Benedetto Bravo V.S. Sadowsky SS-15

**rictele** · 04-04-2011, 05:38 AM

hi all, i am looking for a decent archtop guitar and narrow down to either Benedetto Bravo and Sadowsky SS-15(or 17)...could anyone of you give me some comments on both guitar? i mean your point of view!
thx a lot, ric

**NiAg** · 04-04-2011, 08:40 AM

Love the Bravo. I wish the neck was slightly thicker, but not a big deal. I consider it more comparable to the Sadowsky Jim Hall, with the Hall being slightly more consistent from note to note at the slight expense of some sonic character - in my opinion.

The SS-15 is arguably taking the maple hollowbody down a size from even the Bruno. I liked the Bruno very much (likewise the bambino Deluxe), but have not played an SS-15.

The 15 inch (and smaller) guitars are so small that I can not play seated without a strap holding them up off my leg. You may find them to fit you differently.

I like the idea of the SS-15, but I loved the sound of the Collings CL Jazz. But the CL Jazz is really priced for dentist-collectors. I'd be too worried about the inevitable dings and wear on such a costly guitar. So I'm making a 15" with a routed mahogany body and carved spruce top.

In my opinion, you'd do well to try a Bravo and a Bambino Deluxe (which dealers will still have in stock for a while anyway), then decide if something as small as the SS 15 (thinner than the Bambino) could work for you.

The Sadowsky frets will likely be slightly taller than the Benedetto frets.

**rictele** · 04-04-2011, 11:10 AM

thanks NiAg, yes, i do have bambino standard for a long time, it is a gorgeous guitar, and i love it so much, that's why i am thinking to get one more benedetto, but so many people recommend me to get a Sadowsky; unluckily, i don't have a chance to try a ss-17, so don't know the difference between both guitars.
thanks for your comment, i might look for a ss17 to see the difference betweeen bravo and ss17,
thx

**Bill C** · 04-04-2011, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by rictele

thanks NiAg, yes, i do have bambino standard for a long time, it is a gorgeous guitar, and i love it so much, that's why i am thinking to get one more benedetto, but so many people recommend me to get a Sadowsky; unluckily, i don't have a chance to try a ss-17, so don't know the difference between both guitars.
thanks for your comment, i might look for a ss17 to see the difference betweeen bravo and ss17,
thx

do you mean SS-15 or LS-17? 15" and 17" bodies respectively ...

**rictele** · 04-04-2011, 12:14 PM

yes, sorry it should be LS17, thx

**NiAg** · 04-04-2011, 12:16 PM

The LS 17 has a 25.5" scale and of course a significantly bigger body.

But I am lost a little in your question.

If you want a bigger box with open F-holes, then the Bravo, Jim Hall, and LS-17 are all interesting choices. The SS-15 looks great, but may likely sound quite similar to your Bambino despite the difference in depth.

The scale lengths are different, so that is a consideration.

The Bravo has a three-ply top with the top layer being spruce over two thicker layers of maple.

Nitrocellulose on the Bravo, if that matters.

Nut width is another difference vs. your Bambino.

Distribution is nearly interesting, with Benedetto now selling the "Pro-Line" directly, while still sending the "Flagship Line" through dealers (as well as direct sales).

**rictele** · 04-05-2011, 07:02 AM

sorry for the confusion.
my options are narrowed down to Sadowsky Jim Hall and Benedetto Bravo, they are both 16". could you share your point of view? and does it really matter if the Jim hall is made in Japan? thx

**Bill C** · 04-05-2011, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by rictele

sorry for the confusion.
my options are narrowed down to Sadowsky Jim Hall and Benedetto Bravo, they are both 16". could you share your point of view? and does it really matter if the Jim hall is made in Japan? thx

I've not played a Bravo but I have played two Jim Halls. In both cases - in my opinion - excellent sound, playability, build quality and setup.

**NiAg** · 04-05-2011, 11:09 AM

Cut and Paste:

>>> Love the Bravo. I wish the neck was slightly thicker, but not a big deal. I consider it more comparable to the Sadowsky Jim Hall, with the Hall being slightly more consistent from note to note at the slight expense of some sonic character - in my opinion.

>>> The Bravo has a three-ply top with the top layer being spruce over two thicker layers of maple. [vs. all maple on the Hall.]

>>> Nitrocellulose on the Bravo, if that matters. [vs. poly on the Hall]

>>> The Sadowsky frets will likely be slightly taller than the Benedetto frets. [roughly 1.0 mm on the Benedetto and 1.25mm on the Sadowsky - but call the manufacturer to confirm on a specific guitar]

**Bill C** · 04-05-2011, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by NiAg

Cut and Paste:

>>> Nitrocellulose on the Bravo, if that matters. [vs. poly on the Hall]

the Jim Hall finish is nitro to the best of my knowledge

**NiAg** · 04-05-2011, 12:55 PM

Hi Bill,

Thanks for the heads-up on this. The finish on the couple that I have played felt overwhelmingly like the "poly" used on many Terada-built guitars. Not silly-thick at all, rather a very well done "poly" (as they say).

But indeed I did not do any conclusive test (under the truss rod cover or elsewhere hidden), so it is only my hands-on opinion that they are a "poly"[urethane] finish.

I would be perfectly happy with the finish on either the Hall or the Bravo - although I do find them to be different from each other.

**jzucker** · 04-05-2011, 01:20 PM

all the sadowskys are finished in nitro

**NiAg** · 04-05-2011, 02:03 PM

EDIT:

Deleted any involvement in web-gasbag style debate. Thanks.

**jzucker** · 04-05-2011, 02:27 PM

the finish on "japanese archtops in general" has nothing to do with the sadowsky. The country of japan does not have a "standard" finish and as a matter of fact, the daquisto jazzline is poly whereas the sadowsky guitar is nitro even though they are both made by Aria

**NiAg** · 04-05-2011, 04:29 PM

EDIT:

Deleted any involvement in web-gasbag style debate. Thanks.

**NSJ** · 04-05-2011, 04:42 PM

a poly finish kills the acoustic tone of the instrument

My Jim Hall, despite being a plywood laminate, has a fantastic acoustic tone!

What does that tell you????

**NiAg** · 04-05-2011, 04:48 PM

EDIT:

Deleted any involvement in web-gasbag style debate. Thanks.

**jzucker** · 04-05-2011, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by NSJ

a poly finish kills the acoustic tone of the instrument

Nope, that's folklore. My Ibanez Benson and Metheny sound fantastic are are poly. Poly actually allows the wood to breath more than nitro

**jzucker** · 04-05-2011, 05:01 PM

Here's a link to where Roger states that his Jim Hall is nitro:

rec.music.makers.guitar.jazz | Google Groups

**NiAg** · 04-05-2011, 05:01 PM

EDIT:

Deleted any involvement in web-gasbag style debate. Thanks.

**NSJ** · 04-05-2011, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by jzucker

Nope, that's folklore. My Ibanez Benson and Metheny sound fantastic are are poly. Poly actually allows the wood to breath more than nitro

Interesting--I just assumed that they just slab it on and the sheer density and amount prevents the wood from expanding and contracting--although this quality is really for solid tone woods, no? Bensons 175s Jim Halls are plywood.

If anyone has any definitive articles on poly vs nitro, I'd love to read it. someone here once said that the 52 reissue Teles were a nitro finish with poly like additions. Still not sure what that means.

**NiAg** · 04-05-2011, 05:14 PM

>>> any definitive articles on poly vs nitro

In my opinion this is one of the most absurdly beaten to death issues in luthio-dom.

"Poly" and "Nitro" say little to nothing about the thickness, density, porousness, or hardness of the finish.

There are Nitro formulas that are much softer than many polyurethane finishes. There are Nitro formulas that are much harder than many polyurethane finishes. "Poly"ester is also called "Poly", yet has nothing of note in common with a urethane finish.

In my opinion, it is a mistake to try to characterize any particular finish as wondrous or unsuitable. You can make a great guitar with many different finishes, and you can goof one up with the same variety of finishes.

A very modern UV-cured Polyurethane can be applied on a very fine guitar with great results. It happens.

A nitrocellulose lacquer finish can be treated to avoid checking and become sticky, soft, and audibly problematic. It is done daily.

All in my opinion. (Except for the Sadowsky part, which is easily verified via the Sadowsky company. It would be possibly interesting to find out why in 2003 they identified the finish as nitrocellulose, yet now say otherwise. I wonder if inevitable checking was part of the decision?)

**NiAg** · 04-05-2011, 05:23 PM

Gents,

I think I'll step away from any classic web-silly guitar issues.

I think that the Sadowsky archtop line is fantastic and that anyone buying one would be extremely happy with the instrument.

Likewise, I love the Benedetto Bravo - and it is my favorite guitar in my modest stable.

I really want to stay out of the absurd mythology of many guitar online debates. So best of luck and enjoy them Jazz guitars.

Rictele - You would be hard-pressed to go wrong with either the Bravo or the Jim Hall. They will both play and sound great.

**jzucker** · 04-05-2011, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by NiAg

Oh my.

EDIT: The oh my was in response to: >>> Poly actually allows the wood to breath more than nitro

Thanks for the link on the Sadowsky question.

I'll buy a beer if you call Sadowsky and ask. I suggest that it may modify the outlook on this.

I don't need a dollar. I'm a sadowsky endorser and I talked to Roger directly about this in addition to quoting Roger in the link I posted.

**jzucker** · 04-05-2011, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by NiAg

>>> any definitive articles on poly vs nitro

In my opinion this is one of the most absurdly beaten to death issues in luthio-dom.

"Poly" and "Nitro" say little to nothing about the thickness, density, porousness, or hardness of the finish.

There are Nitro formulas that are much softer than many polyurethane finishes. There are Nitro formulas that are much harder than many polyurethane finishes. "Poly"ester is also called "Poly", yet has nothing of note in common with a urethane finish.

In my opinion, it is a mistake to try to characterize any particular finish as wondrous or unsuitable. You can make a great guitar with many different finishes, and you can goof one up with the same variety of finishes.

A very modern UV-cured Polyurethane can be applied on a very fine guitar with great results. It happens.

A nitrocellulose lacquer finish can be treated to avoid checking and become sticky, soft, and audibly problematic. It is done daily.

All in my opinion. (Except for the Sadowsky part, which is easily verified via the Sadowsky company. It would be possibly interesting to find out why in 2003 they identified the finish as nitrocellulose, yet now say otherwise. I wonder if inevitable checking was part of the decision?)

Inevitable checking? I have gibsons that are 40 years old with no checking. And you're right that the lacquers that are used on guitars today are extremely hard and unlike the lacquers used in guitars that are 40-50 years old.

Perhaps sadowsky switched to a poly finish on those guitars. I notice that on his basses, the necks are finished in nitro but the bodies are now finished in poly. This is a change from earlier so perhaps you are right.