Official Luthiers Forum!

I got a Classical and Flemenco plan from LMI, god like 15 years ago maybe, and they make great wall art in my shop thought the florescents wash out the color in time

Coincidentally to this thread though I am actually using one of the plans now. A 1943 Marcelo Barbero Flemenco.

Still I can't imagine ever trusting a printer or a draftsman to a tee on any plan and will proceed with caution and hopefully backed by years of experience.

Yes, Link, they were all suggested above by posters. I checked the printing accuracy, checked the non-dimensioned neck shapes before using, etc. as you pointed out. Thank you.

I am honestly surprised by the majority of posters. I count 5 people above who say not to sale plans, but just use the written dimensions on the plans. If I or others followed this advice, here is a partial list of what you can not do with this StewMc dread plan unless you scale from it, because dimensions are not given at all or not fully given:

1. Can't get the body shape to make inside or outside templates, can't cut top or back to shape
2. Can't thickness or cut to length the fretboard (taper and fret locations are given)
3. Can't profile braces
4. Can't locate braces on the top or the back
5. Can't make a bridge
6. Can't make cut the sides to shape as instructed on plan
7. Can't shape or thickness neck
8. Can't make tail block
9. Can't cut dove tail
10. etc.

I believe that expecting a plan, advertised as full scale, to be able provide the above items is reasonable. Surprisingly, many posters do not. That is OK. We all have different opinions.

I am smart enough to take measurements from existing guitars so that I don't need this plan to accurately build a dread. I bought the plan to make things easier on myself and believing it would do that. It does not unless someone scales from it. Following the advice of experienced posters, most people should not buy this plan. If it is one of the better plans out in the market, then the market is in sad shape for guitar plans IMHO.

My whole purpose here was to tell new builders to watch out for deficiencies in this plan. I now see that some folks don't believe that these are deficiencies. It is OK with me if some of us agree to disagree on this point. It does not upset me.

Ed

I’m with Ed on thinking a plan set, whether for building a roll top desk, a robotic arm or a guitar, should provide sufficient dimensionally accurate information needed to complete the project.

Fortunately, for my first guitar I was lucky enough to have Brune’s 1937 Hauser plan set to work from. They’re plotted full size (1:1) on stable translucent velum; everything on them is drawn accurately to scale and additional critical dimensions such as plate thicknesses are given at numerous points where such information couldn’t be taken off by scaling the drawing. I think the only thing I found lacking on the plans to build a dimensionally accurate copy of the original, both inside and out, was the amount of doming, if any, for the back.

Joe

Thanks for the realistic suggestions, Todd.

As I stated, I don't need the plan to build a dread. I am flexible enought to get along without it. I can get enough information from existing guitars and help from kind folks like you and fudge in the rest to complete it. I'm using a 25.5" scale and a 1.75" nut so my now complete fretboard is entirely of my doing, not the plan. And since portions of the plan are accurately scaled (portions are not) I can scale much of the the info mising from the list I created. Note that I said "IF I or others don't scale" it creates the list. While this scaling goes against the recommendation of a number of people herein, it is close enough, when checked for reasonableness, to be usable. I had hoped my list would point out to those who say "never scale a drawing" that this unflexible approach does not seem very realistic to me. If one is willing to do some scaling and checking, this plan becomes very usable. I am willing to do some practical scaling and checking. Without the checking, this plan could burn someone. It is that someone whom I was trying to help with the heads-up. But somehow this struck a nerve with some folks. (I know the neck shapes are too small and I couldn't get StewMc to stand behind the drawing's instructions on the side profile.

I ordered the Dreadnought plan directly from Martin a year or two back and received the StewMac plan from them.

As far as body shape and most other measurements, I don't have any problems with the plan. It has alreaady been mentioned that there are lots of little variances even in the factory made guitars. The same goes for the templates and molds that are being sold to builders. I have seen four D templates from different sources, all with slightly different shapes and none that matched the shape of the mold that I purchased from a supplier a few years back, so I made a template to match my mold. I would recommend making both the mold and template (the StewMac plan would be fine for this), but if one didn't want to make both, purchase either the template or mold and make the other to match.

Whew...so Ed, are ya sorry yet that you tried to be helpful? I'm thinking there are a lot of (silent) newbie builders out there that benefited from your post.

Yes dont assume that a drawing is printed exactly correct or drawn to scale, but were talking about a guitar not machined parts going into the space shuttle. For the shape of the body, or the placement of braces, who cares if its off by 1/32". As hand builders we introduce a fair amount of tolerance into the process. Some things you should make sure to be precise and shouldnt be using a drawing as your template.

That said, Ive drawn parts up in CAD and plotted and printed 1:1. Its always been dead nuts when I measure it up.

I am a newbie and I learned a ton just from this topic. Now I know I need to check everything and not assume anything. I have a couple of SM plans that I was going to work from. Now I will be using them to look at but not assume all is 100% correct or accurate. The idea of learning how to make the neck was very helpful and I will be drawing my own and using a straight edge for the sides. I have wanted a 1 13/16 nut and wasn't sure just how I was going to be cutting the neck to that size. Now I have an idea of how to do it.

Thanks to you all and thanks Ed for bringing all this to my attention.
Chuck

Conclusion: The SM plan is not 100% scaled
Solution #1: Use the plan (still the best dreadnought plan available, IMO) with the new understanding of how to work from plans (with special thanks to ALL the contributors here)
Solution #2: Determine the SM plan is junk, don't buy it, and begin to work up your own set of plans.

Either way, you get to building and gain knowledge in the process. Win-win in my book.

Don't knock the other contributors. Everybody is trying to be helpful and the wise reader will learn from them all.

_________________
Wes McMillian
Santo, TX
http://www.wesmcmillian.com

As a newbie, I'll pipe in:
This has been a helpful thread for me. Until this current project I have only built to my own designs so I have never used anyone else's plans. I just began a project from a pre-made plan. Not having any background in following plans, I was not aware that one should not trust the drawing as accurate (though on some level I intuited that) and this probably has saved me form an error down the line. I too verified the printing was accurate by measuring a sample of the provided dimensions against the printout. I did use the drawing to create my template and mold but had no expectation that it would match the drawing perfectly (nor did I care). I, of course, would never think of using the drawing to lay out the fret placement, so it makes sense that I wouldn't use it to do any of the other critical measurements. That said it is handy to be able to set the parts down on the drawing to see glaring problems. Todd probably saved me some heartache (I will go home and draw out my tuner locations myself to be sure).

One of the great things about instrument making that boggled my mind when I first started, is that it need not be nearly as precise as we think. Sure, fret spacing needs to be right, but even then intonation is an estimate that is adjusted after it is all done. Neck angel needs to be right, but that too should be adjusted to work for that particular build. (Just about) Everything else can be pretty variable as long as the center line is okay and it fits in the case. Nut width, fretboard taper, and neck profile are a matter of preference but (within reason) will not derail the project if not to plan. Body symmetry or strict adherence to preset shape are pretty hard to notice (unless way off) and do not affect playability. Bracing, well that is it's own monster and plenty of threads already exist. . . These are the dirty little secrets of instrument building. People have often said to me, I could never be precise enough to make a guitar. . . personally, I shudder at the thought of having to build a cabinet.

_________________
Bryan Bear PMoMC

Take care of your feet, and your feet will take care of you.

Yup. I'm not saying we don't measure when we repair or build - but in my job as a tool and die maker close tolerances were a way of life. Imagine splitting a human hair into 10 equal portions, and then holding all your tolerances to 1 of those portions (less than half a thousandth). Luthiery is much easier in comparison.

_________________
"Act your age, not your shoe size" - Prince

I Have a college background in Drafting and Design both in Construction and in Tool and Die , and NEVER have truer words been spoken .
I bought the F Mandolin Plans from stewmac and found quickly that they are close only . Some of the cut sections are not even the correct drawings the Body cut sections are marked d-d e-e f-f , and the drawings for those sections are marked a-a b-b and c-c sooooooo take the drawings with a grain of salt.

I do understand that someone who may not have the background would find this to be extremely frusterating . Hopefully your helpfull post will help someone else to avoid the problem as well . Hang in there , it will probaly get worse sooner or later . Hope not , but it usally does !

_________________
The Shallower the depth of the stream , The Louder the Babble !
The Taking Of Offense Is the Life Course Of The Stupid One !
Wanna Leave a Better Planet for our Kids? How about Working on BETTER KIDS for our Planet !
Forgiveness is the ability to accept an apology that you will probably NEVER GET
The truth will set you free , But FIRST, it will probably Piss you Off !
Creativity is allowing yourself to make Mistakes, Art is knowing which ones to Keep !
The Saddest thing anyone can do , is push a Loyal Person to the point that they Dont Care Anymore
Never met a STRONG person who had an EASY past !
http://wiksnwudwerks.blogspot.com/
http://www.facebook.com/groups/GatewayA ... rAssembly/

A quick update regarding StewMc's Herringbone Dread Plan only:

Recalling that I called StewMc last week and they told me not to trust the side profile to shape the sides, I called again this week and challenged that position. They reversed their position today and said that the plan is dependable to use the side profile as a full scale template to shape the sides prior to bending. (They agreed the neck sections should not be used for full scale templates.)

So, if you are willing to go against the recommendations herein above to not scale drawings, then the side profile becomes useful.

Again, if you are willing to scale the drawing, much more of it becomes useful. You can:
- trace and use the body shape for outside mold and inside bending mold
- scale missing dimensions of fretboard (use dimension table for fret locations)
- trace and profile the braces
- trace the drawing to locate braces on the top and back
- trace and scale the drawing for making a bridge
- scale the dimensions for the dove tail

Or as stated previously, use other sources to get the missing info.