Official Luthiers Forum!

Open to any tips tricks and advice. Also I will need plans. Anyone know of a good plan out there? I'll most likely do the small oval sound hole style since that is the most popular and what the famous master Django played. The only spruce I have around the shop is Sitka and engelmann. I'm thinking the engelmann might be closer to the French spruce originally used in these instruments.

Anyway wish me luck

The Francois Charles plans are excellent and beautifully executed. I thought that StewMac sold them but they do not show up in their catalog. I just checked and LMI sells them http://www.lmii.com/CartTwo/thirdproduc ... azz+Guitar

There is debate about pliage or not, and some builders choose to X brace rather than ladder brace. Choose what you will, but the originals had the pliage (bend for arch at the bridge) and were ladder braced.

They both have the same body shape, but the oval hole has a longer scale and different bridge position, which changes the internal bracing and bridge and soundhole position. The oval is built for a more penetrating and projecting quality with lots of headroom for playing lead. The D holes were then used more for rhythm in the traditional jazz manouche set up. The D hole predates the oval hole and was developed directly from the classical model, hence the similarities in appearance. Django played the D hole when that was all that was available, then moved over to the oval hole when it became available and then the arrangement was set.

I've built one oval hole but I am thinking that I would actually prefer the D hole. One day, too many other projects going on right now...and I keep building classicals!

Good luck with your project, these are cool guitars!

_________________
Expectation is the source of all misery; comparison the thief of joy.
http://redrivercanoe.ca/

One of our members, Michael Collins, has a book, a dvd and plans. He is a great guy and well informed on gypsy guitars. You should check out his options here:

http://collinsguitar.com/

The bonus is that he is on this board and can probably answer questions as you go!

Shane

_________________
Canada

Hi there! I have never built a selmer, but i have one (a copy, not an original selmer of course) and am also planning to build one. my opinions, FWIW:

the charles book: good, lots of info but overkill if you just want to build one guitar (or for a first guitar). expensive too (around 100). it´s more of book for collectors and guitar historians (and django-maniacs, it´s target audience).

the collins book: too expensive for what it is. i mean, really expensive! the print quality is average, it´s all B&W and paperback and it sets for (IIRC) almost 70 bucks. Michael writes in a plain and friendly way, and it is a good book for starters, but it (again IMVHO) is not set to become a standard.

your best bet, as far as i see it, is to grab some plans (charles and michael both sell it, as do some others - google is your friend), keep your cumpiano / bogdanovich / etc. at hand and head for the djangobooks site (hope it´s ok to mention it here) and search for BYO (build your own) and try to contact Craig Bumgarner. he has built some selmers and is a very friendly guy to talk to. there is also bob holo around, but he tends to post less. then, there is pete zwinakis (hope i got the name right), which also posts here.


hope it helps,
Miguel.

_________________
member of the guild of professional dilettantes

Hi, if you can read french there is Benoit's forum. Many have documented the building process and posted photos also.

Cool, thanks for the reply's. You got me thinking more about the D hole type now. Problem is I am not building one for anyone in particular so I don't have a direction to go in. Doing this for fun and because well, I don't have one in my personal arsenal. I know a guy who plays one and he's an amazing player. I've done lots of work on his and I can't ever get the thing to sound like he can. It's like you have to have a large attack and lead style to get it to project and sound the way it was intended. So for me maybe the D-Hole is better. Also maybe this guy will want one since he has two oval hole Selmer's now

I definitely want to go as original as possible so the ladder bracing will be used.

Hi
The Selmer plans are still available at http://www.rfcharle.com/HTML/PlanSelmerA.html
The pliage is (in my experience) a pain in the *** so I wish you good luck indeed
Here's a photo of my result

_________________
Check out the Dutch guitar buildersmeeting site at http://www.gitaarbouwersmeeting.org (sorry dutch only)

sorry for chiming in with nitpicking, but that can be a problem. there were several types of selmer guitars proiduced, so the "as original as it goes" needs to know which original you want to pursue first.
besides the d-hole and oval hole discussion, there were different types of bracing in the selmer guitars (the number of braces was not kept constant, IIRC the 1st ones had only 4 transversal braces, then went on to five); the neck was made of walnut, but some have mahogany and, for a time, there were even some rosewood necks on selmers; most selmers were made of laminated rosewood/poplar/mahogany backs and sides, but some were made out of solid wood and others included maple; the way the pliage was made also evolved, etc. some of these changes were thought-out, but most of them had to do with the fazing out of the guitar manufacture part of the selmer company. at first it was all very nice, soon enough Mario left, then it kept being downsized and at the end of it all, there was just one man working, and they used whatever materials were left for the last guitars. you can get some pictures of the inside of selmer guitars on leo eimer´s site: http://www.eimersguitars.com/restauration.html .

also, as far as i know and not very important after all, django did not manifest any particular preference for selmers (nor even acoustic guitars), he was just a man working under a contract.

hope you enjoy building your guitar and i which you good luck with your playing. it can be hard to get "that" sound, and even harder to keep it going for long periods - but it´s a pursue that´s worth it. it hasn´t yet worked out for me, but i keep practising.

cheers,
Miguel.

_________________
member of the guild of professional dilettantes

BTW, nice gitar wim!

_________________
member of the guild of professional dilettantes

I've built a few & love building them. The Petite bouche (oval hole) has more of a tighter, trebly sound more suited for lead playing whereas the D hole (Grande Bouche) is more suited for rhythm.
I've read Micheal Collins book & it's well written for the basic info, I did find however, that it made more sense when I'd got the DVD set of Micheal actually building one step by step. He uses the original method of building up the sides & back from plies, whereas I've only ever done them in solid timbers.
Miguel mentions different bracing configs, these were only applicable across the models. The original D holes built under Mario Maccaferris rule/guidance used 4 transverse braces. After he left the company Selmer changed the soundhole to the smaller Petite Bouche (I guess to get around any possible breach of copyright, old Mario was a shrewd businessman at times), increased scale length & therefore tension on the tops so they also employed an additional fifth brace midway between the bridge & tailblock.
As far as Pliage goes, I personally believe it accentuates the responsiveness of the top, it induces a little 'pre-tension' into it.
I documented my D hole build over on the ANZLF forum here with the final build pics here.
I also did a Petite Bouche build here so have a look and see if you want to do a guitar like this. Micheal Collins book does have all the relevant sizes marked in it so you wouldn't really need a set of plans if you are cunning enough.

_________________
Nick Oliver

http://www.oliver-guitars.com

nice build document Nick, i´d like to try one of your guitars. besides, i´ve always liked pictures of guitars outdoors, don´t ask me why.

regarding the number of braces, i also wanted to add that some selmers (for instance, the selmer 430 that´s on leo eimers site) also had just 3 top braces... i keep mentioning this because it was a bit of a discovery for me when i found that out... i always thought petit bouches had 5 transversal braces.

on pliage: isn´t that the way the neapolitan mandolins are made? i´ve always thought of the selmer as a kind of cross between a neapolitan mando and a guitar (although its sound also reminds me of a single stringed cittern at times) - i´ve always attributed it to maccaferri being an italian (albeit not from naples) that had built (amongst many other instruments) neapolitan mandolins and that found its way into his guitar when he went from the nylon (or gut?) to the steel string model, but that can be wishful thinking on my part.

cheers,
Miguel.

_________________
member of the guild of professional dilettantes

I have to say I didn't even know what pliage was so I looked it up and found this: http://www.pluckandsqueeze.com/Mac%202/Pliage%201.htm. And I can tell ya there is no way I would be able to properly join a top like that after bending on a hot pipe. I have a hard enough time shooting and joining flat tops. I'd probably just use a combination of arched braces and a proper arch in the sides of the guitar to get the same effect. I need to keep it simple on this first run.

I've got a late 1800's Washburn mandolin with the same effect. I think I read somewhere that the way they did that was to actually saw a kerf in the top across the grain so that the top would fold in such a way. I can't imagine doing that on a fine guitar top though

Nick that's a beautiful guitar. I presume the 'double back' is not typical for Selmers? Not that I know much about them but I have not seen that technique talked about before.

That is exactly what is going on, except that it went directly to the steel string Jazz Modele without anything to do with the nylon string model.

The nylon string was first, then the Jazz Modele (D mouth). These two are the Macaferri contributions. Then a few others such as a Hawaiian and the Eddy Freeman model 4 string. The Petite Bouche was actually late to the game.

_________________
Expectation is the source of all misery; comparison the thief of joy.
http://redrivercanoe.ca/

This style of guitar is really fun to make and play..

For a couple of years until recently I owned an original #8XX 1950 Selmer petite bouche and I had the privilege of playing and measuring other peoples originals as well (I have a 1933 baby Selmer in pieces under my bench right now). What I found was variations in the construction/sound (over the years).. a bit more than you would imagine.. but all the guitars were all very well put together with a lot of interesting ideas in one place: Laminated linings, laminated tail-block, pliage, High quality Laminations, tapered flush cutaway, Internal resonator, lightweight overall, Wonderful balance, first sealed modern production tuning machine, great projection, loud, Makes other guitars sound like they are full of socks..

The plans/books out there are good/fair, I have them all. But some don't match up to reality very well. The François Charle plans are certainly the closest at least as far as I have seen. There is some key information that is left out or got smoothed over in the transition from measurements to CAD model but all in all its a really nice plan.. with a little outside info/planning, it's probably all you'd need..

As far as some of the anomalies like #430 on Eimers site. That guitar seems to me like it was a factory mistake (probably made on a Monday or a Friday) and the result was that it caved in. I wouldn't take a whole lot away from the fact that it only has three braces.. I have played an original 4-brace #5XX oval-hole guitar that was originally built pretty light. (I bet it was no more than 3.5 lbs) and it had a really neat tone although it lacked projection. Still a very neat guitar. You don't want to go crazy thin on the tops, backs or make the braces too wimpy.. if you do, the guitars will lack power.

My experiences with the pliage on the top: it changes the character of the sound. It allows/forces you to do a different bracing height pattern than what you would do if you did a forced-top (non-pliage) that again changes the sound. It also allows the top to mate to the sides without being put into tension - ultimately, I think this all leads to a more cutting, sharper and louder guitar. Without the pliage and the resulting bracing changes, the guitar has a more flat-top sound, more open, more rounded sounding - less gypsy.. It took quite a few prototype before my pliage guitars sounded better than my non plaige guitars.. certainly not an instantant slam dunk, but once I got it, I now only make the pliage-topped guitars.

There is no doubt that Mario Maccaferri was an incredibly smart and gifted individual. What is usually overlooked is that his mentor Luiggi Mozzanni was an important world luthier in his own right who identified Mario's talents and helped fostered them. To look at some of Luiggi's guitars is pretty amazing... He made incredible harp guitars as well as some other adventurous stuff. An especially interesting non-harp guitar was one that looked surprisingly like the millennium classical guitar.. built I think sometime around 1920! - There is a wonderful English/Italian book available on Luiggi, not cheap, but interesting..

Anyway, I am easily bored, but these guitars keep me interested. When you get the balance right between the top-material/thickness, brace-height geometry and setup (of course other things). These guitars are so loud they sound like they are amplified - even for single note runs... it's really neat.

Regards, Peter

Macaferri developed the internal resonator for the nylon string guitar as an attempt to even out the response and to nullify the ill effects of the vibrating guitar back touching the players body or clothing. It was first applied to the nylon string guitar and carried over to the Jazz Modele. It fell out of favour due to added expense due to construction complication, as well as repair complications. And some players just didn't want it.

The internal resonator is precisely the reason for the large D shaped soundhole. The resonator would be fitted within the lower bout and there was a wall like the guitar sides all around it which suspended it from the top. There were soundholes in the wall leading to the tops soundhole and there was a shell shaped reflector which turned the soundwaves from the resonator chamber out to the world. The D shaped soundhole was a logical development from there.

Now its just looks cool.

_________________
Expectation is the source of all misery; comparison the thief of joy.
http://redrivercanoe.ca/

The resonator sides was made of very thin european walnut and the internal back was Spruce with a couple very dainty braces in it. The whole thing is incredibly well put together but unfortunately, incredibly delicate and it's no wonder they became cracked and rattled from miss-handling resulting in their extraction... Most of the guitars do not retain their resonators for this reason. Unfortunately, the guitars label with serial number was affixed to the resonator's components and was usually lost with it's extraction.. It's a bummer.

Regards, Peter

thanks for the input, guys! (and sorry if i´m stealing a bit of your thread Mr. McKenna)
i envy you!
i have the charles plans somewhere (i´m not able to find them ATM) but i got the impression that they were from a Favino guitar... can you confirm that, or are they from a selmer?
yeah, that is what i thought, the nylon guitar - rather obviously - has nothing to do with a mando: no pliage, a conventional classical bridge (the strings pull the top) and fan bracing - i suppose Maccaferri would be particularly fond of it since he was a classical player and the technicalities (resonator, cutaway, ...) he introduced to the model seem to me the product of a long gestation of ideas as a player (wishful thinking again?). i also suppose that the steel string model came out of selmer´s will to capitalise on the new jazz trend, which was beginning to hit it big here in europe at the time (and hence their endorsement of Django, already a name in the paris bal-musette and dancehall scene).

cheers,
Miguel.

_________________
member of the guild of professional dilettantes

François Charle made plans for the Oval hole, D-Hole Jazz, and D-Hole Orchestra (Nylon). I have them all and they are all pretty decent, I don't think he made one for the Favino.. I think Collins made a Favino plan..

Pete

ok, thanks!

_________________
member of the guild of professional dilettantes

Peter,

That's a great collection of guitars! I'd be very appreciative of learning any more of your observations about what makes these guitars really tick. I have the book and the the Charles plans already, and have built one petite bouche- the solid headstock Bird's Eye Maple one.

Also, anything that you might have to offer relative to the D hole and/or the benefits of the resonator box.

_________________
Expectation is the source of all misery; comparison the thief of joy.
http://redrivercanoe.ca/

More info on Selmer guitars can be found here http://www.lutherie.net/bckgrnd.html

Bob

I have only played one "D" hole with an intact resonator. It was a very nice sounding guitar, not especialy loud or radical in any way though. Frankly it wasn't like night and day with the thing in there - maybe if you could have played a couple of guitars side by side some without and some with resonators you would notice a big difference but I kind of doubt it. From what I have gathered, it sort of acted as a compressor - evening out the output of the guitar... From reading stuff from John Monteleone, who was a good friend and great admirer of Mario Maccaferri, they made a couple batches of guitars in the late 80's with and without resonators, solid and laminated sides and back, and John said that the best one ended up being a laminated one with a modified resonator.. It blew away the solid wood counterpart.. this was a Nylon string version.. It was on the Nylon string guitars that Mario said the resonator made the biggest difference.. I imagine on some level of development, the floating internal very lightweight spruce back might give you something a heavy rosewood back couldn't? Who knows?

I have made a bunch of "D" holes but way more Oval holes.. never tried a resonator but I definitely will, just for myself though. Would be so much work to make it accurately...

As far as my opinions on the "D" holes. I think they are really a great design. An incredibly balanced guitar. Maybe not a cutting as the oval holes but I really like them. Django, never recorded a "D" hole with a resonator that anyone knows of.. Certainly all the pictures of him with "D" holes, the guitars have no resonators.. The "D" holes also have much shorter scale lengths 640mm vs 670mm which is very substantial. The nut width on the "D" hole is much wider. Each guitar works in its own way but they are different animals. One thing that is interesting is that to the player, the "D" hole sounds louder - even if the guitar is a quieter guitar.. just the way the sound envelops the player or something.. its interesting.

Fun stuff..

Pete

How do the bodies of the newer hybrid long scale d- hole guitars differ from an oval hole body? I ask because I've been wanting to build one but wasn't sure what internal structures need to be changed.

Well, the bodies of the "D" hole and Oval holes were identical. Only the tops were different. On the hybrid guitars I have built, I have basically used an oval hole bracing arraignment. Not exact. But pretty close. I think it all really just depends on where you end up placing the "D" hole on the top. How fore or aft.. after that, just treat it mainly like the Oval hole as far as bracing as the scale length and bridge placement will all jive with that..

Pete

One practical advantage of the D hole for the builder and the repairer is that you can get your hand inside the body, (and turnbuckle clamps out of it), difficult if not impossible with the standard size oval hole, unless you have very small hands.