Official Luthiers Forum!

That doesn't sound ugly, but I agree, got to use a different binding.

_________________
Always remember you are unique......just like everyone else.

Billy and Dusty's fake fur covered Explorers meet my criteria for ugly. I remember when I first saw those pictures I wondered how Gibson could sign off on such a thing.

forums.gibson.com/ default.aspx?g=posts&t=6232

_________________
It's not the miles ahead, it's the stone in your shoe


In Markham,Virginia

Thanks Laurent and Steve for taking my flip remark for what it was.
That said, I agree w/ Howard and Rick about the builder's sensibilites. It must be our work, and our view that is being expressed through our hands.

Now, that said, perhaps it should also be noted that a customer can stretch our horizons. I have had customers whose vision was different from mine, only to find that I was stuck in a rut, and their idea was just wonderful.

Now, that said, the original guitar being described just sounds ugly.

Steve

_________________
From Nacogdoches...the oldest town in Texas.

http://www.stephenkinnaird.com

I never met one I didn't like.

_________________
Tom Krebs

If some customer thinks I can be bought, just try it. I dare you.

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

When all else fails, clean the shop.

Very Spinal Tap - 'well it's blacker than black'

Sounds like your client has a twist on the old blues hog players of ages past.

an all mahogany OM guitar ~ kool

stained really dark brown (almost black), all over ~ So some like dark chocolate.

satin finish ~ me can handle that

white plastic binding ~ White on black...dramatic, kinda classy ~ kinda tackie...but so what

no heel cap ~ no big deal

ebony bridge, fingerboard and faceplate. ~what so ugly about ebony ?

and these tuners: `~ reprops...very kool

no rosette ~ Aha here it lies the culprit to the uglieness.

Our consciousness has been programed to relate to instruments with a rosette on them. Why, well because they serve functional purpose of keeping the sound hole from cracking open...thats the purpose and so every guitar we have ever seen has a rosette of some sort or other. As such we have bought the subliminal program that it is needed visually because with out it, it would be like someone without a nose...you know....UGLY. Wright?... Wrong! It would be different ...thats all it would be.

It's like the young people to day with their facial tattoos and body piercings...ugly to us old guys.,
yet its a form of body art that has culturally been around at least twice as long as our entire Western civilization has been on this planet So its a cultural perception of "beauty" your dealing with in reality.

I don't like body piercings...If you can't get behind the image of the guitar ....don't build it.

However if you take the commission...be dang sure to install that rossette ~ on the inside.


icu
Duh
Padma

_________________
.

Audiences and dispensations on Thursdays ~ by appointment only.


.

I thought a circular brace behind the soundboard, like that on a classical, would effectively stop cracks tending to start at a soundhole without a rossette fitted?
Anyway, I played an all mahogany Martin Dread (it was a standard model at that time) some years ago, wasn't so ugly, and had a nice warm sound - different , but not "ugly".
Mind you, I have been told I have a face only a mother could love!

_________________
The name catgut is confusing. There are two explanations for the mix up.

Catgut is an abbreviation of the word cattle gut. Gut strings are made from sheep or goat intestines, in the past even from horse, mule or donkey intestines.

Otherwise it could be from the word kitgut or kitstring. Kit meant fiddle, not kitten.

I made a J45type like that, but it has mahogany binding. It looks like a piece of mud. I saw one in a store with a gloss finish and it sparkled. The gloss was the frog's kiss from a princess.
Hugh

This guitar also jumps to mind.
http://www.pagelli.com/e/2instrum/image/gross/ag_louis_g.jpg

Now, to simply have this guitar described to you, or to even see rough sketches of it; there seems to be great potental for it to come out very very ugly. And by some people's estimations, I'm sure it is.
But the workmanship is so fine, I don't see how it can detract from the Luthiers reputation. To a potental customer, even if you don't like this guitar for it's design, I think the smaller choices that the luthier made and there sheer precision of the work should help anyone "appreciate" it, even if they don't really like it.

FWIW this guitar is featured in the awesome book Hand Made Hand Played. The book quotes Bendetto as saying this is one of the most beautiful guitars he has ever seen. After reading this book, I kind of feel like I have been in a mental rut all my life with regard to my idea of what a beautiful guitar looks like.

It's an inspiring book for sure. (lots if editing mistakes though.)

"...(lots if editing mistakes though.)"

You're right, Mike....probably hundreds! Visually very nice, though.

with just a couple of minor adjustments, I've made a 180 with my opinion about the project.

OM: mahogany, neck, top, back and sides, all stained dark
plain maple binding, end graft, and heel cap
ebony bridge, fingerboard, and headstock veneer
no fingerboard markers
bone nut, sadddle, bridge pins and end pin. no dots.

i think it's going to be cool

it's really interesting, that my friend specified he preferred an OM with a wide waist, and an old Martin style belly-less bridge with a long vintage saddle.

he unknowingly reinvented the Proulx OM/D.

thanks for your input, all. neat to think about in various ways.

_________________
"...you have to get over your strict adherence to your largely imagined notion of absolute perfection..."