Official Luthiers Forum!

I've looked through the archives and seen that these plans have had plenty of discussion in the past. Anyone have any more words of wisdom?

For a while, I've had an idea that building a size 2 would be fun, if only because that's what Mark Twain played. Wanting to try padauk, but currently living in an apartment, I decided to order the parts in kit form from LMI, and let them deal with the orange dust... I guess that purple wizard suckered me in.

Anyhow, these plans are a little odd. They are actually based on the Lyon & Healy Columbus, not a Martin no 2, and the bracing seems to be the author's own scheme. I've decided to slide back the main X and finger braces ~5/8", and leave the rest of the braces where they are. This places the bridge about at the typical place for old Martins of this size. I prefer to use the standard 1 x 6" bridge. X brace will be 1/2 x 1/4, obviously 5/16" is overkill. In addition, I'll add some Martin style soundhole braces. I don't like the idea of omitting these.

The engelmann top sent to go with this surprised me. It looks and feels like red spruce, very dense and stiff, with strong winter lines. Not what I was expecting based on the last engelmann top I used, which was very light and soft with relatively indistinct grain. I had planned on a relatively thick top, with light bracing, but I think I'll brace this at .100, and plan on .90-95 is after sanding.

The outline is a little different than a number 2 shape. The upper bout is more buxom. As I plan to build on an open workboard, I may adjust the upper bout in a bit to be more Martinesque (smaller). OTOH the Lyon and Healy shape is growing on me, and it'd be simpler just to leave it alone.

Any comments welcome.

I would like to mention that LMI still has very high standards for grading, and the wood they sent me as AA really is double excellent. It seems like some newer (non OLF sponsor... ) vendors seem to think of AAA, AA, and A as equivalent to A, B, and C.

Have the antes plan circa 1974, Mine had the dovetail, changed it to a mortise an tenon. I used WRC for my top, as was planning to use nylon folk strings, instead of light gauge bronze. Also used sycamore for back an sides.

I've built a couple from that plan and I'm not sure why you would want to move the X so far south. The wings of a 6" bridge sit nicely over the X and the rest seems to work, other than the sizes. You sound like you're on the right track with your sizing. I have heard of a guy that put the tone bars on in reverse because the bracing is shown on the plan as an xray and not the top, bracing up. I think that guitar sounded pretty good anyway. I've heard. Wasn't me or anything. I'd never do that.

My second one sounded even better. It's a really nice shape and can be great little guitars.

Danny

Words of Wisdom? Build a Martin size 1 instead.
I think Engelmann is the most variable of the spruces and each piece needs to be worked on its own merits. Some pieces will work well for one type of instrument and not so well for another. The pieces with the distinct growth lines seem to me to be denser and stiffer, more like red, as you have noticed. Many small bodied guitars were built with red spruce, some I have measured at .070 inch thickness. These were intended for gut strings, so leaving the top thicker for steel would be a good idea.
I like the size 1 model better. I think the longer body enhances the bass response, which is sometimes lacking in smaller bodied guitars. The Antes parlor plan looks like the old Washburn guitar shape to me, which were generally ladder braced. They were nice guitars also.

I've built seven from those plans. Some Mahogany some Rosewood, one BZ. 1/4" bracing, double tenon bolt-on neck, and an X splayed about 93 degrees with a longer bridge at about 6.75" to get the ends over the X. X in roughly the same position as in the plans. They have been well received. I've found Lutz with a Brazilian bridge and Rosewood body to be a great combination for these little guys. I used Ebony bridges on the Mahogany ones and they were nice too but definitely a different sound.

I think you will be well pleased with your result. They sound great and are a real conversation piece when you play out.

Here's a link to one.

http://www.thepodium.com/p-17509-kenned ... nlutz.aspx

_________________
It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you do know that's wrong.

There's a coincidence Terence. Just happens to be the exact combination of the guitar in my avitar. You're right! Great combo. The other I did was local Sitka and Maple. Even over braced and with the tone bars going the wrong way it sounded great.

Thanks for the thoughts everyone.

Yeah, I was considering a size 1 or maybe a baby Ditson as well as a size 2. While it's not technically too late, I'll think I'll stick to the #2 for now.

Even sliding the X back 5/8" leaves it fairly aggressively forward-shifted by modern standards. The X arms cross the bridge corners and exit the middle of the sides of the bridge wings. This seems to be typical for early Martins. The original plans barely clip the upper corners. Maybe I'll open up the X a degree or two, since it's small enough to get away with it, probably. I should mention that I'm using a 24.9" scale length, and the bridge had to slide south .15". Here's an image of my plan on vellum; the original placement is semi visible:



Terence, that guitar sounds fantastic! Seven huh? You've certainly had some practice. I don't think I'll get that much of a piano without the BRW, but padauk is likely going to be closer to that sound than mahogany. Maybe I'll try a lutz and BRW or ABW size 1 next.

RE the stiff Engelmann - yeah I figure it's going to be about like using red spruce, so it should be appropriate. I want to build it light enough that if I want to slap some labella folk nylon strings on for a change of pace, it won't be totally horrible, but I'm planning on optimizing for steel.

Thanks for the heads up on the 'backwards' tone bar... I do realize it's a top view not a bracing plan, and promise not to make that mistake unless I space out, which happens.

For what it's worth Greg, the top of my X is 9.1" from the top of the guitar. On the one in the sound clip the Lutz top came out at 0.102, the X brace angle was 93 degrees, and the sound hole 3.5". The bridge plate was .093 and the bridge was 6.75" long.
I was a little worried about splaying the X that much but I lengthened the bridge to hit the corners and do have one that has been out about 5 years with no sign of excessive bulging.

Oh yeah, my first had the "backwards" tone bar!

Here is a picture of the bracing.



Good luck, let us know how it turned out.

_________________
It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you do know that's wrong.

I'm another who built a leftie. Sitka over rosewood, fairly deeply scalloped - has a kind of boxy bluesy sound. Not bad, but I was expecting a little more complexity to it.

I'm building two as close to plan as I can. Personally I like the shape, very good looking. I have no idea how good they will turn out sound wise, but since A) these are the first guitars I've ever made, and B) i can't really play anyway, I think they'll be awesome!

_________________
Phil

http://www.oleninstruments.com

"Those who tilt at windmills are only considered insane by those who can't see the dragon."