Specifications for a custom built guitar

[rickshapiro]

I am looking at having a custom built small body archtop built. I would not mind some feedback on the specifications since there is an opportunity to make some changes.

Carved Spruce
Fingerboard Ebony
Neck Mahogany
Gotoh Delta 21:1
Nut width 1-11/16
Finger radius 12
Scale length 25
Frets 21
Frets Jumbo
2 Pickups (Golden Age Parsons)
2 3/8 depth and 14 inch body width.

I play mostly chord solos and single lines. I use a pick and do not finger-pick.

[marcwhy]

Looks like pretty standard stuff; some may suggest 25.5" scale, but I like 25". What hesitations do you have? Also, who is the builder?? He/she should be able to guide you as well, especially since he/she knows how the guitar will sound.

Have fun!

Marc

[rickshapiro]

Originally Posted by marcwhy

Looks like pretty standard stuff; some may suggest 25.5" scale, but I like 25". What hesitations do you have? Also, who is the builder?? He/she should be able to guide you as well, especially since he/she knows how the guitar will sound.

Have fun!

Marc

I am debating the scale, I have fairly short fingers which would lead me to a shorter scale but my fingers are also kind of stubby and I do not want to get bunched up playing chords at the higher frets. I think the 25 is a good compromise.

[JohnW400]

Here's some other stuff to think about too

Inlays or neo-classical?
Color
Binding - where and what type
Back and sides. I assume maple. Do you want highly figured woods?

and of course the ever important .....what is your budget?


This will determine what builders to look at

[mr. beaumont]

Any reason you're going carved top on a very small, relatively shallow box? Sounds to me like it would be primarily an electric guitar.

[rickshapiro]

Originally Posted by JohnW400

Here's some other stuff to think about too

Inlays or neo-classical?
Color
Binding - where and what type
Back and sides. I assume maple. Do you want highly figured woods?

and of course the ever important .....what is your budget?


This will determine what builders to look at

I going very simple but elegant. No inlays or binding. Dot markers on the side (like my classical). Yes figured maple on the sides. Brownish sunburst.

I am staying under the $5K mark.

[rickshapiro]

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

Any reason you're going carved top on a very small, relatively shallow box? Sounds to me like it would be primarily an electric guitar.

I actually went to a shop to look at a Cummings GCS-1 which by the way is spectacular. So I was looking at a smaller semi-hollow guitar. I came across a guitar with the specifications I mentioned in my OP and was amazed. When plugged in there was a great amount of air and organic woody sound to it, much like a full archtop. I really connected with it. The guitar had a floating center block that allowed me to really turn it up without getting feedback. It seemed like a great compromise between a full archtop and a semihollow. Yes it will be primarily an electric guitar. Anyway I decided that is what I want.

I could possible have him make a 15 rather then the 14. The 14 was really comfortable though. I think a 15 may break the balance when it comes to feedback. I know Sadowski is doing a 15 but it is laminated.

This guitar worked for me. Going to have it made.

[JohnW400]

Did you look here?

Campellone Guitars - EP Series


Mark will make you anything you want within reason.
No affiliation, just a satisfied customer.

[rickshapiro]

Originally Posted by JohnW400

Did you look here?

Campellone Guitars - EP Series


Mark will make you anything you want within reason.
No affiliation, just a satisfied customer.

Thank you so much. I have founder the builder. Not as famous as Campellone but I do believe he will do a great job.

[JohnW400]

So....Who's building it?

[Likeke]

Rick, before you get one built can I suggest you have a read of Robert Benedetto's book Making an Archtop Guitar? There are certain metrics that Robert found to be important based on his extensive experience. For example, he found that the optimum body depth to be 3" whether the lower bout be 16, 17 or 18". What you will learn from his book will help put you in the driver's seat as far as knowing what to expect from your builder. Here I'm assuming you want an archtop. Good Luck!

Rich Smith
Likeke Strings Luthier

[Jim Soloway]

Originally Posted by Likeke

Rick, before you get one built can I suggest you have a read of Robert Benedetto's book Making an Archtop Guitar? There are certain metrics that Robert found to be important based on his extensive experience. For example, he found that the optimum body depth to be 3" whether the lower bout be 16, 17 or 18". What you will learn from his book will help put you in the driver's seat as far as knowing what to expect from your builder. Here I'm assuming you want an archtop. Good Luck!

Rich Smith
Likeke Strings Luthier

I'm sure that there are some metrics by which a 3" depth may be optimum but different players have different needs. There are a lot players who find a 3" depth to be uncomfortable and impractical.

[rickshapiro]

It is interesting to compare Classical Guitars to Jazz Archtops. The position that one holds a modern classical guitar is pretty well prescribed (although there are slight variations) so the body depth and width are fairly uniform. With a Jazz guitar one can be standing, siting with the guitar on either knee, legs crossed, etcetera so I find it difficult from an ergonomic perspective to say 3" is optimum. As Jim mentioned players do have different needs.

[oldane]

Originally Posted by rickshapiro

I am debating the scale, I have fairly short fingers which would lead me to a shorter scale but my fingers are also kind of stubby and I do not want to get bunched up playing chords at the higher frets. I think the 25 is a good compromise.

I have short and stubby fingers. Despite this, I prefer a 25½" scale and 1 3/4" width fingerboard. I don't buy the need for a shorter scale or narrower neck for smaller hands. The 5th fret on a 24 3/4 scale guitar feels like the 6th fret on a 25½" scale guitar - and you play all over the neck in all keys on both, so how can that matter to any degree. As for neck width, people with small hands play classical guitars which have even wider necks. People with all hand sizes play double basses which have even fatter necks. It's a matter of getting used to it.

I agree with Mr. Beaumont on the top wood. With a small guitar of reduced depth and two top mounted PUs, I'd much prefer a laminated top to a solid carved spruce top. The carved top will not at all come to it's right, and a laminated top will be much stronger - less risk of cracks - and it will be more feed back resistant.

I have a 17" wide and 2½" deep laminated archtop which Tom Painter made for me last year. It's the most live and richly sounding electric guitar I have. It is not an acoustic guitar though. The acoustic sound is loud enough but far from refined. I play it acoustically when practicing, but not else. OTOH, a 14" or 15" width and 2 3/8" deep carved archtop with two set in pickups and harness will be a poor acoustic archtop anyway - maybe even poorer than my 17" laminated guitar with its single PU. The luthier will likely (at least he ought to) - as a structural precursion with all that hardware mounted in the top - carve the top thicker than a purely acoustic archtop and/or brace it more heavily.

As for body depth, the 3" is Bob Bendettos idea. I think it was Jimmy D'Aquisto who began that 3" tradition. Before that archtoips were mostly 3 1/4" deep, and they played nicely. Some of the Strombergs were 3½" deep, and they still sounded fine. It is true, though, that the deeper the body the greater the chance/risk of getting a soft and mushy sound, which may sound pleasing to the player but will not project so well to an audience farther away.

As a side remark, I'd like to add that you can likely find a ready made guitar with your specs (which is pretty much an accepted standard) from many makers, so the reason for having it custom built should be the wish to add your personal cosmetics on it. But you may also find luthiers who offers custom built instrument for less than some well known factory/semi-factory built guitars costs. For example, a Sadowsky is more expensive than Tom Painters custom made instruments (they are also richer decorated) though they are made with the same basic idea in mind.

[rickshapiro]

Originally Posted by oldane

I have short and stubby fingers. Despite this, I prefer a 25½" scale and 1 3/4" width fingerboard. I don't buy the need for a shorter scale or narrower neck for smaller hands. The 5th fret on a 24 3/4 scale guitar feels like the 6th fret on a 25½" scale guitar - and you play all over the neck in all keys on both, so how can that matter to any degree. As for neck width, people with small hands play classical guitars which have even wider necks. People with all hand sizes play double basses which have even fatter necks. It's a matter of getting used to it.

I agree with Mr. Beaumont on the top wood. With a small guitar of reduced depth and two top mounted PUs, I'd much prefer a laminated top to a solid carved spruce top. The carved top will not at all come to it's right, and a laminated top will be much stronger - less risk of cracks - and it will be more feed back resistant.

I have a 17" wide and 2½" deep laminated archtop which Tom Painter made for me last year. It's the most live and richly sounding electric guitar I have. It is not an acoustic guitar though. The acoustic sound is loud enough but far from refined. I play it acoustically when practicing, but not else. OTOH, a 14" or 15" width and 2 3/8" deep carved archtop with two set in pickups and harness will be a poor acoustic archtop anyway - maybe even poorer than my 17" laminated guitar with its single PU. The luthier will likely (at least he ought to) - as a structural precursion with all that hardware mounted in the top - carve the top thicker than a purely acoustic archtop and/or brace it more heavily.

As for body depth, the 3" is Bob Bendettos idea. I think it was Jimmy D'Aquisto who began that 3" tradition. Before that archtoips were mostly 3 1/4" deep, and they played nicely. Some of the Strombergs were 3½" deep, and they still sounded fine. It is true, though, that the deeper the body the greater the chance/risk of getting a soft and mushy sound, which may sound pleasing to the player but will not project so well to an audience farther away.

As a side remark, I'd like to add that you can likely find a ready made guitar with your specs (which is pretty much an accepted standard) from many makers, so the reason for having it custom built should be the wish to add your personal cosmetics on it. But you may also find luthiers who offers custom built instrument for less than some well known factory/semi-factory built guitars costs. For example, a Sadowsky is more expensive than Tom Painters custom made instruments (they are also richer decorated) though they are made with the same basic idea in mind.

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. What turned me on to the guitar specifications that I am looking at is I found a Victor Baker guitar in a shop near me. It was his 14 inch carved archtop. I was absolutely fantastic on many fronts, it had a very organic woody sound very similar to a larger archtop but was clear as a bell, every note was very focused and distinctive (talking plugged in here). The neck was perfect. It was one of those guitars that make you sound and feel like a better player. I was very much connected with it. It has some sort of block on the inside but not the full length. At that same shop I played a number of other guitars of similar size including a number of Benedettos none of which I liked at all.

I did not consider buying it at the shop because aesthetically from a color and ornamentation perspective it did not hit me right.

[marcwhy]

Originally Posted by rickshapiro

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. What turned me on to the guitar specifications that I am looking at is I found a Victor Baker guitar in a shop near me. It was his 14 inch carved archtop. I was absolutely fantastic on many fronts, it had a very organic woody sound very similar to a larger archtop but was clear as a bell, every note was very focused and distinctive (talking plugged in here). The neck was perfect. I was one of those guitars that make you sound and feel like a better player. I very much connected with it. It has some sort of block on the inside but not the full length. At that same shop I played a number of other guitars of similar size including a number of Benedettos none of which I liked at all.

I did not consider buying it at the shop because aesthetically from a color and ornamentation perspective it did not hit me right.

So, does that mean you're going with a Baker? Quit teasing us and tell ...

[rickshapiro]

Originally Posted by marcwhy

So, does that mean you're gong with a Baker? Quit teasing us and tell ...

Yes, I am trying to work out something with Victor.

[PTChristopher]

The specs. sound fine to me. In my opinion there is nothing at all wrong with a small bodied spruce top (making one myself at present).

Sure, the fashion has been for maple ply boxes in many sizes, and it is a tried and true formula. In the smallest sizes it does seem that when they sound like woody solid bodies it works, but when they sound hollow, there can be a hint of the cardboard box to the sound. One person's opinion - but maybe all small hollow axes do not have to be maple ply.

But since you are going to a luthier that did not just fall off a turnip truck and land in a pile of sitka spruce, surely you would do well to tell him what you want for sound and playability, and see what he suggests?

In any case, I definitely like the idea of non-ornate. If you are contemplating no binding, do note that spruce (or cedar, cypress, etc.) will collect dents on the edge of the guitars top. No problem per se, but there is something to be said for a rim of celluloid, ABS, or maple on the edge of the top.

Of course your builder will have the chops to maybe propose a unique alternate construction that lets you go no-binding without inviting dents so easily.

Good luck with this great-sounding project.

Chris

[Bluewyatt]

You may want to take a look at the Jimmy Foster Basin St. archtop I have listed on the Nashville craigslist. Bigger pictures and sound clips available.
Bat McGrath
Jimmy Foster Basin Street Archtop