Official Luthiers Forum!

im getting all up in my head on number two. ive been kind of intrigued with the 12 fret OM a la norman blake. honestly, ive never played one, i just like the idea. i have played the santa cruz version, but it is a 000. not sure of the scale length. awesome sounding guitar IMO. i wanted to do something a little different for number two without making a new bending pattern and outside mold. number one was an OM so a 12 fretter made sense to me. im not looking to duplicate a norman blake model, but something close.

ive been drawing out full scale plans and i was wondering about some of the brace placement, etc.

what size sound hole have those of you who have built similar models used? i know the NB uses a smallish hole. i kinda was thinking something larger actually.

how far from the sound hole are you placing the x intersection?

how many total frets?

i guess most of my other questions stem from the answers to those questions.

any help appreciated. thanks in advance.

forgot to mention 24.9" scale length.

_________________
sweat the small stuff.

I got a tracing of the bracing and outline from John Hall, it is a typical 14 fret body 000 with a 12 fret neck, the bridge plate is moved back but the rest of the bracing is the same. I am in the process of creating one myself, I played a prototype guitar with the Blake layout at a Martin Clinic and though the guitar was only a few weeks old it sounded real good. I will add a cutaway to mine and will use a slotted headstock. The sides are bent but that is as fars as I have progressed so far.

Fred

_________________
Fred Tellier
http://www.fetellierguitars.com
Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/pages/FE-Tellier-Guitars/163451547003866

i dont know very much about the martin line and it all seems a bit vague and not really written in stone to me. ive heard you use that designator for an OM before and i understand what you are getting at, but if you just look at the bodies of an OM and a 000 there is a marked difference between the two. perhaps its an optical illusion with the different sound hole and bridge locations. the measurements listed on the LMI website show the 000 body to be one whole inch longer than that of the OM. the waist of the 000 is slightly wider and to my eye has a noticeably different shaped upper bout.

none of this really matters to me to be honest, except for the fact that i thought the shorter 14 fret body of an OM paired with a 12 fret neck (24.9" scale) was the whole point of the norman blake model. it makes for a really compact package and puts the bridge further down in the lower bout than a 14 fret 25.4" scale would.

but then again, what do i know?

_________________
sweat the small stuff.

thanks for weighing in fred. i look forward to seeing progress of your build (and probably some famous picker playing it, right?).

ive seen images of the bracing of the NB on line and i know the x legs just kiss the wings of the bridge. i think id like a little more contact between the bracing and the bridge on mine, but im curious what others have done. the problem im seeing as i draw out the bracing pattern is that if i shift the x away from the bridge, i really have to tighten up the x angle. if i shift it closer to the bridge to open up the x, it seems like there is a lot of prime lower bout real estate being taken up by one of the stiffest parts of the bracing (x intersection). id like to shift it away from the bridge, but thats determined in part by size and location of the sound hole.

what size sound hole are you going to use? any other thoughts?

another thing, the santa cruz NB i played was seriously like 6" deep (not really, but pretty dang deep).

_________________
sweat the small stuff.

I think it's less confusing to call it a 12-fret OM because there is already a standard model 12-fret 000 with the elongated body, so when you say "12-fret OM" you know right away that it means a 12-fret neck on what is typically 14-fret body shape. And if I remember right, Martin made both 24.9 and 25.4 scale length 000 guitars over the years at different times (I'm open to correction on that).

You might see what you can find online about the Larrivee Pete Anderson model which is a 12-fret OM, with 25.4 scale on the frets. I have one but haven't taken any measurements on it. It's really comfortable to hold and play since it essentially moves the nut closer so your fretting hand doesn't have to reach as far. Larrivee also did this same configuration on a series of "Forum" guitars for the Larrivee discussion forum.

_________________
______________________________
Jonathan Kendall, Siloam Springs AR

19 frets
24.9 scale
3 3/4 - 3 7/8 soundhole diameter range
X brace 1 inch down from the soundhole
X brace angle at 100 degrees
single wing braces starting just under the leading edge/corners of the bridge
neck block with tongue extension under fingerboard...no popsicle brace
tall, thin braces 3/4" high x 1/4" wide, scalloped
maple bridgeplate
Braz rw body
Adi top
this one is a cutaway and may get a soundport

_________________
Hank Mauel

agreed. and i can see now where the confusion about the body shape of a 000 was for me. 14 fret 000 body is the same as an OM. 12 fret 000 is a different shape. thanks for clearing that up.

none of that really helps with my bracing though.

oh well, im going to sleep now anyways. youre up late for east coast, yeah?

_________________
sweat the small stuff.

now that helps! thanks hank! now im going to sleep.

_________________
sweat the small stuff.

At the Martin Clinic where I tried the 12 fret neck 14 fret body prototype guitar I asked the Martin people present if there were any concerns about the bridge wings barely crossing the X brace and they said there were no problems with this as far as had been reported. It was also pointed out that other Martin models in the past had bridges barely crossing the X, I checked the Martin user group pictures of top bracing page as saw some of these models, I will go for it with the bridge wings crossing only on the front corner as the Norman Blake model and the prototype I got to try.

Fred

_________________
Fred Tellier
http://www.fetellierguitars.com
Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/pages/FE-Tellier-Guitars/163451547003866

I think throughout Martin's history they've played a little loose with their own model names and various features. I think they could have gone either way with the Norman Blake model since it's such a weird combination. Todd, I think you're right that the Norman Blake is closer to a modern standard 000 in various features (24.9 scale, wider nut width). I think the Larrivee Pete Anderson is closer to a standard OM (25.4 scale, 1-3/4 nut).

I always understood the "S" designation to mean a slotted headstock, which was traditionally used on 12-fret necks, thus the Norman Blake model wouldn't have an S since it's not slotted. Though the NB model has some vintage features and doesn't use a V either, so who knows. My guess is that Norman asked for a "000-18" with his various specs and that's why they called it that rather than not wanting to water down the OM distinction.

I also don't think they were making OM-18's as a standard model then anyway so if you wanted a mahogany OM/000 14-fret-style body then you'd ask for a 000-18. I know they have the OM-18V now, but as I understand it they only made the OM-18 for the first few years of production in the 30's.

I bet they had arguments about this in the 30's when the first 000 14-fret models were made based on the OM model body, which was their first flat top 14-fret model.

I think I'd call a 00-12fret-w/14-fret-body an OOM.

Anyway, I'm open to correction on any or all of this and have already learned a lot of info from this thread. I really like my Pete Anderson guitar and am interested in the whole idea of putting 12-fret necks on 14-fret-style bodies. Even aesthetically I like the "stout" look of it.

_________________
______________________________
Jonathan Kendall, Siloam Springs AR

totally going to use OOM. or maybe 00M. nice call.

im in full agreement on the stout look as well.

_________________
sweat the small stuff.

I thought the S meant 'slope' as in shoulder ... but what do i know

Does it matter what Martin calls it (or would have called it if they built one ??) Make up a name of your own. I figure if CFMartin aint on the headstock, I can call it whatever I want.

I find it hilarious that the same guitar with a 1/6 inch wider nut needs a different name (Martin 14 fret 000 25.4 1 11/16 nut is a 000 .. same guitar with 1 3/4 is an OM)

_________________
Tony Karol
www.karol-guitars.com
"let my passion .. fulfill yours"

I agree that words have specific meanings, but model names are decided at the inconsistent whims of marketing folks, not Webster's, so I don't see much danger in broadening the definition of an OM, or making a distinct variation on it and retaining the name. Larrivee calling the Pete Anderson a "12-fret OM" leaves a whole lot less to explain than calling it a "12-fret 000." There's gotta be some gray area when you're using a system that uses number of frets to describe the shape of the body.

But that's just me and I see where you're coming from, Todd, and appreciate the insightful and educational commentary.

_________________
______________________________
Jonathan Kendall, Siloam Springs AR

FWIW, the scott antes OM plans from LMI have the nut width as 1 11/16" . people have plenty to nit pick about with those plans anyway, so i suppose that isnt too relevant of a point. im just sayin'.

in my mind the OM and 000 are distinctly different looking bodies regardless of scale length, nut width, and frets to body. its just easiest to call them what the body looks like to me. if someone says 000, in my mind its the longer bodied slopier shouldered version. if someone says OM, to me thats the short body. i see no reason to confuse body shape titles just because you change the neck. i know martin does, but i dont. take a 15 fret to body neck with a 27" scale and slap it on an OM shaped body, what'd ya have? an OM. just my two cents .

_________________
sweat the small stuff.

Not to throw a log in the punch bowl or anything but:

Any advantage to putting a 13 fret, 24.9" scale neck on the 14-fret body (no mater what its called) so the bridge would be more over the X?

Or, does using the 12 fret, 24.9" scale neck on the 14-fret body and pushing the bridge further down on the lower bout make a noticeable difference in the sound?

I ask because I've got one on the bench now, erroneously labeled an OM in my notebook . I was thinking of the 13 fret option with a cutaway but this thread has me thinking 12-fret.

_________________
Steve Smith
"Music is what feelings sound like"

Do the 12 fret and move the bridge. Puts it down more toward the center of the top (like a 000-12 fret) where there is more top "real estate" to vibrate. If you're concerned about the bridge over the X brace issue...two thoughts: move the X brace down to 1 1/8" from the soundhole or tighten up the X brace angel (from my example of 100 degrees) to say 94-96 degrees or some combo of either. Sketch it out and see where all the components fall until you see what you like.

_________________
Hank Mauel

Thanks for the comments; that certainly gives me something to think about. I'll have to make a decision pretty quick so I can locate the soundhole.

_________________
Steve Smith
"Music is what feelings sound like"

Perhaps in Ervin's build style/bracing structure, etc his work best at that location.
I don't think one is "better" than the other...just different. My OM's sound one way, my 000-12 fretters with the bridge down the face sound another. Each can be "tuned" to give different results via bracing, etc, but why not develop the nuances of the different body shapes, air volumes and scale lenghts for their best attributes. Heck, if we all built them to sound the same we'd have to call them Gibson's!

_________________
Hank Mauel