Official Luthiers Forum!

Just curious and was wondering where you look first when checking out a custom built guitar. Binding? Rosette? Finish?

_________________
Thank You and Best To All

I usually look at the joints, especially the binding, first of all. Then action and playability, then the quality of the finish. I don't have a good reason for this, except that those may be some of the most challenging areas for me as a builder.

Guitars can be pretty unique. I look at whatever calls out to me. Might be the tone, finish, rosette, anything.

None of those, cause they're all window dressing. The first thing i do is play it and listen to it. If I'm still holding it after that, I look at action, fretwork, neck alignment, heel/body joint, bellying, bridge/top joint. Then I might look inside at the bracing scheme. Then I'll start taking in decorative elements. Granted, the main body woods are usually what inspire me to take it off the wall in the first place, but decorative elements are pretty low on the list.

_________________
Mountain Song Guitars www.mountainsongguitars.com

I look first at how straight the neck is, and then the neck angle and bridge/saddle height.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

Assuming I don't see any flaws from 5 feet out I look at the fretwork, that tells me if I even want to hear it. If the maker can't do a high quality fret job then everything else is suspect or just doesn't matter.

_________________
Brian

You never know what you are capable of until you actually try.

https://www.howardguitarsdelaware.com/

Maybe.

I've seen some pretty bad fretwork, but the neck angle is still good (accident maybe?).

Bad fretwork can be touched up pretty simply if the rest of the instrument is poretty good, but a bad neck angle requires much more effort to correct even if the fretwork is flawless.

There's a few local guys that have the fretwork down but don't quite get the neck angle geometry.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

If I was looking to by a new custom guitar, I would not find fretwork that needed a touch up acceptable. I would walk away at that point. I would also walk away if after finding frets were beautiful that the geometry was wrong, finish flaws, or any one of a dozen other things. I have even passed on fine guitars at decent prices simply because I do not like bolt on necks....yea, I'm that guy......

_________________
Brian

You never know what you are capable of until you actually try.

https://www.howardguitarsdelaware.com/

For visuals, I look at the neck joint and setup. If those look right, there's a good chance the builder has some chops. Then I listen. Distressing how many guitars are out there with pretty woods and bling, with poor setups and muddy tone. Like Filippo said about eh Interwebs.

Pat

_________________
formerly known around here as burbank
_________________

http://www.patfosterguitars.com

Tone and playability are paramount.
You think a blind player cares about the bling?

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

That's true. I was playing a Matsuda guitar at TAMCO the other day and was actually quite disappointed with the sound. Just because they look amazing doesn't necessarily make them sound amazing!

_________________
"I am always doing that which I cannot do, in order that I may learn how to do it."
Pablo Picasso

https://www.facebook.com/FenskeGuitars

I look at the general joinery. Judging it on the setup can be a bad idea cause they can go out of whack when they leave your shop. I've gone into a store before and picked up one of my guitars after 6 months and found it not in good shape for playing. A minor setup tweak and it was fine again. I've had the same happen with guitars coming back for repairs.

Side note: I wouldn't blame just the Internet. Healdsburgh and Montreal are just as much to blame, where the guitars that get the most attention are the one made from moon landing wood with the artists impression of the space shuttle inlayed on the FB etc. Guitar magazines as well...

Sure, but the question was what would you look at first without specifying why. Perhaps the OP is looking at a guitar and is wondering what would be a fatal flaw or what would be workable.

I was also looking at it from the standpoint of taking the guitar in trade, or buying with the intention to resell. There are some situations I've run into where I've gotten the guitar at a good enough price to cover my work when I sold it.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

It depends why I'm looking. To buy? To learn? To be inspired? To critique?

Of course sound is critical but in a custom guitar, everything should be top notch. Sight is usually a person's first experience of a guitar. If I'm looking to eat at an expensive restaurant and I peer in the window and see stuff that looks like dog food, I'm not likely to want to find out how it tastes. Maybe I'll miss out on the tastiest meal ever but it would be a hurdle to get over and in a world of abundance, I'm less likely to feel the need to get over a hurdle.

My experience from exhibiting at shows is that there are very few people who will ever play your guitar if they are not drawn to the appearance. When there are too many guitars to choose from, why would they? Just like with a nice dinner, aesthetics are part of the experience for almost everyone. There's an understandable backlash against the proliferation of all_bling_and_no_sing guitars but that doesn't mean looks don't matter.

The first thing I notice is the whole. Is the overall design pleasing and cohesive? Are there one or two elements that don't fit aesthetically? (A personal pet peeve is rounded lower bouts that go into a flat tail block.) There is some subjectivity here but there's also a surprising amount of agreement. I'm drawn to guitars that look like guitars in some traditional sense. The anthropomorphic shape of a guitar is really pleasing to me and while I appreciate people wanting to push the envelope, I generally don't care for ultra modern designs. Some of Matsuda's are an exception to that rule for me.

Then I pick it up and turn it around. I notice weight and liveliness. Although there are some heavy guitars that sound great, I'm drawn to light guitars that feel alive when you pick them up.

Then I play it and listen (and feel) how it sounds and feel how it plays. Then I start looking close at the details and fit/finish.

_________________
http://www.chassonguitars.com

the first think I look at is the finish and how well the prep was done. Do you see sink in the pores? Also the back binding . If the fit and finish is tight it makes the guitar look professional.
Binding that looks thick and thin will take away from the appearance. Also learning how to do the body and fender work to hide the small defects on wood . It is the details that set the pro apart from the amateur.

_________________
John Hall
blues creek guitars
Authorized CF Martin Repair
Co President of ASIA
You Don't know what you don't know until you know it

I think guitars are works of art. A guitar that looks good will inspire you creatively--just as much as tone that's to die for.

I definitely agree that a guitar needs to sound great, but I wouldn't be overly reductionistic. If the looks of a guitar didn't speak to us, we wouldn't take pause when we see those great pictures. Or spend hours trying to figure how Kim Walker's varnish.

So do you Fillippo when you say this:



Another side note (although quite relevant I think). As a builder, I don't think I could care less about how other builders look at my guitars. When exibiting at a show, I can smell builders in the blink of an eye just by looking at the way they pickup my guitars and start looking at them. And in EVERY case, they look at stuff actual potential customer NEVER look at. A customer will be drawn to a guitar because he is drawn to it, there is nothing more to it. That will make him pick up the guitar and play it, and either enjoy it or not. If he was drawned by it and enjoyed it, the rest is of little importance to him (quality of the finish, quality of the joints, the fret work, etc.). If he enjoyed it, that means it sounded good to him, and liked the playability. When I see other builders guitar, I try to act in that way too, although it's quite difficult not to compare yourself, specially when a guitar as some cool feature I don't have!

_________________
Alain Moisan
Former full time builder of Acoustics, Classicals and Flamencos.
(Now building just for fun!)

If you only look at instruments from a utilitarian perspective, then quite honestly, anything over a good quality solid wood Taylor or Martin is overkill. And everything more expensive really becomes just overpaying for "bling" or brand image. Congratulations fellow builders -- now you are just building overpriced guitars!!!


Just like fine furniture -- you go from cheaper, purpose driven objects to veritable works of art. Just like furniture, there is blending of those lines as you increase price and generally go from factory stuff to the works of individual artisans -- the reason being is that artisans can't compete with factories at the cheaper, utilitarian level and are, therefore, relegated to only building high-end stuff.

I am still in a process of refinement but feel my guitars have come along with in terms of aesthetics in the past couple years. I initially focused on build quality and sound -- now I'm focusing on my artistic development. The biggest issues I see with new builders (and things I've learned from personal experience -- I've built some ugly, ugly guitars over the years )and even established builders are as follows:

1) Lack of cosmetic coherency. Whether the instrument is traditional, conservative, or ultra-modern, the elements of the guitar need to work together. I love some of Kim Walker's guitars -- he nails the traditional look. Matsuda absolutely nails the modern look for me (as do Greenfield, Somogyi, Beauregard, Baranik, and a few others). Even though their guitars are very different, they look completely refined and coherent.

2) Design Proportions -- So many new builders get this wrong. The size of all the elements (purfling, rosette, bridge, headstock, etc...) need to work together. Just increasing or decreasing the bridge width 1/8" can make a HUGE difference.

4) Construction Quality -- The neck joint is a big one. I see a lot of poor joinery with this task. Clean, high-gloss fretwork. Perfectly mated binding/purfling with no jagged channel edges. Good miter work, especially on cutaways. Crisp joinery of the bridge to the top. Clean interiors that look professionally designed.

5) Well sculpted heel and volute. This is another big one for me. A lot of luthier built guitars have blobby transitions between the surfaces. The lines should be clean and elegant and smooth.


And then there is sound -- of course, it needs to be really, really good!!!

Depends what you mean by "utilitarian perspective". I believe a good builder can make significantly better sounding guitars than Martin and Taylor. If someone wishes to "use" a guitar, he will still be better "served" with a better sounding guitar.

_________________
Alain Moisan
Former full time builder of Acoustics, Classicals and Flamencos.
(Now building just for fun!)

I'm interested in the distinguishing elements that may be unique to the maker. Since my focus is on classicals, starting from the top and going down, I look at the headstock crest design and string ramps, the position of the twelfth wrt neck/body join, whether there is a split 19th or additional partial frets. I spend a fair amount of time looking at the rosette as well as the bridge, and I also like to check out the end graft.

Joe

Hi Alain,
By "utilitarian", I meant in the proper usage of the word (the strict adherence to dictionary definition). Colloquially speaking, the "best bang for your buck" perspective. A good Martin or Taylor are excellent guitars. They are well made and very functional. Intonation and playability can be dialed in beautifully.

Please note: I think classicals are a bit different. First of all, the players are more discriminating and absolutely require more from their instruments due to advanced technique for the music they play. For these reasons, there is a higher level of tonal competence needed/required.

For the VAST majority of the steel string guitar market - a good Taylor or Martin is more than sufficient considering the technique and type of music played. Also, the improvement in tone is significantly less noticeable as you move from really good factory guitar to the best steel string builders when compared to the move from cheap guitar to really good factory guitar. The law of diminishing returns really does set in at that point. FYI, I am knowledgeable about how high the bar has been raised by the best steel string builders in the world.


My point is simply this -- portraying the high-end handmade market requires acknowledgement that you are moving from "necessity" to "luxury". The same markets exist in every hobby - biking, motorcycles, kayaking, etc...

Additionally, luthiers build far less efficiently than factories -- we simply don't give the customers as good a deal as the factories can. However, when moving to the elite luthier market - you can gain improvement in tone, playability, customer service, and also artistic value because they are built by solo craftsmen/artisans often using high skill, old school techniques. I feel it does a disservice for builders to talk about the reason for buying a handmade guitar as being only about "tone". Let's be honest, a good percentage of players probably couldn't distinguish this difference.

What amazes me is that I seldom see big name stars playing handcrafted instruments. Clapton ( who probably knows a thing or two about guitars) is usually seen playing a Martin. Ditto for Leo Kottke. ( another guy who knows guitars) Then there is Springsteen and Jon Bon Jovi, who I recently saw playing Takamine. Bet they could afford a Samogyi. The only star performer I have seen playing a 'handcrafted guitar' is James Taylor playing Olsen guitars. Neil Young, Martin. Steve Stills, Martin. Norman Blake, Martin, but I believe he owns a John Arnold guitar.
In any event, I always judge a guitar by its sound and playability, although it's usually its appearance that first gets my attention. But I'm a minimalist when it comes to building my own guitars. Less is more. But I admire the intricate inlays some builders do. And I can certsinly appreciate the skill it requires to execute such work.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 2

_________________
Under Compensated Nut!

I guess I'm more player than builder, but I pick up a guitar hit a chord and either want to sit down and really check it out or put it down. Sound

That's probably because these players only require guitars that sound good plugged in. For example, Tommy Emmanuel's maton guitars blow me away when I hear them on stage, but their acoustic sound is mediocre. Also, they need them to be sturdy enough for touring, which a handmade guitar might not be.

_________________
"I am always doing that which I cannot do, in order that I may learn how to do it."
Pablo Picasso

https://www.facebook.com/FenskeGuitars

You forgot about endorsements....

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