Official Luthiers Forum!

Fantastic...sums it up for me very nicely! I tend to be pretty proud that what I made looks at least ok, but sounds and plays great. I work towards a better look on each new one, but worry mostly about the construction quality and sound.

-Matthew

-Matthew

I like how this thread has turned a corner into an interesting area, old guitars compared to new guitars.

The same folks who go "ga-ga" over the individual details, builder's hand marks, and quaint roughness of antique and vintage Martin guitars are sometimes the same people who run in horror over "less than perfect" new Martins. I know... old CFM didn't have a CNC.

I'm not running down antique and vintage Martin build standards, I'm in the "ga-ga" camp, and they are really factory guitars, not single-maker guitars.

The "saw marks" that show up on the outside of the BR is from a combination of the heat effect of the saw blade and the change of the color of the rosewood over the years. The saw marks were not visible when the guitar was new, but has come out over time. No one who has a Martin with saw marks is returning it to the factory to be refinished under warranty, they are talking UP the marks in terms of value.

I happen to prefer the look of a truly "hand built" guitar, no CNC allowed, and as little power tools as is practical. There should be a place for these in the modern world.

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008907949110

David,
You're mistaken or misinformed on the saw marks inside those old Brazilian Rosewood
Martins. The marks were clearly visible when the guitars were brand new and are actually
cut marks from the resaw units there in the Martin mill. They were not heat indications or
discoloration caused by the heat of the blades that began to show after some time.

They occurred during the years when Brazilian Rosewood of the high quality that Martin
had grown accustomed to was becoming harder to get and more expensive. The sawing
department there at the factory were instructed to resaw the material as close to the final
thickness dimensions as possible to maximize the number of slices or backs and sides
from a log or slab as possible. The workers would actually scrape the brace gluing areas
flat and true in order for there to be a full, clean glue joint even thought the saw marks
were still present and visible between the braces on the Brazilian Rosewood back. They
were real saw marks...nothing else.

Also, the saw marks were ALWAYS placed on the inside of the guitars whose wood had
them...never on the outside.

While working there, we were able to examine a lot of those old pieces with the saw
marks and they were always a hot topic of discussion because of the simple novelty of
the marks being left inside of guitars by a company that goes to such great lengths to
ensure the highest possible quality in all of the individual parts and the complete
assembly of their guitars....not to mention the great attention that has always been
given to using the minimum amount of glue possible and keeping every detail as
clean as possible through the build process. This is something that anyone with any
experience directly dealing with the saw marked guitars at Martin can tell you. To
be able to continue as many of their customers that great wood as possible, they
were willing to tolerate those harmless saw marks inside the guitars. Interesting,
but understandable.

The marks were an acceptable compromise in light of the demand for Brazilian
Rosewood in their guitars and those marks were clearly visible, and all were well
aware of their presence right from the day that wood was allowed to enter the whole
assembly process.

I've never heard any mention of any discoloration that had a time lapsed appearance
being caused by the heat of the blades during sawing...in any wood cut buy any professional
wood processor and used in guitars by any builder anywhere. They never allow their blades
to get nearly hot enough to cause any discoloration of any woods...especially the more
expensive and valuable woods like Brazilian Rosewood. If you knew how few cuts they
make with a new blade before they retire and replace it, you'd be amazed. I have hundreds
of boxes of 6 inch wide 120 grit sanding belts here that have had only two or three
sets of wood thickness sanded with them at the Martin plant. They used to send them
up to me by the pallet after they were replaced and rolled back up and packaged in
boxes. Since they are practically untouched and almost brand new, I tear them down
the center and use them on my TimeSaver sander for rough thickness sanding of my
woods. I haven't bought a belt for the machine for almost 15 years and have another
15 years worth of belts stored here.

Martin never allows a dull tool to stay in operation on their line. They change thing
quickly and regularly to ensure good clean cuts and no possiblity of heat or chatter
damage being present.

I agree with you, though, that there is certainly a place in the modern world for a
truly hand crafted guitar. I use no CNC machines, make all of my own parts and do every
operation alone here in my shop using mostly hand tools and as few power tools as is
possible. I do, however, appreciate a guitar that is handcrafted and still exhibits a deep
commitment by the builder to develop his skills in every possible area of lutherie so that
the guitars are expertly build and each detail is executed with a level of expertise that
justifies the builders choice of price point. Whether it be tone, playability, appearance
or any other facet that is considered important by the customer base or market in general,
the guitar should be the very best that the builder can produce. No excuses, no compromises
for laziness or lack of commitment's sake, just conscientious, attentive work being evident
in every detail.

Regards,
Kevin Gallagher/Omega Guitars

Kevin,

I don't doubt for a moment the accuracy of your statement, but please tell me why the saw marks are clearly visible from the outside. I've seen it on a number of old Martins. What causes the "telegraphing of the marks from the inside to the outside?

_________________
Jimmy Caldwell
http://www.caldwellguitars.com

Umm. Once again, I have no idea what you're talking about but rest assured that you couldn't have been further from my mind when I made my tongue-in-cheek comment about pre-war Martins.

John

Jimmy,
I couldn't tell you exactly what causes that telegraphing of saw marks to the outside
of the backs other than the thinner back material at the saw marks' deepest areas inside
allowing more or a more rapid oxidation of the wood. The backs on many old Martins
with Brazilian Rosewood back and sides can be easily under .090" and the saw marks could
take that thickness down to and possible under .070" which could certainly be thin enough
for color changes caused by oxidation to be seen under the finish on the outside of them.




John,

Ummmm....yeah sure.

Regards,
Kevin Gallagher/Omega Guitars

Kevin.
I'm sure you're correct about the sawing of wood, but when current enthusiasts speak of saw marks on vintage Martins, they are talking of the visible marks on the outside back.

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008907949110

David,
I really believe that the effects of the extremely thin dimensions created by the saw marks on the inside of the
guitars are what allows that sort of discoloration on the outside of them. Believe me, the sanders removed all of
the saw marks on one side and that side would become the outside of the back, the pieces would then be flipped
over to have as much of the saw marks removed until the back was as close as would be acceptable to its lowest
workable thickness dimension.

Regards,
Kevin Gallagher/Omega Guitars

Hi Kevin

My point is really a question for you and others who had admirable aspirations as highlighted in bold. I guesss its about commercial aspects of guitar building. For me personally as someone who will only really be an amateur and happy to stay that way, I see each instrument as a learing process, even when happy and in some case surprized by the tonal results which seem bizarrely good, I am aware of the vast improvements needed in the craft and attention to detail that will come with graft and experience and patience - so its a fun for me to see improvements in the skills and so any critique of these early guitars will help me eventually improve.... but ... Given the time it takes to pay the attention necessary to produce a flawless instrument, is it wrong maybe for some builders who may compromise some of this time to service a customer base that would simply not be able to afford or (justify to their Spouses ) guitars in the $3000-$30,000 range, but do have a desire to own something handbuilt from a smaller maker at $1000 price point - something different, maybe a little rustic but still with the attention (time) spent on the areas that ultimately matter most, tone and playabilty?

I appreciate that for some this might sound like compromising the profession or craft or art and is such possibly considered sacriligeous , but could it also be considered a service to those musicians and players who aspire to have something unique, yet would be excluded due to finances if all that was available was flawless and built to such exacting standards?

Welcome all thoughts on this. I ask because you can now get some very good factory instruments that are playable and sound good in the sub $1000 category, but there i9s something about owning and playing something a little more unique?

Thansk in advance for your thoughst in what is an interesting discussion.

Frank,
My comment was directed at those builders who have set a goal of climbing from one price point
to another on as regular of a basis as possible as they gain proficiency in the craft of lutherie and
market their guitar according to what the general customer bas has come to expect from builders
and their guitars in those respective pricing brackets.

I believe that there will always be players who love something unique and guitars that have a
much more handcrafted look or feel than others. I've played some wonderful guitars that would
sell for $1k to $2k and had what Ill call a less refined appearance when it came to small details
surrounding the binding and ornamentation. They played well and sounded nice and that is plenty
for a lot of players.

Those player are perfectly willing to pay those prices for guitars that don't exhibit the same level
of detail execution as some of the guitar that demand prices that are five and even ten or more times
higher. On the other hand, there are loads of players who just want those small details that reflect
a builder's desire and commitment to achieving perfection...or as close as possible to it....in things
like binding and purfling joints and miters, neck joints and fret work and in the final finish results.

Guys like Kevin Ryan and Jim Olson can demand the prices that their guitars bring on a regular
basis simply because the people who buy them have come to expect the level of craftsmanship that
is common to their guitars. Would they still sell if those small details that are so beautifully executed
on every guitar were not as neat or clean? I can't say for sure, but I think that the buying public would
make their desires known if it were to change and prices would have to be adjusted according to what
that body of customers is willing to tolerate in those areas. I hope that makes sense.

I'm jut saying that I believe that there will always be players who want to buy guitars in every price
point and with all manner of craftsmanship. If a player doesn't mind a few chisel marks as one person
has said they leave on purpose and the guitar sounds and plays the way they like, they will gladly buy
it without reservation or regret. If a player wants those perfect little mitered joints a beautifully buffed
finish and flawless fret work and inlay, they'll have to pay more for the guitar in most cases...and will
do so gladly and without regret.

I have a friend who wants to build very plain and understated guitars as he embarks on his journey
of learning the craft of lutherie. He has his sights set on a lower price point for the sale of the guitars
he'll build and has already expressed his intentions of not paying as much attention to the small details
that take time to both develop the skill to achieve and to achieve in the shop. I'm sure that if his guitars
sound and play well, he'll have no trouble finding and satisfying players who will buy them. I've encouraged
him to start building and to go for what he thinks will work for him. I think he'll do well and look forward
to helping him get started in any way that I can.

Regards,
Kevin Gallagher/Omega Guitars

Thanks Kevin - it does make sense .

I was interested to note though that one poster seemed to be suggesting that maybe those makers who do focus their attentions on the lower end, should maybe not attend shows and festivals where the masters go? It seemed maybe a little snobish? (I know this was not you, but I would welcome and opinion)

I have been luck enough to see and 'inspect' guitars by both Kevin Ryan and Jim Olsen and they are without doubt amazing instruments and If I had the money (and the talent to justify it ) they would certainly be getting a call...stunning, but I have also played a couple of instruments that were not cheap by a reasonably well known maker, that were 'rough' inside - yet tonally the darn things sang like angels... seriously some of the finest sounding instruments - and consistently so that I have ever come across - so what are we to make of this? Should this maker be excluded from the top table?

I get the impression from your balanced post that you believe there is room for all, but that you also see the journey towards perfecting skills and learning the craft as the ideal we should aspire to... and I would totally agree. My only caveat would be that for someone like me who came to this craft only as I approach 40, and whose woodworking skills prior to that utilized 'big' power tools and DIY projects Its arguable whether I will be able to hone and fine tune my skills to get anywhere near that level of detailed perfection, and I guess its also a matter of having the talent x hard work x experience x dedication. But it might be possible wioth experience to get the tone right, even if the cosmetic detailing is never a match for the best (clumsy stubby fingers and office RSI all contributing factors (excuses? )?

All I know is that as a player, playabilty and tone do come first - its why so many of us ae happy to spend small fortunes on beaten up vintage instruments often in a conditions that have their own charm, whilst at the same time lusting after those wonderful examples made by those craftsman that have elevated luthiery to an art form and demonstrate skills and technique that mere mortals like me can only aspire to.

Thanks again for the time in this discussion, its and interesting theme.

All the best

Frank

This has been a great thread. My take on the newer builder/less attention to detail is a little different. I think that when starting out your goal should be to build as many guitars you can in the shortest period of time. Get them out there and sit back and allow the feedback to shape what you do next. I really don’t see any other way to gain the needed experience. You have to get them in players and dealer’s hands and see the response. Does this mean sloppy work? Of course not! Keep your trim and appointments simple but perfectly executed. Ivoroid/Tortoise binding instead of wood, no fancy mitered purfling and abalone, basic but good quality woods etc. Spend a lot of time on setup and playability. Sell at a price that makes them accessible to the average gigging player. Folks that are using them as a tool of the trade, not an art object. They'll tell you if you are on the right track.
Building a simply appointed, good sounding instrument with clean workmanship should be well within the ability of most folks after 8 or 10 guitars.
Using rare and expensive woods on early builds as well as attempting very fancy appointments seems quite strange to me.
When I first called one of the tonewood dealers I buy from he asked me how many guitars I’d built. I think it was around six. “ I can’t give you the good stuff yet” was the reply. I thought that was really cool.

_________________
It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you do know that's wrong.

This isn't "me" but I definitely get your point about this, particularly in the world of custom electrics where the is a "funkyness" factor that really isn't as prevalent in the custom acoustic world.

I know that I was surprised to see Danny Ferrington's work is kind of rough considering all of the big name players he has on his books. It was certainly a cool instrument, but it left me scratching my head a bit, but when you start to think about it in terms of sterile vs. human I sort of see this thinking from an artistic angle.

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

Hi
Great comments and I would certainly whole heartedly agree for anyone who is serious about doing this professionally, even if not as a sole form of income. However, my take is slightly different on a couple of the points above about what you try on early instruments, and it is just my opinion so no hard and fast rules... When I thought about giving it a go, I really believed that it would be a once in a lifetime thing - you know, many of us players have always secretly harboured a desire to have a go. I was very lucky in that I was able to do this supervisd by a professional classical maker of some repute here in the UK... 2 hours a week for some 60 weeks (excluding finishing) and given that I was paying for the privilage the material cost even with higher end tonewoods, would be a small percentage of the total cost.

In addition I had guitars made from indian and sitka, mahogany and sitka, maple and sitka etc some very nicely appointed. So I wanted to try something different and as at the time it was a once in a lifetime thing, pushing things to the limit seemed right as I had the benefit of supervision to guide and help along the way. So I used Macassar B+S (which taught me a lot about how to sharpen tools ), a decent AAA Euro top (considering the price difference between this and a A top, seemed daft not to try with the best, Flamed Koa bindings, and bound fingerboard and neck with mitred joints - because as I said I had the benefit of being taught how I wanted to take advantage of that expertise. (Cussed myself for this more than a few times along the way...)

The result was not bad... yup cosmetic flaws a plenty, but a surprizingly good tone and I had at least tried some difficult techniques. Feedback from players was good especially on the tone and neck, yet I know feeback from pro luthiers would certainly (and rightly so) look at the construction as well... yet as I built this for myself to enjoy and learn about the process this would not be such an issue.... little did I know that it would hook me in

As the experience builds up, the less satisfied I am with the results of that first build, yet the tone still does the trick, even if the cosmetics are...

So ironically, I subsequently went towards simple techniques and materials on the next - which seemed far less satisfying ...maybe I am mad, crazy and stupid, but there was simply something wonderfully inspiring and satisfying about using these wonderful exotic woods - building something that was different to so many standard models.

Naturally, If I ever had any ambitions to do this as a pro, I would take it back to first principles as you suggest, but for the hobbyist amateur like me, those pieces of special zoot are often just too tempting - makes the mistakes more expensive though!

Frank,
I believe that the reason for a builder recommending that younger or newer builders attend the
same shows as those who are touted as the best of the best is more for them to get a clear first
hand knowledge of what is possible, what is expected and what brings the dollars at any of the
different price points that the guitars are being offered at.

I don't think it was intended to create a chasm of separation between one group of builders and
another based on the quality levels or levels of craftsmanship exhibited by the respective group.
I think it was to create a venue in which the younger or newer builders can see and touch the guitars
being built and sold by more experienced builders and even to rub shoulders with those builders
to learn what their philosophy and goals are.

I agree, too, that tone and playability in a guitar are the most important qualities and are really
what should motivate us when we're looking to buy them, but the fine finish and perfectly executed
miter joints in the purfling line and the creative design ideas on some guitars are just too much for
many players to resist. It's because of the lure of these visible details that many great players miss
out on or overlook great guitars that just may have given them better tone and playability than those
that cost several times more.

Just like you, I've heard guitars built by guys who are really just entering the market of custom
instruments that sounded much better in terms of tone, sustain and response than those bringing
some of the highest prices at the finest shows. Their finish may not have been as smooth and glossy,
the inlay was minimal or not of the same quality and the woods used may not have been the Holy
Grail woods that have been stockpiled by the builders who can afford to get them, but the guitars
played wonderfully and had that tone that just makes you start comparing everything else that you
hear to those guitars.

I believe that, as long as there are players looking for different things in a guitar, there will always
be room for every style of builder working at every level of skill in this craft. I appreciate very clean
work that is executed with near perfection and a beautiful glossy finish, but how can we possibly
argue when the tone is what dream guitars are made of and what makes guitars heirloom pieces
that are treasured and passed from generation to generation no matter what level of skill is exhibited
in their construction and details.

Thanks,
Kevin Gallagher/Omega Guitars

Thanks Again Kevin, I admire and agree with what you say there. As a player, first I am actually very thankful that we have such a variety of makers producing unique instruments and yes to various standards and price points as it means there is something for everyone.

I have to admit to being one of those who would be unable to resist those instruments as well that are simply made perfectly with astetics that please the eye... and if really honest like many players there is also a degree of snobery associated with it in that as you say we may on occasion choose the one that 'looks' best over the one that has a tione that perhaps suits our style that little bit more. This is in some respects even more true for some factory instruments - there are other makes out there that will give you all solid woods, maghogany necks for te same as Martin 1 series prices with their strataboard necks - and will go with the Martin (which are still good instruments), because of the brand rather than what might represent better value...

Unluckily for me, when I tried an Olsen (allbeit second hand) and a Ryan, not only were they perfectly made, but the tone was just perfect to... I had kinda been hoping they would sound rubbish so I woul not have such lustful thoughts...no such luck!

The amazing thing is that the standards being set now by the ebst makers also help others to raise theirs and also maen major manufacturers have to up their game as well which is great for players - but it does mean more agonising as there is now simply so much choice in each price bracket... a good thing though!

.
"Critique-ing" other builders eh.

Hmm

Form follows function.

Simple rule of designing anything.

Yes the first function in luthierisum is the acoustics and as Alan Carruth so applty pointed out... builds with minor imperfections haveing no bearing on good accoustics may be considered successful quality instruments.

Is like this, are you gonna carve or inlay gargoils and deamons into an instrument destined for a born again who only plays at church funtions? I don't think so. You inlay angels planing trumpets or little white doves and he will be happy. But you ain't gonna sell it to a freeked out punk head acid rocker.

Not all guitars end up on the Good Ol' Oprey were bling is the thing. But a carved topper with loads of MOP, hummbuckers and oh ya a Biggsby stands a good chance.

Form follows funtion. Some build for the clasical player and well I would think they want perfection in craftsmanship, and to heck with the bling unless of coures its tastefull.

Yet others build for that down and out grungie, on the road blues player, Best you slip a lit a cigarret behind the nut under the E string and let it burn right down. Then finish it in beer. (Ever notice the incredibly well preserved finishes on the mahogany bars in the old English pubs...gallans and gallons of beer dudes...just an increadable finish.)

Then there are dudes who build for the shaman player out there. You'll find them instruments being played in some ethnobotanicals inspired, tribal drum driven ritualistic gathering...and as long as the sonics are there, they don't give a dang if its got miss matched tunners and is kinda rough in its fit and finish just as long as it work as a tool to elevate and expand the consciousness of the player and them tranced out dancer who get it.

Now I occasionaly hear tell of dudes like me who threw the luthiers books out the window and go for one of a kind, totaly off the wall, never seen one like it and never will again type build. Yes the accoustics must be there. But beond that

I build with local woods. Woods that grew in this harsh mountainous environment in these parts and as such is already acclimatized. You won't find too many of them on stage I tell you. They are for the pickers who live in these mountains. Pickers who probaly cook on a wood stove, drive the old pick up into town once a month for supplies and forget to take the instrument in after falling asleep oustide with only the dog for warmth at an all night campfire dunk jamb session. Pickers who make the likes Clapton and Hendricks look like beginners. In the morning they wipe of the dew and guess what ...still in tune. I have never had a top, back or rib crack on me. And so what if it did! Use linseed oil for a finsih and sledom get beyond 220 grit in sanding. Ya I miss the odd spot...so what. You think they care? Accusticly, me been told they hold up to any Martin or Gibson out there. Funky ain't the word dude.

But not always do me build that way. Some are so heavily carved with detail thats been gold leafed and inlyed with real pearls or semi presious stones, they look like Fabregie made it.

Different funtion.

Set your standards where you must ...but apply them only to yourself.

As such, befor you left brainers go judging the "quality" of someones build with your preprograed BS (Belied Systems) find out the intended funtion of the instrument first. Then if you must...judge accordingly.

Here endith the Padmas rant on judgment and the "Critique-ing" of other builders.

amen


Blessing
the
Padma

_________________
.

Audiences and dispensations on Thursdays ~ by appointment only.


.

Hi Todd,
This isn't proof positive of a truly independent left and right brain, but is at least compelling anecdotal evidence: Jill Bolte Taylor's Stroke of Insight
Dennis

_________________
Dennis Leahy
Duluth, MN, USA
7th Sense Multimedia

best line I have read in the entire rant...

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

Maybe that explains the case of Smithwick's on John Hall's workbench in the background of his youtube video. I've been looking for something less toxic than nitro. I think I'll try some Murphy's Stout.

I wonder how long it needs to cure before buffing?
Walter

_________________
Walter Lay
"It's taken me so long, but now that I know
I can see. All that I do or say, is all I ever will be"
- Billy Joe Shaver

I've been known to polish "off the bottle" in one night

_________________
http://www.birkonium.com CNC Products for Luthiers
http://banduramaker.blogspot.com

This ain't no quick finish.

Let a bottle of beer evaporat to half a pint. (use a dry type of beer, not a creamed or porter ...too much sugar) Add half 3/4 pint of Everclear, must be the 190 proof stuff. Which is not available in all states http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everclear_(alcohol)

brush on....rub in, wipe off....brush on...rub in...wipe off using a rubbing pad. made up of wadding inside a square piece of cotton which is referred to as a fad.
Is lengthy and very repetitive. ..just keep brushing on, rubbing in and wiping off, much like a french polish.

Do not leave any wet spots remain or the beer will form a sticky gunk.

If sticky spots start to show... wash of with pure Everclear or a rag with mild detergent in water. Don't let it get soaking wet.
This part is pickling the wood in alcohol.

Aftrt about 10 or so coats, add some shellack to the mix and lubricated the fad with linseed oil.
The finalfinish is obtained through a specific combination of different rubbing motions (generally circles and figure-eights), waiting for considerable time, building up layers of polish and then spiriting off any streaks left in the surface.


yes, it will stink like beer for a long time.

when the smell is gone...then buff.

What you are basicly doing is pickling the wood in alcohol.
and then adding a french polish
The beer just ads to the ummm...flavour.

When finished...oft the ax on some touring bar musician.


blessings
the
Padma

_________________
.

Audiences and dispensations on Thursdays ~ by appointment only.


.

I feel at times in this thread that we are miss-communicating, on one side is the artist "luthiers" way to see it, on the other its seen from the eyes of the buyer. Now, The luthier can argue about someone elses price tag compared to his artistic touch on the guitars/time he has built etc. the other is the business side of things, often is that a "product is seen worth what the price says it is ! so If someone sells a handmade guitar for 1500 USD people often would think of it as a low end guitar, and therefor not buy it. if the same guitar "looks great sounds great to the buyer" has a selling proce of, lets say 4600USD. then this guitar will (with the right promotion) be lookt at as a high-end guitar. Just as how you look at cars, furniture or what ever. the problem is that often a luthier is not a salesperson, so he dont look at his guitars in this way. Still crap is always crap, but a nicely put together guitar with a nice finish and touch and sound will " I think" be able to get sold for far more that what some would think is stealing. .
Also, some has a talent at this, some dont. Just like that not anyone can be a formula 1 driver even if they had the money and chance !! . there are A-actors and there are B-actors. etc etc. BUT even a B-actor like Arnold Swarchenegger "spelling ??) is sold for LOTS due to the right promotion.

Ok I am ready for the head shot now.

Lars.