Official Luthiers Forum!

Hi Folks...

I'm new to the site, looking forward to meeting y'all.

For my first guitar i'm building a padouk dreadnought. The sides are all bent and fitted nicely in the mould. Now i'm working on the back.

The problem is i got a little carried away with the thickness sander and now i'm worried the back plate is too thin. We are looking at about 2mm - 2.1mm (.827, i think) or so.

What do you folks think? Too thin? Its already sanded up to 180 grit inside, 240 outside.

Thanks in advance.

Gary.

_________________
www.leddingtonguitars.com

.09" is not uncommon for Rosewood --- I'd add a brace or two and use it. I'll qualify by saying I never built with Padouk.

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

Interesting... that works out at 2.2mm... do you think that with final sanding and all i might be cutting it a bit close?

G.

_________________
www.leddingtonguitars.com

You might be cutting it a bit close but consider this. The taller your braces the stiffer they will be. You can counter a thin back to some degree with taller or additional braces as Ken said.

FYI to some there are basically two schools of thought regarding acoustic guitar, conventional acoustic guitar backs the "reactive" back and the "reflective" back. Reactive backs tend to be thinner and are desirable with the crowd who believe a fine acoustic guitar can benefit from being not unlike a fireplace bellows and have some pumping action. This means that a reactive back is engineered to move a bit.

The reflective back crowd will use thicker plates and mobilize the back to a greater degree they believe that a reflective, less movable back is desirable.

I always built reactive back instruments in so much as it fit well with my desire to build light and I liked the bellows analogy which by the way came from a Luthier named Mario P. who posts here from time to time.

Who's right? Who knows... Just like with many questions regarding "tone" it's too subjective to know for sure.

By the way welcome aboard.

Sorry -- This is one of those times when I should not have posted -- again no experience with Padouk, I am sure some one that does will comment.

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

Gary: I think that is going to be just fine. I have used Padauk a few times and think it's a super wood. Very stable, nice overtones, easy to work, except for the dust. Not me but I know folks have used backs thinner then yours.
Tom

_________________
A person who has never made a mistake has never made anything!!!

Wow thanks for all the tips guys... great to know i can pick a few brains from time to time.

I think i will go ahead and indeed make the braces a shade taller.

@Tom West. Tell me about the dust!!!?! It gets everywhere.. and, occasionally will dilute a little in water making a kind of messy ink. Oh and don't use a damp rag to clean up squeeze out.

_________________
www.leddingtonguitars.com

Hi Gary,

I use padauk a lot. .0827 is a touch on the thin side (don't forget that there zero) for a dread, but as mentioned just add a little height to the braces, no need to add extras. 1/16 extra height will be more an adequate.

So you would still use a back like this?

_________________
www.leddingtonguitars.com

I like padouk also. It should be fine. Just don't finish sand it anymore than necessary.

In the event you are still worried I would not abandon it. I would veneer a piece on the inside first but this really won't be necessary.

_________________
Joe Beaver
Maker of Sawdust

Yes, most definitely! Like I say, it's a touch thin for a dread (or at least thinner than what I do which is around .090) but with tall braces you'll be fine.

Great... thanks for the advice.

G.

_________________
www.leddingtonguitars.com

2mm would be too thick for me (but depends on the stiffness of that specific piece). The Padauk Dread I'm fininishing at the moment has a back thickness of 1.7mm, with the braces being fairly light too. I want the back to be lively so it adds color to the sound.

I regularly go thinner than 2mm with EIR. I'm sure you'll be just fine. But if you're worried I'd go for an extra brace.
As it happens I've owned a battered old Martin since I was a teenager some 50 years ago (repeat - battered survivor, NOT immaculate collectors piece. But an 0-28 made in 1900 none the less). It has 5 remarkably chunky back braces yet is a feather light guitar. When I started making instruments I didn't have much information so I used 5 back braces, then I went through a stage of following convention with 4, now I'm back using 5 again.

_________________
"There is hope in honest error .... ". Charles Rennie Mackintosh.
http://www.ianchisholm.co.uk

Thats some great information folks...

Thaks for the advice.

G.

_________________
www.leddingtonguitars.com