-
Wouldn't the Bob Benedetto book be a good place to start for a luthier who doesn't have a lot of experience building Archtops? The thickness obviously will have to respect that actual piece of wood being used. I'd think that since Benedetto essentially is building an L-5, that it would be, really, the best place to start.
Also, wasn't Gibson using laminated tops in their electric L-5s in the 1950s?
Bob
-
12-18-2016 03:23 PM
-
No, but they did use laminated backs on the 1960s florentine-cutaway
Originally Posted by uburoibob
-L-5CES
-Byrdland
-Super 400CES
-
To the many well-reasoned responses to this thread I would simply add: congratulations on your own signature model!
'Tis consummation devoutly to be wish't....
-
Ah yes, that was it! Thanks for the correct info. Originally Posted by Hammertone
Bob
-
C74, I was going to say the same thing. Jorge, Very cool to have your own signature model! Congratulations! Originally Posted by citizenk74
To the many well-reasoned responses to this thread I would simply add: congratulations on your own signature model!
'Tis consummation devoutly to be wish't....
Ironically, I got an email from one of our fellow members earlier where he told about the distinct differences in tone between the 3 L5 Wes Montgomery guitars he owns. He also commented on the top carve. The thinnest one had the most bass. The thickest one had the most midrange.
My Gibson Johnny Smith is close to 4mm. My Heritage Johnny Smith is at 3mm. Both in the fHoles.
I don't have measurements for the L5 but I hope that helps a little!
Joe DLast edited by Max405; 12-19-2016 at 10:25 PM.
-
Congratulations Jorge! This is really cool. I totally see the objective of a thick top L5 style guitar. Nothing sounds as velvety and fat than this recipe.
Where do you want me to measure? In the f-hole (towards the upper bout or towards the lower bout or in the middle of the f-hole towards the rim or the center? ... I just don't know anything about how to take these measurements).
Cheers,
Frank
-
Thanks, Joe and Frank - it will probably be two signature models, let's see. We decided it a long time ago but other things have been in the way, it seems like now it will be finally made.
Those measurements are really helpful, Joe! Frank, if you could take both measurements that would be perfect but I don't want to give you much trouble - so whatever measurements you could take without taking a lot of time I would be very grateful, truly. And I agree, hard to beat a Gibson amplified sound!
Thanks everyone for all the help!
-
Does your friend have a digital thickness meter? I got one of these a couple years back, and it's been money well spent.
MAG-ic Probe Thickness Caliper
-
I'll ask him!
Meanwhile I got the L5CES plans and sent him, that tip was great - thanks, Lawson!
-
"No, but they did use laminated backs on the 1960s florentine-cutaway
-L-5CES
-Byrdland
-Super 400CES"
I am being told that of that list only the Super 400CES has the laminated back.
-
According to Adrian Ingram's book at least, the L5 CES started getting 1 piece laminated backs in 1961/2 and that continued until 1969 when they resumed with the 2-piece solid back. Most of these had the Florentine cutaway.
-
Sory Jorge,
i haven't managed to do it yet. Will try tomorrow!
cheers,
Frank
-
Frank, I have no hurry, it will still be a while before final decisions are made. I just like to have some time between information gathering and decision making, usually yields better results
-
Hi Jorge,
I finally came around to take these measurements. I took measurements around the upper f hole (facing the player).
I have a 2006 Hutchins L5 CES. It is built like a tank and almost Les Paul heavy. It has next to no acoustic tone but an absolute gorgeous amplified tone. Thick and silky, just as one wants to have it. Granted that I do not have precision tools, the tickness was 4 mm all around the f-hole but then the top rapidly got much thicker towards the rim. It felt like doubling in width. But that might be an illusion as I could not measure inside.
For comparison, my Heritage golden Eagle came in a 3 mm with a less pronounced increase of thickness towards the rim and the Heritage Johnny Smith, which is the acoustically most lifely, was at about 2.7mm with a barely recognizable increase of thickness towards the rim.
Merry X mas to everybody! This is a great crowd and it is fun to hang out here!
Cheers,
Frank
-
Wow Frank, that's brilliant - the measurements and the comparison to the Heritage! Many, many thanks.
A great Christmas to you and everyone else, too!
-
I stumbled on this old and (to me) very odd thread while looking for some "Gibson carving history" and thought it really needed closure.
What happened? It'd be nice to see pictures of the guitar. But I doubt it was built, at least by the "luthier" originally mentioned. But it's been long enough for the instrument to be completed by somebody, so can we see the results?
Had I seen the thread I'd seen it 6 months ago I would have added these thoughts:
1. As respectfully as I can possibly word this - How can a "luthier" build ANY guitar - much less an archtop - if he doesn't know how to measure top thickness? A caliper is a "guitar tech 101" tool that even part-time techs (like me) that either don't build or build a limited range of instruments use almost daily.
Calipers are essential for measuring neck profiles, making nuts, bridges and saddles, fitting tuning machines - a huge list - and for building virtually everything except hardware (including fretboards and tops/backs/sides of even flattop instruments). How does the "luthier" in question currently build anything at all? Is he assembling kits? Seriously, it seems impossible for him to be a "luthier" - so I'm extremely curious to see results.
2. "The Gibson archtop sound" will no longer exist with anti-feedback reinforcement. This is also basic tech knowledge I'd really like to know how the "luthier" approached this subject when it appeared he didn't know about it.
3. For "Gibson sound" with feedback reduction simply look at the ES-335 - i.e. a thinline, pressed top archtop with a center block. It's a sound that's a cross between an archtop and solid-body. Again, every tech on the planet knows this. And posts have been used in full-bodied archtop acoustic/electrics for decades (they're used in nearly every Gretsch archtop). I thought it very strange that the "idea" was coming from the OP and not from the "luthier".
So, to the OP - what happened? If a guitar (or more than one) was built please post pictures. If not - why? If you changed luthiers and/or the project is delayed, what's the status?
What types of instruments has the "luthier" built in the past - and from what? Has he done his own neck carving or bought "rough" (or simply unfinished) necks? Does he mate acoustic top & back halves himself or buy glued plates? Does he bend his own backs/sides? Or does he build solidbody electrics (if so, from raw materials, rough parts or kits?)?
"Luthier" is a term that used to define a person with extensive knowledge and skills, but is often being used nowadays for people who primarily assemble/fit/finish pre-made parts. Some may have specific craftsmanship skills, but not be a "luthier" in the traditional sense.
Part of why I am so curious about the final status of this project is I've built dozens of set and bolt-neck guitars, a few flattop guitars, archtop mandolins, do finish and aging work, and have performed extensive restorations on everything including upright basses; I know I could could build an archtop - but it'd be pretty lousy unless I got extremely lucky. I'm simply not a "luthier". I see so many areas of concern I can only see a "kit-type" project being done.
-
The guitar is not ready yet, I'll keep the reasons to myself.
He's a professional luthier, and a really good one - please don't question that.
I had a simple question, and many here were nice enough to help me. No need to keep the thread alive, I'll post pictures when the guitar is ready.
-
Silverface, welcome to the forum. Why don’t you hang back and get to know everyone for a while. You are awfully opinionated for someone who is not experienced building arch tops.
-
Thanks, Mike.
It will still be a while, but this guitar will come to live and the input received here was very helpful. Once more, thanks everyone for the help, some people really went out of their way to help me, it's much appreciated!
-
I just measured my modern L5CES at the back pickup cavity and was surprised that it was only 1/4" thick. It's a lively instrument. I have measured others that were almost 1/2". The bracing is pretty robust. I had a Heritage Super once that Was 1/2 " thick with heavy bracing that sounded stiff acoustically and electrically too. Your guy will now what to do with the wood he carves.
-
Thanks, guitarcarver!
-
A couple thoughts:
It is not just the thickness measured at different points of a top (e.g. center, recurve area near rims etc.) but the cross-grain stiffness and density of the actual spruce billet used and stiffness imparted by the braces that can vary by lower bout size, x-brace inclusion angle, cross section and taper along the brace length. A combination of differing attributes can yield a remarkably similar sonic result when orchestrated by one skilled in the art. Factories, out of the necessity of replication work with CNC, duplicators, jigs and fixtures to support replication around target dimensions and assumed average material properties. Luthiers can adjust variables on an individual instrument basis to achieve a desired result. Asking a luthier to build to dimension is handicapping them in my opinion.
This same thinking can be applied to ALL types of guitars and not just archtops.
-
The OP has done what he has done and used whatever information he needed or wanted. The guitar will be built or not built with those measurements and he may actually attain his tonal goal. For the rest of us, it is an interesting question whether you can dial in tone just by taking a few measurements.
I've been building for 18 years. It is not a full time job for me, so I don't want to imply I've built hundreds of guitars. But I have been around the craft and luthiers for a good while. I also have been a part of a unique lutherie program at our local collage for near as long. My observation is that tone is almost never achieved through math alone --especially through a few simple measurements. Wood is so variable in density, grain, stiffness, etc., that it really is a matter of flexing a top, tapping it, feeling it, and creating holistic assessments that take time and experience to refine.
Beyond that, I find that clients and even many luthiers lack sufficient exposure to different guitars to really know what tone they are looking for. That is totally understandable. Who can have the luxury of playing a dozen different high end hand crafted instruments?
Thanks to the school, participation in guitar shows, and an obsessive personality, I've been lucky to play many "identical" Martin D-28's (and endless copies from Collins to SCGC). By far this is the "tone" most clients seem to look for and most starting luthiers are chasing. After you play a few you realize just how much they actually vary in tone. Some are "tight", others "boomy". Yes, they are in the family of the same tone. But there is a lot of variability. All are being built with fairly rigid adherence to specs.
I've not had the luxury of playing dozens of L-5's. But I would be very surprised if they weren't at least as variable as the ubiquitous D-28. I have played dozens and dozens of student arch tops as carefully carved as close to Bob Benedetto's specs as possible. Some from the same billet of spruce. Many have been very nice instruments, but the variability in tone is HUGE. More so than the guitars that come out of the regular flat-top (classical and dreadnoughts) class.
And yet, people still talk about "that" Martin D-28 sound, or "that" Gibson tone.
So, for what it is worth, I think that there is only somewhat limited ability of a luthier to dial in tone through fixed specs. I think it is impossible to build two guitars that sound exactly the same. So I think it is a mistake to assume you can measure a Gibson (and assuming you even know what that "Gibson" sound is) and use those measurements to get a "duplicate" guitar . A good luthier is listening to their guitar as they are making it. Lightening the carve, thinning the bracing, loosening the recurve. Making holistic assessments from flexing and tapping. Even then you really are pushing the tone slightly in a direction.
It is almost like the guitar knows what it wants to sound like from the moment the tree was felled, and you are just encouraging it in one direction or another.
-
Those are good points, and I'm aware of them. We're working in generalizations and my generalization is that L5CES tend to have a smooth velvet tone and that part of it comes from a thick top - thinner tops, all things equal, tend to improve the acoustic liveness at the expense of the amplified sound. But, like all generalizations, it's dangerous and full of exceptions.
Also, sometimes it feels like, for some people, guitar making is a process where guitars magically unfold at the hands of a magician. You can make choices and direct your luthier beforehand, that's what I'm trying to do. It's not like you can change the top afterwards...
I've disliked the majority of "boutique" archtops I've played or heard, with some notable exceptions. A lot of luthiers just use very expensive solid woods and build the guitar with impressive acoustic volume - so impressive you wonder if it was made for Freddie Green or if a decent flattop wouldn't be a wiser choice. And in the end, you stick a "jazz" mini humbucker, buy a "jazz amp" that sounds like a PA and pray it sounds good I want my luthier to focus on amplified tone, hence my question...
-
Hi Everyone. Sorry to bring to life this old post.
I made an interesting experiment. Played side by side my good sounding Mr.Wu cooy against a beautiful L-5 Wesmo in Shibuya guitar store in tokyo called Walkin.
The amp was a polytone mini brute IV. Two tone control knobs ans reverb.
The strings gauge were the same 0.12.
My Mr Wu is an exact copy, craved solid spruce and carved maple rims and back 25.5 scale, exact rim depth and body shape. Even the pickup was the same: classic 57. TOM bridge.
So it was as good as possible comparison.
Results:
The gibson one was heavier and very low mid range focused, the acustic sound is useless, it doesnt project as my MrWu which is more bright and can be heard acousticlly much better.
The gibson amplfied sound was better by far... Thick and warm at the same time, i didnt want to roll off the trebles because they were so sweet.. And it has a very wide dynamic range. When played louder it gets snappy.. Very bright and poppy sound.
MrWu sounded very well, but strangely with less dynamic range and the sound is more thin (sounds like anemhic compared to the Gibson, like pickups were very underwounded)
There was also a Campellone there, amazing but it was an ebony bridge 24,75 scale, and with a floater. It can be compared, but as far as i could see it falls more into the category of great acoustic instruments, although you can probably ask Mr Campellone to build you an exact copy if the L-5 to nail that sound.
In my case I love the Wesmo sound, but i like a 3/4 nud width guitar.
Difficult.
I did a bad recording of them both that i can send to everyone who ask me for it.
Enviado desde mi LG-H870 mediante Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions