Official Luthiers Forum!

Good stuff fellas! Thanks

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

A couple more dimensions from the 37 I have here. Rims and back are maple. Rims are .050" thick, back is .175 thick at edges. Bindings appear to be white celluloid and are .050"- .060" thick depending on where you measure and .225" tall. Linings are fairly small and completely triangular in cross section, sorry could not get a good measurement on them.

_________________
Brian

You never know what you are capable of until you actually try.

https://www.howardguitarsdelaware.com/

Thanks Brian. I would have expected the back recurve to be a lot thinner ...interesting. (I also would have the sides would be a bit thicker)

_________________
Dave
Milton, ON

I was a bit surprised by the rim thickness as well. In looking around inside as best I can I have observed the following. It is a narrow X brace with an upper transverse brace and one tone bar in the lower portion of the X. The tone bar interestingly is glued about 1/8" off of the pencil line that was drawn on the top.The X is half lapped with no cap or cloth. The F-holes are reinforced with a thin cloth, looks like perhaps linen? All the braces, including the upper transverse are quite small and apparently of the same stock. I could not measure it but would say it appears to be 1/2" X 1/2", at least I would be comfortable building with that dimension. The rims are reinforced a few places with a strip of mahogany veneer, looks about .030 thick by maybe 3/4" wide. Headblock looks like it is fairly thin as well, would be surprised if it was over 1". Something else I noticed and studied for a while was the adhesives used. Everything glued onto the top is done with a protein glue, most likely HHG. But the linings to both the rims and the plates are done with what appears to be some type of early PVA. That would have been very cutting edge technology in 37.

_________________
Brian

You never know what you are capable of until you actually try.

https://www.howardguitarsdelaware.com/

Hey, Filippo,
This might be worth a look. I stumbled across this link while doing an image search for L-5s today. I don't know how complete these plans are, but they appear to have section views of the contours of both the top and back. Looks like the same heavy parallel ladder bracing as on the previously noted plans. Take a look and see if this will help you:

http://luthierssupplies.com.au/product_ ... ts_id=1719

Patrick

Here is a photograph of a Loar era top; inside view. You can at least see the bracing is NOT what Benedetto has in his plans. Did Gibson ever use symetrical braces (as shown by Benedetto)?

I actually have one of those guitar Virzi's from when I worked for Gruhn Guitars. We got to repair (and play, of course) hundreds of the best instruments which came through that shop. What an experience. I wish I knew someone who had a Loar L-5 to make plans from...as nice as the F-5 plans available now. We have better thickness measuring tools these days. I will try and post the specifications I have from Gibson from around 1923 (when I can locate them). I am missing the page with the thickness specifications (darn it!). Glad you liked the picture.
Doc

Ask them if they know Matthew Kline (Klein?), an Englishman, probably in his early 50's. He and i worked at Gruhn's in the '70's and were friends. I have lost track of him but I know he works (worked) for Gibson in engineering (I believe). Mention my name. He might be able to help out. Let's find some L-5's to examine. I am very interested only in the Loars but will keep an eye our for a newer one (your interest I believe?). I have several friends in the Washington, D. C. area who have Gibson arch tops, both electric and acoustic. Tell me, again, exactly what your interest is.
Kind regards,
Doc

According to Robb Lawrence (from Guitar Player Magazine, August, 1983); an article about Eddie Lang's Guitar (1929 L-5), Mr. Lawrence asserts Gibson L-5s were 11/64" in center of top tapering to 1/8" at the edge. This seems thin to me. Here were the string gauges (still on the guitar from 1933): .015, .018 (wound), .030, .036, .048, .075. Other specifications listed were: 16" wide, 20 1/2 " long, 3 3/8" deep, 24 3/4" scale length, nut width 1 3/4". Does anyone have any opinions about these "facts"?

I've got CAD outlines of the Benedetto plans from the book, and the J-200 outline which I've been led to believe is the same as the L-5. Roughly speaking, the Benedetto plan is an inch narrower (16" vs 17") lower bout and 2 1/2" shorter (18 1/2" vs 21").

_________________
A man hears what he wants to hear, and disreguards the rest. Paul Simon

Filippo, I believe you CAN figure it out as you go. I built a 17-inch archtop using the Benedetto book and my own guitar tracings. His book, and I presume his plans, detail an acoustic instrument which may be supplemented with electronics. I suspect this is pretty much what Gibson was doing in the early 1950s.
The Benedetto DVD is useful, too, because he demonstrates techniques (for example, tap tuning the closed box) which are only described in the book.

The link I sent you on Dec. 15 will take you to what appears to be a DIFFERENT L-5 plan (not the plan offered on Amazon). At least four sectional views of the top AND the back are visible in the thumbnail.

I've built three 17" instruments from the Benedetto plans and book. They turned out well. Get the DVD's, they are great. Trying to carve a Maple back by hand will give you a new appreciation for routers and die grinders. Farming out for CNC services is starting to look better all the time.

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

There are some differences in the BS and the L-5 as we have it drawn.... I've attempted to show this in jpg's...... but it's difficult to see every difference....

Filippo, if you follow the BS plan you will be vary close as we understand the two instruments...... (Notice the green box sizes are slightly different and the blue/white is the GS and the gold is the BS) ..... in the real world I don't think you will be far off with the BS plan.

Blessings,

Kevin