Could be a new call out for a builders challenge! "How Thin (or light) Can You Go". It would be fun for the builders that don't have imploding guitars.
Maybe not so much for the other guys.Danny
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Very Thin and Light? http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=40221 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | LarryH [ Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Very Thin and Light? |
I was just watching a video posted by Robbie Obrien re: an 1890 Martin 'O' sized guitar and he said (at 1:55 into the video) the back was about 1.9mm, sides 1.5mm, top under 2mm in some areas and that guitar sounds great (to my ears). Does anyone build that thin anymore? Is it a bit suicidal for future repair work? I'm building an 'O' sized guitar with much thicker plates (approx. .085 back, .080 sides, .110 top) but am now wondering about the plate thicknesses and would love to experiment with very thin but really don't want to build a temporary guitar - though that little rascal lasted pretty well. After reading a bunch of posts here over the years I've never read of anyone going that thin. Again just wondering, does anyone build that thin? viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=40213&p=528105#p528105 EDIT: I realize that was originally built for gut strings but he strung with, I think, silk and steel strings for the video. Still curious. |
|
| Author: | Evilfrog [ Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Very Thin and Light? |
Something with a more ridged rim should allow you to go a bit thinner on the sides. Maybe double sides? |
|
| Author: | WilliamS [ Tue Apr 30, 2013 1:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Very Thin and Light? |
Also, that guitar wasn't built for steel strings if it was from 1890. |
|
| Author: | LarryH [ Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Very Thin and Light? |
WilliamS wrote: Also, that guitar wasn't built for steel strings if it was from 1890. Noted above, but is now strung with silk and steel, and I assume the bracing was not only repaired but beefed up a little? |
|
| Author: | LarryH [ Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Very Thin and Light? |
Filippo Morelli wrote: LarryH wrote: I was just watching a video posted by Robbie Obrien re: an 1890 Martin 'O' sized guitar and he said (at 1:55 into the video) the back was about 1.9mm, sides 1.5mm, top under 2mm in some areas and that guitar sounds great (to my ears). Does anyone build that thin anymore? Sure. And you have to remember that the single 0 lower bout is smaller than more conventional guitars. And if using a stiff Adi spruce top, that's even more consideration to that thinness, especially along the perimeter of the top. I built a single 0 in red spruce not long ago. Top was stiff and I built very lightly. Filippo Thank Filippo, Lightly of course - but THAT lightly? Just curious. |
|
| Author: | LarryH [ Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Very Thin and Light? |
Evilfrog wrote: Something with a more ridged rim should allow you to go a bit thinner on the sides. Maybe double sides? Didn't think of that. I always build with solid linings, didn't imagine that that would allow for thinner sides. |
|
| Author: | LarryH [ Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Very Thin and Light? |
Filippo Morelli wrote: It's not that light... Filippo Thanks so much for the reply. I'll consider some lighter builds in the future. |
|
| Author: | DannyV [ Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Very Thin and Light? |
Could be a new call out for a builders challenge! "How Thin (or light) Can You Go". It would be fun for the builders that don't have imploding guitars. Maybe not so much for the other guys.Danny |
|
| Author: | Jim Kirby [ Wed May 01, 2013 12:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Very Thin and Light? |
DannyV wrote: Could be a new call out for a builders challenge! "How Thin (or light) Can You Go". It would be fun for the builders that don't have imploding guitars. Maybe not so much for the other guys.Danny We'd have to set a minimum survival time before the action deviated from nominal by more than a certain amount, or something like that. I always liked Gordon Bok's playing on 12 string, and, from what I understand, his favored luthier sort of built them under protest - they only lasted a few years. Probably a large part of why they sounded the way they did. |
|
| Author: | Joe Beaver [ Wed May 01, 2013 2:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Very Thin and Light? |
I'm more of an Imperial kind of guy but shouldn't that be 1.9 cm for the sides? Not mm? I am so confused. |
|
| Author: | nickinbruns [ Wed May 01, 2013 4:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Very Thin and Light? |
1.9cm = 3/4" (more or less) I think 1.9mm was correct... |
|
| Author: | Trevor Gore [ Wed May 01, 2013 4:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Very Thin and Light? |
...don't say it...don't say it...DON'T say it...turn around and count to 10...OK, 12 for you guys... |
|
| Author: | Trevor Gore [ Wed May 01, 2013 4:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Very Thin and Light? |
OK. I've calmed down. Anyone heard any good beaver jokes recently? Edit: Alright, goat jokes will do. Fortunately, Nick got in with a sensible answer whilst I was fighting for control... |
|
| Author: | Clay S. [ Wed May 01, 2013 5:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Very Thin and Light? |
Trevor, I thought you guys liked your sides a little thicker down under? 
|
|
| Author: | Trevor Gore [ Wed May 01, 2013 5:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Very Thin and Light? |
Yep. Thick as two short planks, as my old man used to say... |
|
| Author: | Joe Beaver [ Wed May 01, 2013 8:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Very Thin and Light? |
I’m glad I am able to bring a small amount of happiness to our friends down under. It must be hard…. Another lonely night down at the billabong, fresh out of Fosters and not a ewe in sight….. |
|
| Author: | Trevor Gore [ Wed May 01, 2013 10:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Very Thin and Light? |
Thanks for making us laugh, Joe! We keep the Fosters for visitors, the good stuff we keep for ourselves. Got any good ewe jokes? (Careful, now..., no pictures...) |
|
| Author: | Joe Beaver [ Thu May 02, 2013 1:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Very Thin and Light? |
Trevor Gore wrote: We keep the Fosters for visitors...) Well it's settled then. Next time I'm down your way I'll stop by for one of those 'visitor Fosters' |
|
| Author: | Trevor Gore [ Thu May 02, 2013 6:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Very Thin and Light? |
Once you've travelled this far, you might need the good stuff. I usually have some standing by. |
|
| Author: | Joe Beaver [ Thu May 02, 2013 10:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Very Thin and Light? |
It would be some fun. Wish I could |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|