Official Luthiers Forum!

Hello,

I finished my first scratch build a few weeks ago. It sure has been a lot of fun, and also challenging at times. The finishing process was a pain, but I learned a great deal from it. I feel that I owe a lot to you people on this forum, so thanks! #2 and #3 are in the planning. Here are some specs:

- Sitka spruce top
- EIRW back/sides
- Sipo/birch/walnut neck
- Ebony fingerboard/bridge/headplate/rosette
- Maple bindings
- Pinless bridge
- Adjustable neck
- 29" scale length
- Tuned AEADEAD at the moment
- Nitro finish

I was a little concerned about string pull since the bridge is pinless, so it is actually both bolted and glued. Nut sure if it was necessary though... The neck angle is adjusted by turning the strap button on the heel.

I would love some feedback from you guys if you see anything in the design that you like or don't like, e.g. body shape, rosette, heel, bridge, headstock logo, wood combinations, etc, etc... I know see a few things now that I will do differently in the next builds... Thanks for looking!

Looks amazing, especially the sapwood which you don't see with EIRW very often. My only change would be the size of the headstock. I think a bit bigger would compliment the guitar body, but it is a personal preference! Great job, what's next?

_________________
____________________________________
Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

Very nice, Sondre! That's a very innovative first build!

GLW #2 and #3!

_________________
Ken Mitchell
Durham, NC

I'd say it's gorgeous!

_________________
"Act your age, not your shoe size" - Prince

Fabulous!!!
I wouldn't have done anything different on the design,
nice big round body shape.
As far as the binding seam at the tail,
don't worry about that too much.
You are looking at it through a microscope.
Maple is hard to not have glue lines,
so, take more time next time on the joint.
Get it really tight.
Darn good first scratch build!!!
What's the neck joint?

Excellent work, especially for a first! Love the rosette, such a simple and refreshing change from the usual radial look Very cool how the stripes connect to the white purfling line.

I also like the body shape. Big and fat, good for a baritone. And normally I don't like big heel caps like that, but it complements with the body nicely. I agree with Laurie about the headstock being too skinny though.

Nice miters on the tail wedge purfling. I like that pattern, of wedge matching binding and bordered by purfling.

Not much to improve on!

Man, the standards are going up....some terrific first guitars showing up, Great job!

_________________
Dave
Milton, ON

looks great!

did you brace the soundboard differently for a 7 string? i've been searching and searching the archives here and can't find a discussion on bracing a 7 string.

also curious about your neck angle adjustment i haven't come across that before.

_________________
http://www.wideskyguitars.com
https://www.instagram.com/wide_sky_guitars/

Sondre, it's beautiful overall and I also think it's an amazing first instrument. Obviously, not your first experience with woodworking! The voluptuous body shape appeals to me. I'm one of those who would personally prefer a slightly larger headstock, but again, that's just a personal preference. I think the details on the back of your headstock are very nice. I'm also interested in your pinless bridge. Do you have any photos of the bridge under construction?

Congratulations on a beautiful guitar.
Patrick

I must say, that is pretty sweet looking ... I tried playing a 7 string once .. way too confusing for me - I find harp guitars easier !!!!

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

Thank you very much - you are too kind! I can assure you i did LOTS of mistakes, a couple visible in the photos also The headstock design was actually one of the things I would probably do differently Also, I cant't quite decide if I am pleased with the rosette or not. Maybe a little less offset on the white lines next time, and maybe wood instead of white fiber.

Laurie, next up will be a 6-string fingerstyle guitar and a 12-string with the same shape.

Alan, there is one bolt through the heel. Just air between the heel and body (see the other pic). The glued fingerboard extension takes the inward force.

Patch, I don't think there is any particular bracing scheme that works better with 7-strings. Just a little heavier bracing to account for the extra string pull I guess. I braced this one like the picture shows. It looks like it will hold together, and it sounds like a guitar, so I'm pleased I guess. Now that I think of it, I don't know why I didn't go for something more traditional though...

Patrick, I messed up a lot with the bridge First i drilled the holes for the strings. When they came out ridiculously uneven, I decided to rout "channels" for them so they would look more even. The bridge slipped when routing the channel for the highest string, so I had to fill with epoxy/ebony dust and re-rout. I also had to fill/re-drill the holes for the ball ends because they were uneven too. I was going to start over with the bridge, but I didn't feel like waiting for another blank to arrive. There are two bolts, one between the low A and E-strings and one between the high A and D-strings. They are epoxied and covered by ebony patches. I don't have any pictures showing them, unfortunately.

Tony, I love harp guitars! I have never tried one though. Maybe #4 will be a harp guitar

I love the idea of a pinless bridge , is that common on steel strings ? and how do you think its going to affect the top over time ? I would like to do that myself but was holding back because I was concerned that the bridge / top wouldnt handle the force. Beautifull build

_________________
The Shallower the depth of the stream , The Louder the Babble !
The Taking Of Offense Is the Life Course Of The Stupid One !
Wanna Leave a Better Planet for our Kids? How about Working on BETTER KIDS for our Planet !
Forgiveness is the ability to accept an apology that you will probably NEVER GET
The truth will set you free , But FIRST, it will probably Piss you Off !
Creativity is allowing yourself to make Mistakes, Art is knowing which ones to Keep !
The Saddest thing anyone can do , is push a Loyal Person to the point that they Dont Care Anymore
Never met a STRONG person who had an EASY past !
http://wiksnwudwerks.blogspot.com/
http://www.facebook.com/groups/GatewayA ... rAssembly/

Quite nice and very ambitious for a first build... congrats!

i am actually surprised the "pin system" even exists; it always seemed like a pain to me when i owned a steel string acoustic. anyone know why it is used...? apologies for the tangent

Congratulations, nice guitar, nice finish.
Very ambitious, well executed for a first guitar, look forward to seeing your next projects.

_________________
The name catgut is confusing. There are two explanations for the mix up.

Catgut is an abbreviation of the word cattle gut. Gut strings are made from sheep or goat intestines, in the past even from horse, mule or donkey intestines.

Otherwise it could be from the word kitgut or kitstring. Kit meant fiddle, not kitten.

1. Safety. Imagine if a pinless bridge ever came unglued... ~30 gram block of wood on a slingshot stretched with ~160lbs of tension. The pins keep it in place even if it starts to lift up.
2. Appearance. I think pins look nicer than any of the pinless steel string designs I've seen so far.
3. You can loosen the strings and pull the pins to get clear access to the bridge/soundhole/fingerboard while working on the instrument, without having to completely unwind the strings from the tuner posts. I have seen one design that eliminates this, using little metal posts on the bridge that fit through the center of the string ball end to hold it, but I still don't like how it looks.

Very nice, I love it. Few things:

I think the headstock looks fine the way it is. It's all objective, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, that sort of thing.

Why did you go for a pin-less bridge? If done properly I'm sure it would be fine but I have repaired a fair number of them that were cheapo factory guitars and you got one extra string to pull. It looks like the bridge could be a bit thin?

As for glue lines try to aim for the line to join right over the end of the end graft. Even if you still see the line it tends to give it an intentional sort of look. And IMHO definitely NOT CA. CA tends to stain the glue line.

I've never seen a neck joint like that before. If this has been time tested and proven I am unaware of it. I have to wonder how that affects the tone as IMO a lot of tone comes right down the neck into the body of the guitar. Also I wonder about the structural integrity of such a joint. If you could elaborate on it's construction that would be interesting to see.

And how does she sound?

That is perfect, in my view. I'd love to know the dimensions of the body, and also obviously how it sounds! This forum is the first time I've come across the baritone guitar in any case and a 7-string to boot!

Another project to add to the list!

Alan

That is perfect, in my view. I'd love to know the dimensions of the body, and also obviously how it sounds! This forum is the first time I've come across the baritone guitar in any case and a 7-string to boot!

Another project to add to the list!

Alan

Thanks again for the kind words!



Jim, I don't think there is any difference in how a pinned vs a pinless bridge affects the top. The torque load should be the same if all else is equal. If the glue joint fails, they will behave differently though



Dennis, though I have never seen it happen, I'm not sure a failing pinless bridge would come flying. The low elasticity of the steel strings means that the string tension drops very quickly as the bridge starts to displace. I would be more afraid of a failing nylon string bridge, even though the tension is lower. It would be interesting to hear from somebody who has experienced a failing pinless bridge though. I agree with your other points.



I believe the ball ends are seated better in a pinless bridge design, so the guitar stays better in tune. And I just like the idea of using fewer parts. Those are the main reasons why I went for a pinless bridge I think. It may be a bit thin, yes.. I was a little worried that it would split. If it happens, I'll make a new one that's better.

Thanks for the gluing tip

I don't know anything about the history of that joint, but structurally, I think it should hold together. The fingerboard tongue is glued with epoxy, and there is plenty of gluing surface. The neck joint may well have a negative effect on the sound of the guitar. I just think an adjusteable neck is VERY practical It feels as rigid as a regular joint. I don't think there is any real difference between this joint an any other adjusteable joint. The only real contact points between the neck and body are the bolt and the pivot point anyway. I think your questions are very interesting, and I would love to see a discussion around the tonal importance of the neck joint.

I don't have any pictures of the construction of the joint right now, but I can check later. There is a nut epoxied in the neck block, and a threaded rod that goes into it. A "stopping" nut is epoxied to the rod at the body end of the heel to prevent the neck from going backwards, and a threaded strap button prevents the neck from rotating forward. There is a "screw head" in the rod that adjusts the position of the "stopping nut". Sorry if that didn't make sense - I don't know all the technical terms in English.

It sounds okay, but it could have been more balanced. There is a slight "whomp" on the low Db, which is the main air frequency of the box. I think I went a little too thin on the top, so maybe that's part of the reason.



Alan, it's 18" across the lower bout, and 22" from top to bottom as far as I remember.

Thanks,
Sondre

Very nice Sondre!



My concern is the glue holding up as there is much more stress on the glue on a pinless bridge like this. A bridge with larger glue area is better I'm guessing.

_________________
Formerly known as Adaboy.......

Last year in Montreal a pinless bridge came off one of the other exhibiters guitars .... I heard the clang sound of the strings, and turned around in time to see the bridge flop up and over the headstock, in somewhat slow motion .. it didnt go flying as if it were out of a slingshot at all ...

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

i agree, while steel strings are under tension, there is not much energy stored in elasticity....when you break a string it just kinda goes "thunk" and prettymuch stays put. i bet the unwound classical strings are more slingshot-like!
just seems to me the pins add a lot of extra mass to the bridge too.
i'm just curious as to why tried and true designs are the way they are, thats all. seems like there is always a great reason for it.

Good to know about the bridge not flying as far as I'd imagined. Well then we're really only down to appearance for why to stick with pins And yeah, the pins can add quite a bit of mass, especially if using bone. It s kind of fun to try different density materials and see how they affect the sound though.

Another point in favor of pinless bridges is the new range of bracing they allow, not worrying about making room for the string ends, or using hardwoods to resist wear.