T, etc.

I guess, I'm just saying, if you want to learn something from the build, why short cut it? You'll learn more by going all the way, and you might even like the experience.

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

That was really the point of my original question. I wondered how "universal" the solera / spanish heel construction process is. I am inclined to go in for the traditional way. But it is good to know that there are alternative methods being used by respected builders.

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

These are a very nice set of plans. Too bad a rolled, instead of folded, set is not available.

Well, I took the plunge today and bought the Courtnall book as well as the SE 114 and '37 Hauser plans from Elderly. Now I just need to decide which to build.

_________________
Brock Poling
Columbus, Ohio
http://www.polingguitars.com

You can't go wrong with either of those. Both will produce an excellent guitar.

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

Marc/Brock

My plans came on three clear vellum sheets neatly folded in the box with the book, CD, and poster?? Can't beat that for $35 bucks!!!

Ray

_________________
Guitar Building = Continuous Improvement Process

Howdy Brock,

I'm obviously coming in at the end of this discussion since I've not been around much lately. I haven't read all the other posts but wanted to let you know about an awesome book on this subject. It's called "Making Master Guitars" By Roy Courtnall. It was first published in the US in 1993 and the ISBN is 978 0 7090 4809 1 . This is the most detailed and complete book I've ever seen and probably that is in print covering the Torres, Hernandes, Hauser, Aguado, Fleta, Bouchet, Frederich, and Romanillos styles all in great detail. It discusses each maker and their guitars, covers workshop tools and materials, and goes through the Spanish method of construction in detail from start through finish. It's not a cheap book but if you're really interested, in my opinion it's well worth the cost. Just for the history of it all if nothing else. It's a 327 page hardback packed with pics and illustrations. (Mine isn't for sale of course!) Have fun with your project and hope to see some pics posted when you get done.

______________________________________________
I just noticed you already got the Courtnall book. Guess I should have read before making my post.

_________________
Bill Hodge


One does not simply, own enough guitars!

Yes, I have the same--very nice set of plans. My only point was that it's a shame you can't get such a fine set of plans rolled in a tube instead of folded in a box. I don't like creases on plans.

Reckon you'll have it strung up by next Friday or so?