Official Luthiers Forum!

Hesh, I've always wondered about the Sons of Somogyi and the big man himself. They finish their guitars with necks attached so they get that seamless look between the back and bottom of the heal.... I've never seen their neck attach system, I do know they use a rather large headblock and with the added cutaway to 99% of what they build, coupled with a shorter scale length (most are 25" If I'm correct) I'm wondering if all the design features have brought them to believe their instruments will never need a neck reset.....?

Bruce & Matt Petros do the same....attaching the neck before finish that is.

That's a bunch of big name builders......

_________________
My Facebook Guitar Page

"There's really no wrong way, as long as the results are what's desired." Charles Fox

"We have to constantly remind ourselves what we're doing....No Luthier is putting a man on the moon!" Harry Fleishman

"Generosity is always different in the eye of the person who didn't receive anything, but who wanted some." Waddy Thomson

I don't think these have been mentioned:

#1 Minimalist neck blocks with no slipper foot or extension under the fingerboard. Carrying the reinforcement for neck rotation forward towards a major brace or two really cuts down on the need for neck resets. (This requires a neck block with the grain oriented in line with the neck, or alternatively, a built-up neck block--built up with a waterproof, heat resistant glue, such as Titebond III, or resorcinol if you're doing a dovetail joint.)

#2 Thin fingerboards. These compound the issue of the tiny neck block, and impair playability on the higher frets.

Had to fix one of these beauties yet Eric?

Alain--controlling humidity while you're building is absolutely crucial. (That's easy for me to say. I live in a very forgiving climate.) Don't blame it on the weather. However you accomplish it, you have to control the humidity in your building area. That can be a closet with vapor barriers, insulation, and AC running full-time. If you build in high or very low humidity, your guitars will self-destruct. The problems won't be subtle. There's a long history of builders who tried to ignore this.

Ouch. No I can't say I have.

I just did. Guitar got dropped and the back separated where it was joined to the rim and I thought the head block. Whoops a champferd head block. Who's great idea was that?

_________________
It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you do know that's wrong.

I have. More than once. Actually more problems from owers over humidifying than under. A high output Oasis in the Soundhole and a couple of soap dishes in the case when they have a furnace humidifier and it's 40% in the house. I measured one case at 60% and I build at 40%.

Anyone else seen that.

_________________
It's not what you don't know that hurts you, it's what you do know that's wrong.

They use a permanently joined neck (glued and pinned mortise and tenon), so if it does ever need reset, it will be via the heel slip method. I do the same, but use a true integral neck rather than the M&T, because honestly that seems like the worst of both worlds... have to do the work of cutting and fitting the neck joint, but can't separate it later. Integral is much easier for me, which is one of the reasons I use it. Several other things I do, such as ultra-thin French polish finish, hide glue, and often no back binding, all make the heel slip procedure relatively painless.

I wrote a huge spiel on upper bout structure/neck resets here, which largely applies to the Somogyi style.

Don't know Rod since I'm not a son of Somogyi if there is any effort to engineer less reliance on neck resets in the future. I've never heard that one before either.

Finish with the neck on was done in my case because the finisher that I used for those guitars, Tony Ferguson at least at that time preferred to finish with the necks on. And of course back then I didn't understand the considerations necessary for future serviceability either. Finishing with neck on and belaying neck resets are two different issues other than the later is more of a pain if the former was not considered first...

I've never heard anyone claim that their instruments are neck reset proof if you have that would be a very interesting discussion and perhaps start a thread on the topic? Thanks.

And so do just about all the Asian manufactures -- mainly so that gap filler and and poor workmanship can be concealed. And many also spray after the bridge is attached as well, I don't think that's a good idea.

Perhaps this is a live and learn proposition regarding steel string guitars. Now with traditional classical's and steel string guitars with Spanish heel construction -- there is no choice.

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

Here's another one: Only a drop of glue is needed to keep a well fitted nut in place.... IME major manufacturers understand this but smaller builders at times don't. If you fit the nut well it will even kind of sort of.... snap into place and the friction fit combined with that drop of an appropriate glue will get it done.

How about the practice of not including any mechanical attachment like bolts, screws, pins etc, to supplement the glue holding the bridge in place. Using only glue seems traditional and aesthetic but not the most structurally sound.
Any good reasons to use glue only (assuming the additional support still allows removal of required).
Dave

I would vote bridge bolts at close to #1 on the list....

I have seen a LOT of guitars with bridges pulled off - and the bolts only maybe help slow down the speed at which it tears loose... They do nothing for the propensity to separate..... and when they do - they rip huge holes in the top.....

In my own analysis/evaluation - the bridge bolts are mostly not for structure, but rather for voicing (Notice how they never use big, wide washers - but rather longish heavy brass bolts and screws about 1" longer than needed)... They are a way to "Add some bass" to a massively overbuilt and ultra-treble balanced guitar by killing some of the trebles... Bridge bolts are probably the main reason that most "Budget" cedar topped guitars don't really sound that good....

My solution is to simply match the curve of the top to the bottom of the bridge and glue just like any other brace on the top.... Then - the wings aren't trying to pull themselves loose from the get-go....

Thanks

Yes! Hey Dave. The goal is not just to hold the bridge on but the goal also includes creating a responsive guitar. Where the bridge is located is some of the most valuable real estate on the entire guitar and uber sensitive to changes in mass. Now it can go either way at times but adding mass in this critical area as nuts and bolts will do is not always a good thing. On a heavily built instrument it seems to matter less than a lightly built instrument in terms of responsiveness and there are not constants here, every guitar is different.

Nonetheless unneeded mass in this critical area is frowned upon in the trade. Besides HHG used as it wishes to be used will keep a bridge on for decades if the instrument is cared for. No bolts required.

I seem to remember a post where it was mentioned that secondary bolts or pins do not prevent glue line failure. Perhaps I imagined that?

Let us not forget that Gibson actually did use "screw on" bridges on some models -- and they were made of lovely wood grain plastic! Hesh you must see those from time to time.

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

Hey Ken ... talk about contact patch! lol ... at least that's better than the onslaught of modern guitars I see in the shop with lifting bridges, where a thick poly top was sprayed, then glue was slathered in the bare bridge "pit" and a bridge then clamped (with no chamfer of course) so as to ensure that there is near zero wood-to-wood contact in the patch. The sheer characteristics of glue are universally well-known ... and well, let's just say that for water-based glues one needs to learn how emulsions work, and for epoxy and PU ... well ... blech (and their sheer characteristics are poor, as well)

Andy

I'll add the general idea that....."The more expensive the wood, the better the guitar will sound"
Sure there are structural concerns with quarter sawn wood and even grain, and some of those grain figures are so gorgeous. But that's no guarantee of great tone.

Hey Ken! Yep we see em frequently and Dave made a YouTube video of the pl*stic bridge replacement that gets tons of hits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgkcA9ikHFQ

We also get calls monthly of folks who want to send these to us to do the replacement but we won't accept shipped in work but usually try to suggest someone in their area.

Got one on the bench in front of me this very am Ken. Let's not forget the horror when combined w/ a Spruce plate.
4 bolts wasn't enough. Maybe a 5th would do it.

Sheesh David that looks almost good enough to be a G*bson...... What were they thinking.....

Don't get me wrong I'm a fan of old G*bsons.... usually....

No doubt seeking superior tone!

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

I don't even understand what I'm looking at here. Is the headblock chamfered and then a wedge is added to un-chamfer it? Why would anyone do that?

The wedge is the repair so I don't have to do it again the next week.

Maybe the chamfered block is a fusible link to prevent headstock breaks.

I would like to put some in a ziplock and send them to Nazerith w/ a note saying," I think you forgot these".

If I remember, 18* wedge w/25' dish sand on one side, in case anyone gets one.(and they will)

First off, this is a fascinating thread. I am constantly wondering why some small builders make the choices they make. One lens through which to view those choices is the "that's what the customer wants" viewpoint. Another is the "sticking with traditional designs" viewpoint, which overlaps the customer desire aspect. The opposite is the "I want to set myself apart from the pack" viewpoint. These, and several others, are all valid considerations. How you come out on the specific choices can vary greatly, however.

Here is something that I, personally, see as a "don't try to follow the factories" decision for a small builder: finish material and application process. I see the factories having the upper hand on the application processes and the ability to handle dangerous finishing materials without issues. I think small builders should not be spraying nitro in their basement shops, for instance. Moreover, why try to emulate the aspects of factory guitars that were borne of the necessity of using mass production processes? You build guitars by hand; embrace the tinkerer aspect of that and use a finish material and process that a player can't normally buy on a factory guitar. To me, setting yourself apart from the Martins and Taylors, but in a good way, is pretty important. Otherwise, you are building wannabes. Just my opinion.