Kay Archtop Models

[SantiSan]

I got around to removing tuners and found two patent #'s on bottom of mounting plate: 2132792, 2356766. These patent are traceable to Kluson in 1938 & 1944 respectively. So mine are Kluson's and manufactured after 1944. Does anyone have a 195 or 1956 catalog that shows what tuner was used? I did find extra screw holes (that are not a Kluson pattern) under the tuners which suggests these may be the third set of tuners on this guitar?? This could account for an amateurish installation of the last set??

PDF's of the patent's can be found on line:




Thanks to all who provided inciteful, helpful and interesting related information.

[Dennis D]

Scott's does his 'remanufacturing' guitar work successfully for a considerable time now. Some thoughts:

Though flattop guitars are not quite my interest, I'm convinced that the kind of and care used for bracing can be essential for a flattop's sound quality. It's quite plausible, IMO, that after remanufacturing, a cheap Kay or Harmony flattop could match up to a valuable Martin or Larson. The most important point is that guitars regarded as cheapos almost always don't get the same TLC (string set-up, refretting, neck resetting) that a more valuable guitar (i.e., valuable in terms of bucks) is expected to get from the beginning. It just depends on the expectations of the owners / players.

I'm not sure how much remanufacturing, or set-up, or TLC anyone could ever do, that'd transform a Harmony or Kay into a Martin or Larson. If that's true, there are still a boatload of old Kay's and Harmonys in attics just waiting to become pre-war Martins.

I mean what does he charge and where is he ? I see five hundred dollar Harmonys all the time - -if he can make them sound like a $20,000. Martin, wow !

You know the expression: " You can't make a silk purse - -

MHO

[Ol' Fret]

I just bought a k-40 like the one you just showed above. (1940-41) I have been googling my brain numb but was only able to find 2 or so pictures and no information about them. I plan on restoring it to be a living room player but I don't know if I should make any changes , such as a p90 and color change , if it is kinda low production . Anybody know anything about it or have any thoughts ?

Sorry, I have no additional information on these war-time K-40s! Watching the headstocks it seems they were the fancier predecessors of the post-war K-40s. The shape of the pickguard can be deduced from the shadow on the top:




The idea of putting a P90 onto a Kay could be false, unless you're willing to cut the tonebars and still struggle with the string clearance. Please check before hacking a hole into the top! Use a slim floating pickup; you might also switch to one of these recent Gibson archtops with a similar pressed solid top …

[Ol' Fret]

The catalogs don't show the back of the headstocks. Most often Kay used the period-correct Kluson Deluxe stamped steel tuners. Single machines only on the top models; the "lower" (= less fancy) 17" Kays, like the K1, all sported 3_on_a_plate strips: VINTAGE STAMPED STEEL

[Ol' Fret]

I'm not sure how much remanufacturing, or set-up, or TLC anyone could ever do, that'd transform a Harmony or Kay into a Martin or Larson. If that's true, there are still a boatload of old Kay's and Harmonys in attics just waiting to become pre-war Martins.

I mean what does he charge and where is he ? I see five hundred dollar Harmonys all the time - -if he can make them sound like a $20,000. Martin, wow !

You know the expression: " You can't make a silk purse - -

MHO

Dennis, I think we judge commodities, like musical instruments, from a different POV! That's the reason why I don't like to give you a deeper answer. It's not my intention to see this thread going harsh due to stark ideological or political differences. Just not to bail out - one note:

A vintage Martin or Larson flattop - we're talking flattops only in this context! - isn't made of silk, and a vintage Kay or Harmony isn't made of a sow's ear. Both are wooden boxes made of thin (approx. 1/8") and quite uniform spruce and maple - or more exotic and expensive, but not necessarily better sounding hardwoods. The designs of the bodies is quite simple and similar, upper and lower bout, plus the waist. The craftsmen who made these boxes used the same glues and similar tools for the making. I know, the devil's in the details, and this could mean that Martin or Larson selected higher quality tops with less grain run-out, etc., but, personally, I'm convinced that every halfway willing and interested person can learn these selection skills in a few months.

So what's the main difference - if we agree that it's the body that makes the difference for the tone and not so much the neck - between all these flattops as a source of sound? Correct, it's probably the different bracing! I could be wrong, but in my understanding that's what Scott Baxendale is reworking on old Kay and Harmony flattops, giving them a Martin-style bracing (besides all the set-up work), hence a more Martin-like sound. I'll never know personally though, because I'm an archtop guy - I own only one flattop, my very first classical guitar!

Please, note that an archtop guitar has much more "set screws" to factor in soundwise, like the plate thickness, graduation lenth- and crosswise, arching curves, channeling, etc.

While I don't believe that a reworked Kay or Harmony flattop will ever match up exactly and at large to a good Martin (we all know that not all old Martins were excellent) or Larson, I'm doubtful that in a serious double-blind study people would be able to differentiate correctly. The violin-world is ful of such cringy pitfalls … the easiest person to fool is yourself!

If I come close to any nice vintage or new guitar, first of all - before the sound properties, playability and set-up - I check the design, the used material, the quality of craftsmanship, the finish (applying, thickness, transparency, artwork - no, most of today's guitar finishs cannot be called 'artwork'), etc., the intrinsic value, all the dozens of factors that tell its manufacturer or luthier was mindful or even groundbreaking - or not.


The price of a vintage guitar is something different. Sure, it can be justified, but often, IMO, it is not. It can be vastly influenced by long-time smaller and larger marketing efforts by both the manufacturers and dealers, driven up by collectors, herd instinct players and investment folks; unrealistic high values are sometimes defended stubbornly by old-age pensioners. It's their right to do so, and it would be presumptuos to ask the average customer, even the full-time pro, to know all the factors involved during the making of a guitar. OTOH, this is exactly what makes prices for, at least, vintage guitars imponderable. It's comparable to the market of paintings, art galleries and auctions: is the price justified? If you buy a painting, the price should be ok for you, but don't make the mistake of thinking this must be the justified actual price on the market for all art lovers, or for the near future.


In Europe, most don't have and don't want to rely on price guides, compiled by 'expert' persons or groups as just mentioned. Some have come along enough decent, good and excellent vintage axes - many of them not nameless, but not easy to find out - that they simply don't buy longer, at least not in a uncritical way, the old killer argument "you get what you pay for".

A contemporary of C. F. Martin was his namesake C. F. Hebbel, a dramatist in Germany. From Hebbel came the thoughtful words: There are people who stand in front of the sea and only see the ships that sail on the sea, and on the ships only the goods that they have loaded.

[coohollowgreg]

Thanks for the input ol fret. Ryan at blue book is researching my guitar and so far has found that the 49 Sherwood Deluxe and Kay Lord Calvert are very similar. I decided that I am better off just designing and winding my own pickup that I can mount without any demolition. I will post any information Ryan uncovers . My tuners are 3 on a plate kluson with covers . Thanks again for the help. Greg .

[Dennis D]

Dennis, I think we judge commodities, like musical instruments, from a different POV! That's the reason why I don't like to give you a deeper answer. It's not my intention to see this thread going harsh due to stark ideological or political differences. Just not to bail out - one note:

A vintage Martin or Larson flattop - we're talking flattops only in this context! - isn't made of silk, and a vintage Kay or Harmony isn't made of a sow's ear.

Of course O'l Fret, I never said one was a sow's ear, and also never said the other was made of silk. I thought it was a pretty good analogy for what is being discussed here. If you missed the point, well that's the best I can do.
I read the article inserted about Scott Baxendale, and at first I thought good for him - he's teaching students these repairs, and found a way to recycle and repair these old guitars.
Then he got to the the part about setups and resets and how, once he'd finished with them, these Kays would compare favorably with classic Martins and Larsons.
It's a matter of credibility and common sense. There's no stark political or ideological differences that enter into this.
Bottom line these Kays and Harmonys were entry level beginner instruments, sold by the dozens ( hundreds ? ) through the Sears & Montgomery Ward catalogues.

And if, after Scott B is finished with them, as he said, they truly are post-war Martins & Larsons, then @ $2000., he's selling them way too cheap, and should have a long waiting list.

Again, MHO.