Official Luthiers Forum!

Filippo - I don't know the correct answer to your question, but remember that the top is let into the neck block to make it flush with the neck surface, so the uncertainty is only the 2.5mm thickness of the back. I don't know whether the 89 mm is supposed to be before or after the back is added - either way would be within normal design parameters.

The second part of the question, how you get from the heel to the tail, seems more interesting as it impacts how you profile the sides. This would seem to require specific knowledge of how Hauser constructed his backs, which again I don't know. How do you intend to do it? A true spherical dome based on a radial dish? An older style arch with less of a bend longitudinally? The choice will affect how the sides are profiled, particularly in the upper bout region. I use a dish and so I just profile the sides using the dish, but that could be different from what you want.

Jim

_________________
Jim Kirby
kirby@udel.edu

I don't have these particular plans but, if they are like other classical plans I've seen/own, 89mm should be total depth (heel+back). Same goes for the tail. From specs I've read in the past, total depth of 89mm @ the heel sounds right for a Hauser-all that I've read about have been between 85 and 90mm total @ the heel.
-William

Phillipo, Looking at the Brune' plans he shows depth dimensions all around the perimeter of the guitar starting at the neck with 89.0 and then increasing to 90, 92, 94, 96 and finally 97.5 at the tail block. One would think that these are overall depth dimensions rather than the height of the sides only. A quick call to Richard might resolve your question though.....

_________________
Peter

I can't see how it would be a problem.

The shallowest guitar I've built so far is 95mm at the heel, but it's a larger-bodied guitar. (The Blackshear Rodriguez is more like 104mm)

_________________
Jim Kirby
kirby@udel.edu