Official Luthiers Forum!

When I was a new builder much of what I was trying to accomplish was derived from copying some of the better production guitars. I liked the feel of a Taylor neck so that's what I shot for. I like the sound of Martins so my bracing was similar.

More specifically because the "big guys" did it I thought that it had to be pretty OK and I was the Monkey seeing and doing here.

But.... one has to wonder what practices that we commonly see on production instruments are not the best way to go but we do it anyway.

That's what this thread is for, to discuss practices that we see on production instruments that may have migrated to Luthier built instruments in some cases that are likely not the best way to go. Please provide examples of things that you think qualify as best practices from production instruments that may not be best practices for Luthier built instruments?

To start it off I'll offer slotted bridge pins. Clearly with the advent of cheap, molded plastics the slotted pin eliminated the need for extra labor to slot the bridge, top, and bridge plate. Just as clearly slotted pins permit string balls to bear on the edges of the bridge pin holes in the bridge plate causing wear in time. Not good. Unslotted pins prevent this excessive wear from happening.

Let's hear some other examples of things that we see on production instruments that may not be the best way to go AND why?

TIA!

We need a Monkey emoticon too....

3/32" wide saddles

I'm sure we don't need to start a new thread on intonation -- I use a minimum of 1/8" but prefer 3/16" I have used 1/4", matter of fact my "lab guitar" has a 1/4" saddle.

I have more lets start with this one.

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

I do .100 saddles and may go to 1/8 .
Fretboard inlays . I hate the dots.

_________________
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

If I understand the question, we seek to identify practices which factory builders routinely engage in that small shop and custom builders should avoid, no?

Use of hot hide glue or fish glue in lieu of polyvinyl or aliphatic resin glues for joints which can reasonably be expected to require attention in the event of future mishap or mishandling.

After spending a few hours cleaning out old, dead glue on a 1973 Martin D-35 back brace repair and less than 20 minutes to prepare braces for re-glue on a 1953 Martin D-18, I can see the merits of the argument for drying versus curing glues made by others in the shop.

_________________
A constellation only takes shape when one maps the whole.
- Beth Brower

Recently discussed this on another forum, but I gave up on pre-shaped braces after my first effort (a kit). It seemed obvious to me that the resulting poorly fitted X-brace joint was not optimal and caused by someone looking to streamline their manufacturing processes.

I use wider saddle slots, too, but I don't follow how one size is cheaper/faster than another? Not saying it doesn't, I'm just curious.

_________________
George :-)

Just for the sake of being contrary, I'll offer a flip side to this - things small builders do just to be different can be just as foolish as doing things simply "because that's how it's always been done".

In my earlier building years I was tasked with building scores of prototypes for a very innovative company. The owner had a strong drive to be different and pursue novel ideas, and his designs took radical departures from tradition in many regards. Each batch was constructed to his plans, tested and reviewed for strengths and weaknesses, and the design revisited to address problems or make improvements. Many problems became apparent.

In addressing these problems in subsequent design changes, I had a rare first hand opportunity to witness an interesting trend. From an objective problem solving engineering view, even in the context of aiming to keep as far from traditional designs as possible, nearly every solution guided the design closer and closer toward conventional arrangements. Probably shouldn't be a surprise, but for me this was an invaluable opportunity to develop a rather gnostic understanding of how standard designs came to their current form, how they could have been independently arrived at by separate makers, and why they have endured as well as they have.

This is of course not to imply that engineering of instruments has reached any pinnacle. Far from it, I believe there are many improvements to be made, and an incredible rate of advancements and improvements is going on amoung many shops today. The key is that these improvements which actually do improve tend to tend to come from through understanding of, building upon, and moving incrementally beyond what has already been done, rather than casting tradition aside and blazing a new uncharted path just to be different.

There may be pioneers who set a new course out of nowhere and revolutionize the industry, but for every one which succeeds there are thousands who fail miserably. The ones who tend to have the best chance at success are those who take baby steps building upon what has already been learned, one focused improvement at a time with clear specific reasons.

So sometimes the monkey doing what they've seen is a critical stage of learning, and can be best to stick to traditional paths until they have gained enough experience and insight to begin picking out which features can be improved upon, and which have become the norm for good reason.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

I should add though, in the spirit of keeping with the original topic, I would suggest the worst offenders of repeating mistakes just because "that's how it's been done" is not among small builders, but rather by larger manufacturers sticking to terrible designs to maintain signature identity and appease demand of buyers wanting to relive history.

For example, Rickenbacker.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

17 degree Gibson Headstocks.

The continued use of regular fret wire when better is available. I switched to EVO after it came out and have not used regular wire since then. To me it works better and is much more resistant to wear.
Tom
hla
edn

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

And to add insult to injury, lots of big name companies don't even taper their pin holes. Straight through diameter holes.
Tom

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

Some great responses here and here is a summary list so far:

Slotted bridge pins
3/32nd saddles
fret board dots
poor glue choices for serviceability
pre-shaped braces, poor X intersection fit
ignoring tradition when it may not make sense to do so
17 degree G*bson headstocks
continued use of nickel silver fret wire
failure to fit pins (sounds like a crime.... (Your honor the defendant is charged with failure to fit pins...)

Good going ladies and gents!

Here's another one: The G string on Fender style bolt-on necks. Leo was a master of getting costs out of manufacturing with his iconic designs. However.... the G string on Fender style necks without a string tree or a special tuner post that rides low and slow can lack sufficient break angle. Just like with the original IBM PC along comes the clones of Fenders and sure enough they even copied the poor G string break angle....

OK let's hear some more ideas please? Thanks!

There are a lot of these, but it comes from a lack of understanding of "why", which is the plight of any beginner.

I wouldn't recommend hogging out a truss rod hole in a neck, but Gibson seems to think they don't have a reputation for breaking necks. If someone did a study I'm almost certain you could stare long enough at a Gibson neck and cause it to crack. 60 years and no one wants to fix it. I certainly wouldn't copy anything about a Gibson neck.

Simply mass production makers are not making single guitars, not selling single guitars, and not warrantying single guitars. It's a completely different problem than single or even small batch makers. The advent of the Internet has allowed many of us to see construction on a far broader scale, to ask questions on a far broader scale, and to understand why on a far deeper scale. Yet, there is no substitute for doing. Copying is one of the best forms of learning. As for innovation, most famous abstract artists have studied the classical great artists, and copied their works. Even Eddie Van Halen studied classical guitar.

There is a saying - there are as many ways to build a guitar as there are luthiers. To David's point, in the large strokes its pretty convergent. In the details ... and boy are there a lot of details ... there is plenty of variation.

Dovetail necks. An unnecessary complication but "traditional". Works great, but doesn't add to tone, doesn't improve repairability (there are two kinds of Martins - those with a neck reset, and those waiting to get one), doesn't reduce time to build. Wonderful on a neck reset when packed with Titebond. But there are buyers that actually think a guitar is worth more with a dovetail neck because that's how Martin does it. There are also makers that believe a dovetail joint represents their skill. If demonstrating skill, might I recommend not doing it with a shimmed dovetail that no one will see, and instead doing v-joint or blind v-joint head like Martin did at the turn of the century, cut by hand of course. In the classical guitar, same with spanish heel. Both dovetail and spanish heel are very sturdy construction techniques, but have fun slipping the heel on a classical next time you run into a neck problem.

Andy

.....made worse by using one piece necks.

Alex

_________________
"Indecision is the key to flexibility" .... Bumper sticker

Plastic binding........................wood forever...!!
Tom

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

Great post AND welcome to the OLF, Andy!!!

Not installing light gauge instead of mediums strings on entry level models or at least having the option at the dealers. When I was teaching, set up and changing string gauge was the first priority. A difficult to play guitar is one that will likely not get played. And this goes along with a new nut with wider string spacing I mentioned above.

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

Hey Tom and Happy 2016 to ya my friend.

Not sure if I would include genuine, imitation pl*stic bindings into the category of worst practices from the major producers that we endlessly toiling which sharp chisel in hand by candlelight individual Luthiers are also proliferating.

Sure I'm no fan of pl*stic bindings and never built even a single guitar with them. However.... for the intended purpose of bindings, to take a blow on an edge and perhaps minimize damage pl*stic seems to work pretty well.

Wood sure looks better IMO too but beyond the ascetic not sure why wood is more functional.

We could split hairs too and divide this one into two categories considering which iteration of pl*stic or Pl*stic-like bindings do we speak of. Traditional nitro bindings (rarely available these days) that shrink over time and out around 100 years flake away to nothing or today's pl*stic bindings without a lot of decades long history as to what they will do in time.

Anyway I would put pl*stic bindings into more of a personal preference thing category.

yawn...........

What!!! No 17 degree headstock! I think that's all I've used on paddle heads. I wouldn't think less would be better. More?

Dots are bad? Unmarked is better? I always thought dots were for the people you play with.

We have the wherewithal, and the over whelming evidence from countless makers, that great sounding guitars can be made using modern neck joint designs. Using these designs along with modern fasteners is actually a public service especially on instruments in mid and lower priced categories. How long does it take to re-set a bolt on versus a full DT? And of course the $$$ to have the repairs done.

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

I think John's position is that dots are a faster, cheaper, less skillful alternative to intricate inlay work. I like the simple design aesthetic of dots myself, but can see that they were likely introduced solely as a means of speeding production.

_________________
George :-)

I'm toying with the idea of a one piece neck. I was about to crack the old Somagyi book open and do some reading but since you brought it up- is a scarf joint superior to a one piece neck and what considerations do you need to account for when using a one piece neck. I liked the idea of the aesthetics of a one-piece neck but if it's more likely to be problematic I'll forgo it.

Solid-body electric "tonewoods".
Nothing wrong with mahogany, maple, alder, and ash, but there are other woods that are perfectly good choices.

_________________
wah
Wah-wah-wah-wah
Wah

Those pesky ultra mirror flat unnatural thorn in the side gloss finishes! #allfinishesmatter #toomanyfumesicantbreath

_________________
Pat

Not getting the wood/tang/slot size right and not gluing frets down.

A lot of instruments would be functional but the ball gets dropped at fretwork.
Fret ends need to stay down and bridges need to stay on. Seems simple but...................

I'll throw in nuts finished in place. Why copy that?

+1 on the ridiculous break angle on Fenders. A lot of players have no idea how much string vibration is sneaking back to the tuner posts

And ski jump necks on electrics. Talk about a problem that goes on an on.
And............
And...........


Great Idea for a thread.
A list of things not to do, especially if distilled down to unanimous agreement. Could really up everyone's game.