I always like the old Martin mahogany topped guitars with a simple purling style sound hole adornment. It very simple and nice..Mike
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| no rosette http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=34998 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | mikemcnerney [ Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | no rosette |
I am trying to imagine a steel string MJ without a rosettee, or minimalist. Any pics out there you can share/ MM |
|
| Author: | Alain Desforges [ Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: no rosette |
Mike! How are things my good man!? I know Paul Wolson has some guitars with no rosettes. No pics. Sorry. |
|
| Author: | truckjohn [ Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: no rosette |
Well.. most of the baby taylor's don't have an inlaid rosette - just a bit of a pattern pressed into the wood.... Lots of the old cheap Kays and various dirt cheap Chicago guitars didn't have one either. Thanks |
|
| Author: | Corky Long [ Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: no rosette |
Interesting question. It caused me to ponder the purpose of a rosette. Besides providing decoration, I'd imagine it provides some protection against splits in the top, originating at the soundhole as the guitar begins to react to tension from the strings. (mostly by providing reinforcement across the grain at the top of the soundhole) This is conjecture on my part - I have no data. Others will comment, I'm sure. |
|
| Author: | Tom West [ Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: no rosette |
Corky: Think your right on with the dual purpose of the rosette. One could put a cross grain patch on the inside to provide the anti cracking support. Personally I think the rosette is a main focal point of an insturment and one without a rosette has a very flat bland look. Just my personal taste. Tom |
|
| Author: | John F. Dickman [ Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: no rosette |
I have seen pictures of guitars with sound holes with just binding(white). Looked really clean. Farrigton I think. |
|
| Author: | SteveG [ Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: no rosette |
Hmm. I was tempted to steal a great picture to show you one, but instead will send you to take a look here : http://theunofficialmartinguitarforum.y ... ly-1349357 cheers |
|
| Author: | alan stassforth [ Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: no rosette |
The other day, I was making a rosette. My wife, who makes dog bows said "so, you're making a bow?". A rosette is the "bow" on a guitar. The Martin looks good, because of the figure in the maple. So, just sayin'. No wisecracks about my wife making dog bows pleeze! Or, if you want to, go ahead! |
|
| Author: | Mark Tripp [ Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: no rosette |
This is as minimalist as I've gotten. So far. I'm definitely a less is more guy, but somehow, having *no* rosette, doesn't suit my eye. Attachment: rosette1.jpg Attachment: rosette2.jpg Attachment: rosette3.jpg -Mark |
|
| Author: | Shaw [ Thu Jan 19, 2012 1:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: no rosette |
I always like the old Martin mahogany topped guitars with a simple purling style sound hole adornment. It very simple and nice..Mike
|
|
| Author: | afwonger [ Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: no rosette |
I think it could work with with a figured top (bearclaw, curly redwood, etc.)? Another option is to make a more interesting soundhole that is not circular. |
|
| Author: | Ian_Pender [ Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: no rosette |
Issue 21 of The Fretboard Journal shows a guitar by Erich Solomon called the Phydelity, and it has very minimalist looks. It's an archtop with an oval soundhole, and it has no rosette at all, and it doesn't look as awkward as I thought a guitar without a rosette would. The Phydelity model guitar shown on his website has a thin rosewood looking binding along the edge of the sound hole, but the one in my issue of The Fretboard Journal does not. I wasn't able to find a photo of it online anywhere, unfortunately. |
|
| Author: | mikemcnerney [ Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: no rosette |
thanks all, this has been very helpful MM |
|
| Author: | David Newton [ Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: no rosette |
Just points out that very little on a guitar is there for "looks" only. Pearl bling is the obvious exception. |
|
| Author: | Steve Kinnaird [ Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: no rosette |
David Newton wrote: Just points out that very little on a guitar is there for "looks" only. Pearl bling is the obvious exception. David, don't be saying that. At least publicly. Assert with boldness that pearl makes for increased sonority in your instruments. That scientific studies show its acoustic superiority over, say, anything else. And thus the upcharge in price isn't for "bling", but rather for sonic excellence. Give it a try, anyway, and report back? Steve |
|
| Author: | Jim_H [ Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: no rosette |
Steve Kinnaird wrote: David Newton wrote: Just points out that very little on a guitar is there for "looks" only. Pearl bling is the obvious exception. David, don't be saying that. At least publicly. Assert with boldness that pearl makes for increased sonority in your instruments. That scientific studies show its acoustic superiority over, say, anything else. And thus the upcharge in price isn't for "bling", but rather for sonic excellence. Give it a try, anyway, and report back? Steve Im sure you could find some government funded university studies that "prove" just that! 
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|