Collings guitars *LINK*

Re: Collings guitars

Thom D


>I was heavily into making guitars at one point. I have at least one classical and several kid's models in the near future.

Where this kind of discussion would mostly fit would be in a "Jigs" forum. I mostly worked in the spanish style, while most guys even guys building just one guitar worked in the Jigs and router mode. It's a very interesting mental exercise maximizing the efficiency of an assemnbly line process, and finding the maximum clever uses for a laminate trimer.

Re: Collings guitars

Thom D


>And the answer of how to do it better can usualy be found here, I built one of his sidebenders:

http://www.frets.com/FRETSPages/FieldTrips/CFox/cfox1.html

Jigs galore

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX


>Yeah, jigs and jigs, pretty cool though, thanks for the links.

I'm most interested in the finishes used. Why lacquer most of the time? For the smooth? And why not finish more guitars with varnish? What would shellac do with the sound?

Pam

Re: Jigs galore

Thom D


>Finish on guitars is a tension between cost of applying it, durability (which is mostly an issue for low quality quitars in other words you can use a very light finish like french polish on an expensive guitar meant for a discriminating user, but less so for a backpacking beater. And obviously the accoustic needs, which are not improved by the finish so less is more on the soundboard.

Varnish is heavy, yellow looks nice on some wood but not on spruce. Spray lacquer is actually accoustically wonderful though at least in the past it degraded in nasty ways after several decades, where french polish does not. There are some very cool modified french polishes that are water resistant, there are people using oil, mostly trueoil, crazy glue, epoxy. For factories, a lot of which are in California, EPA is a big factor mitigating against conventional spray lacquer unless you can aford the really expensive booths.

Basically I look at three parts of the guitar, finishing the rosewood, the neck, and the soundboard. The rosewoods needs a lot of filling surprisingly, the neck I like oiled, and the soundboard needs minimal weight. Fingerboard is raw ebony.

Instrument design is a big factor, like you can powder coat a steel string guitar designed for amplification it may have a very nice tone both pure accoustic and accoustic plugged in. Probably not a possibility with a classical and lower string tension.

Finish is 1000% more important on guitars than furniture. Better guitars look like jewelery. Bling

Re: Jigs galore

wilbur


>Actually, shellac is an ideal finish for guitars, as it is very thin and so won't interfere with the vibration of the guitar top. The problem is that it is not very resistant to water, which is a big problem if your are playing on stage under lights and sweating all over your guitar.

These days shellac is primarily used on high end classical guitars, and probably flamenco guitars. At the beginning of the 20th century, shellac was the primary finish used on guitars. The guitar industry as a whole made the move from shellac to spray lacquer in the 1920's.

Re: Jigs galore

Thom D


>If you mix a polymerising oil in with the shellac it doesn't watermark. There is a big renaisance in french polish these days, but it would be pointless in an amplified environment since the kind of guitar where that sort of difference is noticeable would feed back like a banshee. It's the whole package.

Re: Jigs galore

Todd Stock


>Love Collings - probably my favorite out of the factory-built guitars. Good write-up on Colling's archtops in 'Blue Guitar'.

Arguably the best finish for guitars is UV or MEKP cured polyester - fast cure, thinner than all but the best french polish job, harder than shellac or lacquer, sands beautifully, hard work to buff, and strong enough that bridges can be super glued directly to the finish. Almost all large factories except Martin use it. Hate it, but would use it if the customer asked for it (I'd send it out - steep learning curve and lots of special techniques/equipment).

Lacquer sprays well (so is not nearly as labor intensive as french polish), is easy to repair, and is fairly durable. If you are after the classic rich Martin or dry Gibson sounds, it's the default. Keeps settling for 30-50 years or so, then does the alligator. Turns amber brown over time, sort of like a heavy smoker's unused china set. Love it.

Shellac requires a skill set that takes some time to develop, but is the traditional finish for high-end classicals, and the best bet for conservator-quality restorations, as it's reversible. Lots of work, but worth it. If you don't mind touching up the finish every few years (or the shop-worn appearance), it's suitable for the life of a stell string guitar (bars, beer, cars, and teenage wannabees).

Varnish (Behlen's Rockhard or similar) is almost as durable as polyester, almost as hard as lacquer, can be sprayed and rubbed out, and attracts dust like a magnet. After years of marine finishing, not my fav, but the best bet for a travel guitar that might need some decent protection against a sudden shower.

The three spruce-top guitars pictured (D, OOO-12 and OO-12) just received vintage lacquer toner over clear epoxy pore filler - all need another 5-7 coats on back and sides, 3-4 on the top, and the usual month to harden prior to sanding and buffing. The 'Hog in the back was my first, and still looks pretty good considering all the places it's been.

Hand Tool Use in Making Guitars

Todd Stock


>Just a thought on guitars...there is far less hand tool work done by builders than might otherwise be suggested. While there is a good deal of hand trimming and fitting (bindings, braces, etc.), most luthiers - like wooden boat builders - are "get it done" folks, so power tools with custom jigs figure heavily into 'hand-built' custom guitars.

Not a bad thing, just not what most folks expect.

Re: Hand Tool Use in Making Guitars

Thom D


>Right you are. It's more than being a get it done kind of person, though once one starts to sell insturments that's certainly a factor. I think there is a real culture of non-woodwork. People want to build a guitar who have zero woodworking experience and it is a perfectly reasonable objective, but they get caught up in finding ways to do it that avoid any hand or conventional power tool work at all. It's a great project if you do know how to work wood rather simple and lots of fun.

Guitar making itself is far from simple. Getting to the point where you control the musical capability of your instruments is a very challenging objective. You can make a really nice guitar right away, but making the one you had in mind when you started or being able to craft it's sound is another level.

Re: Finish

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX


>Thanks for all the info, guys, very interesting stuff. So what would you say about an unfinished guitar? Burnished with, of course, Japanese planes? Maybe some areas would have to be filed rather than planed. Would this be a problem?

I've never attempted an acoustic guitar, or any other instrument for that matter, mainly because I'm not sure I have a good enough ear for tuning the shapes. But it would be fun to try.

Pam

Re: Finish

Dan Donaldson


>Not sure that I would want a guitar unfinished because it would be too susceptible to climate changes and handling dirt. It is a lot of fun to build an instrument. You don't necessarily have to have a great "ear" to build one that is at least decent. The basic dimensions have been pretty much been decided over time (some builders vary them, (they really do have to have the "ear" if they want a good one)but if you follow the dimensions in the plans, you should be OK.

One thing that I found when I was playing with guitars etc. There are many points where all of the sources seemed to agree. I figured that these were probably important and followed them closely. Other things, they all had their own ideas, so I figured that I could do pretty much what I wanted. It is nice to play something that you built, or hear someone else play it.

Re: Finish

Thom D


>You don't have to finish a guitar I guess but the wood used is pretty fragile. I did think of finishing one with Japanese planes and leaving it at that, the soundboard is certainly great quality wood.

One of the problems with guitars is that while some wacky stuff gets done the clientel is generally conservative. A lot of people go through an experimental stage, but then most of them converge on the classical forms after a while. The problem is that people like the instrument as it is and improvements are not what they are really after. I mean improvements like adjustible necks etc... have proved popular but a lot of people have tried to rationalize the sound, and it seems to destriy the personality people are after.

On tunning, A really wonderful instrument can be made on the first go by just following the huge depth of info out there. I find classical players have a specific sound in mind. It's not the same for everyone but it is narrow. You can make a bad instrument in steel string and run across a person who thinks it is exactly the sound they are after. I had an experience like that putting a fingerboard on a Samasen. The nut is unusual and there is a divot in the fingerboard that allows this nut not to buzz. That's what I figured it was there for, but when I recreated it, I left it out until I talked to the player. It made a drone like buzz that the player loved so he kept it. I'm not saying bad steel strings are the norm, far from it. But if you talk to luthiers who have tried to sell to classical players they find it more restrictive, by a few percent anyway.

To start with pay maximum attention to playability and a complete sound, no wolfnotes, then as you gain experience you will come up with preferences.

Re: Hand Tool Use in Making Guitars

Todd Stock


>Absolutely agree. Great insights.

Jim Olsen (one of the best of the current crop of high-end custom guitar makers...think customers like James Taylor, David Wilcox, etc.) is pretty candid about having experimented until he locked in the sound he wanted, then focused on how to produce as many guitars as possible of identical characteristics. The difference between an experienced luthier and a neophyte such as myself is knowing what will happen when an X brace angle gets closed from 103 degrees to 100.

One of these days...

Re: Finish

Todd Stock


>Some builders string things up in the raw to fine-tune the voicing of the instrument, then shoot for the thinnest, lightest finish possible to stay as close to that desired point as possible. At this stage in things, I'm going for protection first, thin coatings second, and appearance third.

Same tradeoffs with furniture.

Re: Finish

wilbur


>I'd be worried about the durability of an unfinished guitar. Unlike furniture, a guitar is going to be played and come into contact with skin, sweat, and dirt. The only exception that I can think of are ebony and rosewood fingerboards, which are left unfinished. But that's probably due to the nature of those woods, and not the fact that it's the fingerboard -- electric guitars with maple fingerboards are finished. I can't ever recall seeing a guitar with an unfinished neck or body.

Given how much I used to sweat on stage, I would guess an unfinished guitar would have a life span of about 2 years in my hands before neck or body warpage would set in.

I'm sure a really good Japanese plane would be a great help in prepping the guitar for finishing, but a finish would still be needed.

Wilbur, who has very little woodworking experience, but tons of guitar playing experience.

Re: Hand Tool Use in Making Guitars

Thom D


>Very cool guy, saw a seminar he did in Nashville quite a while back, when he was just breaking in his CNC machine. He was milling multiple perfect jig fixtures out of aluminum, and was asked whether at that point if he had to give up lutherie or cnc which it would be, and he was so grooving to the CNC he said he would choose it. His guitars were wonderful at that time and almost ten years has passed...

Re: Finish

Thom D


>The majority of expensive guitars never see a stage, and a good percentage aren't designed for it. Like you I would want a finish and don't think anythig good will come from not finishing it, though it might be fun to try. Suffice it to say I don't base my finishes on that scene in the country and western bar in the Blues Brothers, though I guess that kind of stuff happens. That's why they make Ovations!

Re: Finish

Thom D


>Most of the better finishes require applying the bridge after finishing, as you know. One thing I liked about french polish was that that wasn't encesarry, it could be done after the bridge was on. I like the trap doors for electronics and voicing.

Re: Finish

Todd Stock


>Absolutely - have done french polish repairs over some vintage lacquer, but I've yet to do a complete top with shellac, so I'll be asking for pointers.

I love the idea of the access panel - especially after starting the revoicing on my first OM. It would be nioe to have a joint about midway down my forearm...an access panel sounds better.

Re: Finish

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX


>Yeah, I see your (plural) points. I've also played a lot, but only acoustic plastic and steel strings, and I don't like the feel of a finish. I think it may make me sweat more than an unfinished surface. Also, I'm not planning to build for other people, just playing around for myself, see where it goes.

Thom, I'd guess the bridge is mounted after finishing because it can be moved around (if true, I'm sure you all know this). It would look like a poor job if it left an unfinished area when moved.

Pam

Re: Finish

Thom D


>It's a steel string thing though certainly classicals are done that way. They shoot the body, they usually make the neck as a separate part, then they bring them together, exactly how varies a bit. Then you can just do it with layout, but a lot of folks have a bridge jig that aligns the bridge to the 12th fret x2 + compensation, and that is where it goes. Consider the bracing is long done and the possition of that relative to the bridge is already fixed and interdependant.

They carefully scribe the outline of the bridge and use a hot iron to burn off the finish (there are other ways), once all the finish is removed They glue the bridge in place either with clamps in the soundhole or possibly a vacuum jig. The reason for doing this is that it is about the best way to get the bridge bonded to the guitar without any glue showing, and with the finish like a sheet of seamless glass.

It would be rare to move the bridge. It's not rare as a down the road repair. I moved one on my crap classical I learned on when i discovered it was totally uncompensated.

Someone mentioned a finish strong enough to mount a bridge on and at least as far as seamless and fast is concerned that sounds like a good deal.

String tension on a classical is about 100 pounds, and on a steel about 200. The steel has some anchoring structure so the weight bears less on the bridge. Anyway. The glue used is real important, because while many glues are strong, creep resistance is a little rarer. A standard is basic titebond glue. LMII luthiers white glue is good, and hide glue is aother option. Then there are various exotics.

Some good books

wilbur


>As Thom said, the wood under the bridge is bare, as the bridge needs to be glued to the top of the guitar. For archtop guitars, the bridge is held in place by string tension, as the strings are anchored by a tailpiece, and so the surface of an archtop guitar is completely finished without bare spots.

By the way, there's a good book on the construction of steel-string and classical guitars: Guitarmaking, by William R. Cumpiano and Jonathan D. Natelson. I've got this book, and it's a very good reference. There are many pictures documenting the steps in construction and some excellent mid-80's haircuts. :@)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0811806405/104-0092998-0791111?v=glance&n=283155

And just for completeness, there's also Robert Benedetto's book on archtop guitar construction, Making an Archtop Guitar:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1574240005/qid=1153311122/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-0092998-0791111?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Re: Some good books

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX


>Thanks, Wilbur, both those books have been in my Amazon wish list for several months. It is an archtop I'll be making when/if. Shades of Django and all that.

Pam

Re: Some good books

Thom D


>I thought Django played one of those Selmer guitars, looks like a bigmouth bass.

Seems to me like a lot of the lutherie books are now badly out of date. The one exception is probably the Bennedetto stuff on the archtop: Book, six videos, video, full size plans. And he is pretty much the leading luthier in the area.