Official Luthiers Forum! :: View topic - Body shape for fingerstyle guitar

Official Luthiers Forum! http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/

Body shape for fingerstyle guitar http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=23282	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Christian Schmid [ Sat Aug 01, 2009 8:54 pm ]
Post subject:	Body shape for fingerstyle guitar
Hi everyone, I have decided that my current guitar will be completely "me", meaning I want to come up with my own body shape, bracing pattern, etc. Today I had a "painting session" and came up with the following body shape: The body length is 19", the lower bout is 14.25", waist - 8.5", upper bout 10.5". So it's somewhat larger than an L-oo, but smaller than an OM. Also the waist is significantly less tight than an OM, which should make it easier to bend... First, of course - how do you like it? Second - based on your experience, would you recommend one or two fingerbraces for that body size? thanks for any input, Christian

Author:	peterm [ Sat Aug 01, 2009 9:02 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Body shape for fingerstyle guitar
Looks like a small OM... Nothing really says a fingerstyle guitar has to be small though. Anyway, it looks nice.

Author:	Christian Schmid [ Sat Aug 01, 2009 9:40 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Body shape for fingerstyle guitar
Thanks Peter, I agree about fingerstyle guitars not having to be small - I just try to voice this one as a fingerstyle guitar (which will be quite an adventure for me...) You comment about the small OM made me suspicious and I realized that I took the photograph from an angle that distorted the actual proportions quite a bit. Here's an accurate photograph. It may still look like a small OM though Christian

Author:	Alan Carruth [ Sun Aug 02, 2009 9:37 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Body shape for fingerstyle guitar
What Todd said: never build a guitar that you can't get a case for. Frank Ford told me years ago that the easiest guitar to sell is an exact copy of a Martin, with maybe a few small improvements (thing 'Collings'). If you can't make an exact copy, make it really different, or people will think that you just weren't good enough to make a copy. I realize you're not trying to sell this guitar, but 'close' still conveys something of a message of ineptitude. If you're going to make it 'yours', make it all yours, but still make sure it fits a stock case...... My feeling is that 'fingerstyle' sound is more a matter of the top bracing than the size of the box. Obviously it's easier to get a treble balanced sound from a smaller box, and they tend to be a bit louder, too. But you can get the balance, clarity, seperation, and sustain you want from any shape or size with the right bracing, I think. Generally speaking, I'd avoid scalloped bracing and go for tapered: high at the bridge and lower as you go down.

Author:	jlneng [ Sun Aug 02, 2009 5:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Body shape for fingerstyle guitar
Reply from a fingerstyle/flamenco guitarist with 45 years of playing experience and who owns too many guitars and is now also building them too....go with what makes you feel good!

Author:	Christian Schmid [ Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:49 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Body shape for fingerstyle guitar
Thanks a lot, that's really good advice. I didn't think of cases at all. I still lean towards making my own shape, but it's good to make a more informed decision. I also wasn't aware about the perception of ineptitude with very similar shapes. After all it seems all too easy to order bending patterns and molds from John Hall and make exact replicas. This made me redesign the shape. The new one is called a Micro-Jumbo It has a 14.5 lower bout and is 19" long. Christian

Author:	woody b [ Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:38 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Body shape for fingerstyle guitar
I agree, in part about the case. I know from experience. Here's what I do for "special" cases on a budget. I've got a friend in the upholstery business. I buy a case that's too big and have him rip out and re do the inside. I had one customer who commisioned a dread, and a 000, but only wanted one case. I had my friend make removeable inserts to make the 000 fit snuggly in the dread case. The inserts were held in by velcro places in areas the gutiar didn't touch. The only problem, with my method is timing. You pretty much have to finish the guitar, and then have the case modified. If it's a commission be sure and allow time for this in your estimate.

Author:	TonyKarol [ Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:57 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Body shape for fingerstyle guitar
A 14.5 inch lower bout will fit a TKL classical case .. 9100. I use it for my 00s which are 14.5, and they are just fine. Another friend actually wanted a really snug fit on a slightly undersized OM .. it fit in there too with a little effort, and the padding will pack out over time.

Author:	Burton LeGeyt [ Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:53 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Body shape for fingerstyle guitar
Hey Christian, Designing the shapes is my favorite part. It would be easier to make sure that they all fit in standard cases, but I don't. I have to order custom cases but that doesn't really bother me too much. When I am designing a shape I pay a lot of attention to the guitar body as 2 rounded triangles(an upper bout one and a lower bout one). On many classical guitars the 2 triangle heads seem to terminate at the ends of the guitar as the waists are not that tight. On many of the small, micro, semi-halfway jumbo styles the triangles terminate at the bridge for the upper bout and at the top of the rosette, or at the UTB for the lower bout triangle. I also prefer to have the waist be at the golden section of the body length but again, many modern steel string guitars push the waist up towards the neck a bit. I have found too that the way both bouts approach the waist and how tight the angle is there seem to affect how the shape appears alot, more than I would have thought. I don't know how much of this is relateable to sound, so I am not really answering your question but these are some of the things I think about. On a structural note, I do try to avoid making the upper bout go flat at the neck joint. While it does make it a lot easier to set the neck I feel that even a slight continous curve there helps resist torque. There are many successful models that do go flat though, so maybe it isn't that big of a deal. I like your first one better but they both look good!

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/