-
This guitar was for sale on Reverb a few months back. I love the early, Gibson-inspired D'Angelicos and I drooled over the photos many times. Fortunately (unfortunately?), it sold before I could convince myself that I could swing it. However, with all the time I spent staring at it, I noticed something weird on the back. Check out the third and fourth pictures below. The center seam of the back doesn't line up with the center of the neck heel. What's going on there? I can't imagine that Mr. D'Angelico would've cut the two maple halves of the back to be uneven in size, but I also can't come up with a reason that he would make the neck heel offset like that.
Do you suspect this was a mistake by a still rather young, fallible, and up-and-coming luthier, or was this done on purpose? And if it was intended, why?
-
07-17-2015 10:13 AM
-
can't answer that, but I think he was asking 15K for it--big money for a guitar that was second from the bottom of the line.
never seen a Style A w/dot inlaid board and squared off end, that was usually confined to some of his cheaper 'special' guitars or the occasional A-1. but then again that's a very early example so maybe he upgraded the model later.
-
I have no idea and am by no means a D'Angelico connoisseur. It is very strange. I know it's not ideal because of lens distortion and how the guitar may be angled but just out of curiosity I tried "measuring" the two halves to see if anything stuck out. Found the opposite of what I expected: the bass half side seems larger. I'm in no way submitting this as evidence because just 1° turn of the body on camera could look like 1" difference in a photo.
Are there any more photos of the guitar straight on? Even in this photo it looks like the bass side is bigger ... but maybe I'm wanting to see that now.
The only other thing I can think of is that if the "point" of the neck joint is not symmetrical, or was wider at some point and the bass side of the neck joint got cut down possibly when it was made. Who has D'Angelico's number?
Maybe Rudy would know. Have you asked him?Last edited by spiral; 07-17-2015 at 12:11 PM.
-
I'm not sure what it actually sold for, but his last listing had it at $9,500, which seems to be more in line with reality. He also had this 1935 Excel that was gorgeous, but had a refinish and lot of repairs/updates done to it:
https://reverb.com/item/681272-john-...coustic-guitar
-
None of the above. It's a guitar. He built it. It makes a sound. Is it a good sound? Does it play well? Does it look like what it's supposed to look like? Is it as good as or better than the Gibson L-5 with which it competes? I think these are the questions that John D'Angelico considered when he built these guitars.
Originally Posted by backdrifter
... The center seam of the back doesn't line up with the center of the neck heel. ...
Do you suspect this was a mistake by a still rather young, fallible, and up-and-coming luthier, or was this done on purpose? And if it was intended, why?
-
There are a couple of things that could cause this and none of which affect anything other than cosmetics. When glueing the plates they can slide around while clamping. It looks like he used locating pins (like violin makers do) to keep that from happening. But if he didn't have everything lined up when he drilled the locating pin holes then the seem would be off. The other way could be that he shaped his neck heels before fitting the dovetail. On this neck he might have not got the heel shaped perpendicular to the plane of the fret board or as he was trying to bring the bass side down it forced the heel over. Neither situation will affect the playability or sound or longevity of the instrument.
Last edited by jasonc; 07-17-2015 at 12:22 PM.
-
I'd still love to have it! I especially like the headstock shape and inlays too.
-
Thanks for for all the comments!
Oh, me too! I'm certainly not implying that it's a flaw or a negative. But it is a curiosity. I've just never seen anything like it before and my curiosity built to a breaking point on this hot and slow summer day! Originally Posted by bananafist
-
@ Hammer: Could be that the NECK is off center toward the treble side, not the seam toward the bass side.
-
What Jason said, above. Originally Posted by Woody Sound
That plus the power of alcohol.
-
Here is a similar picture of my 1937 D'angelico Style A:
It is not 100 percent lined up either. John did everything by hand in those days. Plus 78 years have passed and things move over time.
It is an amazing sounding guitar that plays pretty well. It is not an issue for me in the least.
-
The archtop design and building per se are an offshoot of violin construction techniques.
D'Angelico was a violin maker "playing around" - and this 1935 piece of handicraft looks like a wonderful guitar!
Great violin makers own and amass acoustically promising sets of spruce and maple wedges - these people often select and watch over their tonewood stock for many years. Some of the sets may show minor flaws, like a little knot or imperfection or crack on one board only of the set, or the boards were cut asymmetrically (one board being larger than the other), or even not book-matched (definitely not the case here).
Several options exist for using such wedges:
- making a smaller instrument (for example a violin instead of a cello, or a 3/4-size violin instead of a 4/4, etc.)
- adding "wings" (flipped around waste strips from the same wedge)
- adding a central "contrast stripe" to the plates (a steel string guitar makers's favorite)
- leaving a little knot or imperfection as nature created it (if it was good enough for Stradivari... )
- shifting the center of the glue line out of the central axis to avoid applying the points above.
Obviously, the latter was done here, and, if the craftsmanship of the builder was great, this is not an imperfection or even careless work of the builder, but adds to the depth and individuality of the instrument! Also, it doesn't influence the beauty, structural integrity, let alone the sound, in a negative way.
It's hardly a result of te plates sliding around during the gluing procedure. We know from a video that shows D'Aquisto joining the belly and back boards that he "rubbed" them together with hot hide glue. This procedure lasts only 10 or 20 seconds, increases the adhesion ("tack") of the plate halves, until the HHG has gelled, and provides an instantly secure, non-slipping joint before the HHG has dried after hours: still a regular violin construction (master) technique. After the rubbing D'Aquisto used to secure the jointed boards with only two (!) clamps. The video shows that he didn't care much about any sliding around of the freshly glued boards: he carried the whole boards_clamps_device to the site where it could dry on one single clamp handle...
As D'Aquisto learnt the craft from his mentor D'Angelico, we can conclude that D'Angelico used the same violin technique.
Not sure about the neck position of this guitar on the pics here, but, personally, I wouldn't care about an off-center of the guitar neck - if it was done by a great guitar maker and by intention. Though this could look strange to the eyes of some guitar players, it could be one way for improving the playability of "Jumbo" archtop bodies...
A few luthiers try to implement (more original) violin makers' mindset among the guitar clientele - unfortunately, so far without resounding success. The great Alan Carruth put it in the following words:
"In the violin world... a few tool marks and some asymmetry is considered 'perfect', because that's what Strad[ivari] did. A fiddle that has been CNC'd to the nines with every part perfectly interchangeable with all of the others off that line would be (and is) considered to be just about worthless. A 'real' violin is, in part, a piece of art, and hence needs to be individual...
The steel string guitar... is a piece_of_design_. What counts is reproducing the design 'perfectly': the same every time. This is, in part, the outcome of the different history of the steel string guitar and the violin, but it has also to do with the fact that it's fairly easy to make a steel string guitar that sounds about as good as the best one, even on a production line, whereas violin makers still don't know how to reproduce the best violins...
We can always hope, too, that at some point a clientele will develop that sees the guitar as a Work of Art, rather than simply an industrial commodity, and then we can justify the time and effort we put in."Last edited by Ol' Fret; 07-18-2015 at 11:04 AM.
-
Interesting commentary...
One thing of note is that unlike violins and classical guitars whose origins are in handcrafted lutherie, both archtop and steel string flat top guitars have their origin in the industrial/factory age. Hence, expectations of replication and execution perfection in finish became the the "norm" by player/buyers.
Personally, signs that the master's hand has been there never bothers me. Because the other sonic and playability benefits far outweigh the cosmetic flaws. But, the player/buyer expectation continues to drive lutherie towards CNC perfection, thick glossy finishes etc. I also think the Internet itself being primarily a visual media, further drives the road to perfection.
My $.02
-
Yeah, I was going to post all of that as well (the above two posts) but I had to return some videos.
Let's also add that there's no reason why luthiers can't work with plates rough-carved to pretty good tolerances using CNC and ALSO make great-sounding instruments, with THIN finishes, that show signs of the master's hand. Some luthiers do exactly that.
A lot of what is delivered to consumers is related to expectations - very few players have had the opportunity to play really good acoustic archtop guitars and develop a direct understanding of what that actually means. I agree that the internet is primarily visual, and has contributed to the shortening of our attention spans, but it does allow someone who is interested and curious to dig deeper and, one hopes, be encouraged to chase the divine nimbus of the analogue sound experience, to find the community of like-minded people who can help with that ….oooh, look, that dog has a fluffy tail!Last edited by Hammertone; 07-18-2015 at 02:37 PM.
-
In the archtop guitar world it's hardly possible to manufacture carved plates in an economical way without the means of CNC or, at least, carving duplicators.
Economically-minded (small-scale) luthiers order their plates CNC'd, leave the outside of the plate as is for a 'perfect' looking, smooth (industrial) surface, and fine-carve the inner surface only.
Many violin makers (and players) disdain this look. Some of them still don't use sandpaper, just scrapers, knowing that acoustic instruments can sound nicer if the pores of the woods stay "open" (under the finish), i.e., are not clogged by sanding flour.
With regard to plate carving the old rule of thumb applies: 80% of the wood to be removed can be taken away in 20% of the time. What counts, however, is the fine-carving/graduation/recurving, the remaining 20% wood that require 80% of the time - done by hand only.
>> very few players have had the opportunity to play really good acoustic archtop guitars and develop a direct understanding of what that actually means <<
Sorry, if this sounds a bit condescending (isn't meant so in any case): + 1000!Last edited by Ol' Fret; 07-19-2015 at 03:45 AM.
-
I wasn't talking about it slipping when you glue the halves of the billet together. I was talking about it slipping when you glue the plates to the sides. The picture looks like he may have used locating pins which would have negated the slipping but could easily have been drilled when the plate wasn't lined up. D'Angelico's fit and finish was at times a little rough. However, he made instruments at a time when customers didn't expect a handmade instrument to look like it came out of a replicating computer like on Star Trek.
-
>> The picture looks like he may have used locating pins which would have negated the slipping but could easily have been drilled when the plate wasn't lined up. <<
This could be possible!
Watching the D'Aquisto video, their plate gluing procedure looks to be a little on the rough side, though hot hide glue requires a certain speed of processing. Violin makers use(d) these locating pins, but the holes are drilled before the gluing with HHG. This is the meaning of locating pins...
-
This video you speak of... Is it freely available?
-
http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Yorker.../dp/1463107056
https://www.academicvideostore.com/v...yorker-special
Steep prices - I paid about $50 years ago.Last edited by Ol' Fret; 07-19-2015 at 03:35 AM.
-
Ay caramba!
-
It sure is a nice guitar. I have always liked the Style A. Mister D sure was patterning off of the L5, there, wasn't he? Look at those f-holes, for goodness' sake.
-
Originally Posted by backdrifter
That guitar is now sold on ebay, no reserve..... Seller conveniently forgets to mention refinish, all new tuners / guard / bridge / tail, and replaced fingerboard..... 1937 John D'Angelico Sunburst Acoustic Excel Archtop Guitar | eBay
-
that's the original fingerboard and likely the tailpiece. I've seen quite a few of these early Excels w/these Grover tailpieces, some engraved D'Angelico, some not. Originally Posted by fws6
-
When it was for sale previously it said: Serial 1155. Replaced fingerboard, tuners, tailpiece, and pickguard. Refinished Originally Posted by wintermoon
-
if you look closely you can see some of the deco engraving on the pearl blocks that these '37's typically have. but it could be replaced/engraved, who knows Originally Posted by fws6
Last edited by wintermoon; 08-26-2015 at 09:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
Jimmy Smith at Newport ('72) Kenny Burrell on guitar
Today, 03:31 PM in The Players