Official Luthiers Forum!

Not sure, Filippo, but I thought Ken Hill was making a similar style? Might PM him if he's a member Beth

Which ramirez: Jose or Miguel? I played a Manuel Ramirez from the same time frame that was one of the best guitars I have played. About as good sounding as the Torres I played the same day.

I'm assuming this is the Brune' plan of the 1912 Manuel Ramirez which Segovia played for 25 years and which is now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY.
I haven't built this plan (I did do a very tight copy of the 1937 Hauser) but it is very representative of the guitars built right through the middle of the 20th century by makers such as Esteso, Manuel Ramirez and Santos Hernandez (in fact legend has it that Hernandez actually made this guitar as he was at the time in Ramirez' employ).
You might check with David Schramm as I think he carries copies of the rosette of this guitar if you really want to make a close copy.
Building it would be a fine exercise in becoming familiar with the classic Torres/Spanish style of construction still prevalent today.
Plus it should be a very good guitar.

I think the main thing that differentiates the earlier Torres from the later Ramirez/Esteso/Hernandez guitars is the slightly larger ("modern") plantilla developed by Manuel Ramirez and later used by many makers.
Here is a 1967 Papazian next to a 1922 Esteso which is quite similar in plantilla to the 1912 Ramirez:

I've built a bunch of them off the Brune plan. I've also compared it tomy friend 1915 Manuel Ramirez. Here is a video I took soon after the back was removed. Very clean inside. What you see is all original! except for the crack spline and cleats.

From the LMI description, it seems the 1912 is a very close copy of a S.E. Torres: 273/359/482mm, unless they got the numbers wrong. There are a few notable differences, but nothing dramatic. It is still a Torres type: the fan is slightly more open, probably the spacing is changed from 50-51 to 52-53mm or so. Also, the middle back brace is positioned a bit lower (by about 10mm) while the "neckblock" is deeper, probably about 40mm instead of 30.

I'd be curious to know what sort of graduation and thickness the top has. Did they compensate for the initial 11 string setup? I think Torres made them the same, not thicker. It seems the guitar was initially made for Manjon, who already had an 11 strings Torres from 1876. It is likely that Manuel Ramirez and Santos Hernandez inspected the original before starting out the new one.

_________________
Build log

Hey Filippo,
Where's you get the plans?
I'm planning a couple new classical builds after I get the house and NEW SHOP built. Should be in and back to guitars by December.
I'm also looking at building a 7 string classical. Any thoughts on a 7 string plan other than a slightly varied Hauser?

Kent

_________________
Wood Creations by Kent A. Bailey
EXCELLENCE IN SCULPTURE, CARVING, LUTHIER, ARCHITECTURAL MILLWORK AND DESIGN

http://www.kabart.com

"Hence my comment about Torres based guitars ... they are largely all the same, aside from top stiffness and specific material variances."

That's like saying that all women are the same because they are all built on the same plan.................................<grin>

That is the point, it seems Torres was not making them any thicker for more strings. At some point I was asked to build a 10 string guitar and discussing with other more experienced at this revealed the same, that there might not be any need for extra thickness or reinforcement (besides a longer bridge)

_________________
Build log

Remember too that conversely some backs are thicker than others. Torres is fabled for making (reputedly) scary thin sides but the measured back dimensions of his rosewood SE 114 are on the order of 2.5-3.0 mm.