| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Thompson Belly Reducer http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=30274 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Howard Klepper [ Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thompson Belly Reducer |
I'd give it a new, oversized bridge patch. Some people like to do these in spruce with a hard cap for the string ends, but all hard maple is good. When I was a repairman, I learned to turn down the "just get it playable" jobs when there is a lot of other stuff wrong. What inevitably happens is someone sees the guitar and is told that you did the repair on it. They are not told that the owner refused to do anything but get it playable. Then you hear from them that they saw an awful repair you did. |
|
| Author: | WudWerkr [ Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thompson Belly Reducer |
Quote: My question is whether any of the repair folks here have used TJ Thompson's Belly Reducer set from S-M to address the curve that some bridge plates (including this D-28) pick up over time? And before the belly jokes start, 6'2", 193 lbs...abs, yes...belly not so much. Tried it and I am still 5'9" and 290 Lbs didnt do a single thing for my belly !!  
|
|
| Author: | Terence Kennedy [ Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thompson Belly Reducer |
Hell it's only a pre-war Martin, stick a Bridge Doctor in and call it good. |
|
| Author: | Jeffrey L. Suits [ Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thompson Belly Reducer |
Give this gig a pass. No one will ever be happy, and as Howard mentioned, it'll come back on you. |
|
| Author: | Steve Saville [ Fri Dec 10, 2010 3:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thompson Belly Reducer |
I'd offer to buy it or trade it for a playable cheap Martin or Tak etc. I agree that you should politely decline the job. |
|
| Author: | John Arnold [ Fri Dec 10, 2010 9:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thompson Belly Reducer |
The big issue with that type of damage is that the grain in the top is cut through at the front edge of the bridge. In this situation, I favor a spruce patch that extends all the way into the triangle of the X-crossing. It does not need to be very thick, just good vertical grain parallel with the grain in the top. Then install an original size hard maple bridgeplate. I don't like oversize bridgeplates, for any reason. IMHO, the Thompson Belly Reducer is most useful on those guitars that have an intact top and original bridgeplate. Since you are regluing X-braces, replacing the bridgeplate and repairing the top damage, simply clamping the top flat when doing the gluing operations should be sufficient to reduce the belly problems. |
|
| Author: | TonyFrancis [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 1:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thompson Belly Reducer |
- |
|
| Author: | Howard Klepper [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 4:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thompson Belly Reducer |
TonyFrancis wrote: There is never any reason to make an oversize anything, for any reason, on this kind of instrument. Wow. Never ever no matter what? How about to get rid of the excessive belly which extends way back behind the patch, stabilize the top, and improve the sound? How about (one I did years ago) because the top was thinned and lifted way up behind the bridge and it's going to have to be replaced otherwise? What John Arnold describes is an oversize patch, made of spruce, with a maple patch on top of it. Unless they are true museum pieces, I treat them as tools for making music, not objects of worship. |
|
| Author: | bluescreek [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 6:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thompson Belly Reducer |
The plate on the 37 was inletted into the braces so that will be a fun project to pull . I like the inletting a patch to the top to renew structural integrity and a new plate. AN oversize plate in here would be my take . I am talking more of a modern plate not the narrower one used in 37. I have to say you sure like a challenge don't you Todd. |
|
| Author: | bluescreek [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thompson Belly Reducer |
For what it is worth . I no longer allow the client to tell me how to fix a guitar . If they do not want a proper repair I send them on . Often the job will be substandard and even though it was what the client wanted , he will blame the repair guy . After educating the client and he still wants things done his way I do excuse myself from that job . This way at least one person will be happy . |
|
| Author: | Jimmy Caldwell [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thompson Belly Reducer |
Todd, I'd just email TJ and ask him how and why he developed the the Belly Reducer and seek his opinion on if he feels it might work for you. There's no one who knows more about prewar Martin's than TJ, so why not go directly to the source. I don't know TJ personally and we've never met, but I've bought bar fret stock from him several times and sought his advice a couple of times on similar matters and he has always responded courteously and promptly. PM me if you'd like his contact info. Good luck. |
|
| Author: | TonyFrancis [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 4:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thompson Belly Reducer |
- |
|
| Author: | Darryl Young [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 4:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Thompson Belly Reducer |
Didn't Bryan Kimsey write about repairing an old Martin with a bad belly by using a rosewood brace between the X-brace legs back behind the bridge plate (aka PMTE)? |
|
| Author: | Howard Klepper [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 5:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Thompson Belly Reducer |
TonyFrancis wrote: Howard Klepper wrote: Wow. Never ever no matter what? How about to get rid of the excessive belly which extends way back behind the patch, stabilize the top, and improve the sound? How about (one I did years ago) because the top was thinned and lifted way up behind the bridge and it's going to have to be replaced otherwise? What John Arnold describes is an oversize patch, made of spruce, with a maple patch on top of it. I find your sarcasm amusing, Howard. I think the whole point of the Thompson belly reducer is that it made the large replacement bridge plates unnecessary. Calling such a repair an improvement in sound is speculative and we have no way to judge that. But that's trivial, most folks who buy any quality instrument want it to sound the way the maker intended and un-bastardized regarding repair. A thinned top is a separate issue, and repair techniques depend on how, where and why is was thinned. As always, concept and execution is where repair people differ. Here is the thread I mentioned before: http://theunofficialmartinguitarforum.yuku.com/reply/21583#reply-21583 Todd - good luck with the repair. Hopefully if you get to do a complete restoration - this would make a great repair thread or blog article. Tony, the Thompson thingie as I understand it is like doing a heat bend on a neck. It will soften and slip the glue between the bridge plate and the top, and maybe relax the lignin in the plate enough for it to flatten. It's a stretch (both of the imagination and what I hear about it in practice from, e.g, John Arnold above) to think it has made oversize bridge plates into something that is never ever needed. Lots of guitars are bellied up way behind the plate where flattening the existing plate/top joint is not going to do much. Lots of guitars, like the one Todd is asking about, have a bunch of repairs, often badly executed, that weaken the top around the bridge. I doubt that Thompson is claiming he invented a panacea for all bellied tops. Point being that there are judgment calls and compromises to be made when getting an old instrument that has had a bunch of prior work back to good playability and sound; it seems oddly doctrinaire to me to say that this never includes oversizing the bridge plate. The way we judge improvements in sound is by before and after listening by experienced people. Many such people have thought that many guitars were improved a lot in sound by putting in oversized bridge plates. That has gone out of fashion now that we are in the "preserve everything as the overriding consideration and never replace any stock part except with a perfect replica and then only if it is completely trashed" era. Back in the 70's Matt Umanov was into fixing an overly bellied Martin by putting in as big a plate as he could fit through the soundhole (no exaggeration!). And knowledgeable pre-war Martin players who hung out there at Umanov's--David Bromberg to cite one example-- thought they sounded a lot better that way. I think Matt went overboard on these, but I think the pendulum has swung too far back the other way now. As I said, unless it's really a museum piece, the idea ought to be to weigh various factors and be willing to compromise originality in order to get the best playing and sounding, stable guitar. This isn't a good place to say always or never. All methods are on the table. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|