Reducing Weight in a Tonewood Archtop - Suggestions Pls

[Dennis D]

The car guys say : " Horsepower costs money - - how fast ya wanna go ? "

So where can some weight reductions be had ?

The base spec's are 17 x 3, cutaway, w/ the usual braces, & one hb w/ pots would be musts ..but then ???

Omit body binding - but keeping fb fret end bindings......and keeping pg

But then what ? Titanium Tuners, or Carbon Fiber whatever ?? : )

I'm stuck between ( and completely spoiled by ) my '50's acoustic L-7, which is light as a feather, and a WesMo, which weighs in 2 # heavier.

Thanks in advance.

[marcwhy]

Dennis, are you building a guitar, or having one built, or just curious how builders can reduce weight?

[Dennis D]

Dennis, are you building a guitar, or having one built, or just curious how builders can reduce weight?

Hi Marc

I'd be having one built.......and therefore curious......
I had started looking at this w/ L-5's a while ago and remembered Jimmy D'A's often referenced opinion on bindings, and how all they did was add weight......So then I wondered what else has been added to archtops through the years that could be carved better or ??
I know ' engineered ' weight savings are always a challenge, and usually costly, and / or cost prohibitive.......

Thanks Marc and hope things are ok !

[sgosnell]

Make the headstock narrow, not wide. This also makes the stringpull straighter. Stealth tuners, various models are available. Parallel bracing, which uses slightly less wood. Binding is not heavy, and many builders offer wood binding. Have the top and back as thin as possible, which also affects the sound. If you're looking for a Gibson sound, you'll have problems, because the thick, heavy top and back are a big part of that. Laminate bodies are inherently heavy, because of all the glue necessary. Solid tops, backs, and sides are somewhat lighter. None of these will have a big impact separately, but all taken together can add up.

[jads57]

Don’t ditch bindings! They protect the guitar from serious dings etc.
Not sure if weight is really the issue like a Les Paul? The weight is way more distributed due to its large body size. Also things like headstock size be careful it balances aesthetically as well as on a strap properly.

Other than say body depth and overall width and length being tweaked to one’s preference. The original designs were usually well thought out and have maintained for a reason.
I’ve owned so many guitars and always see to come back to the Classic Designs in the end.

Saying that though I’m still for future designs !

[marcwhy]

Cool, thanks!
If you're having one built, the luthier may or may not already have ideas (or biases?) about the weight topic, and may or may not be willing to alter their tried and true recipe (especially if it's a carved instrument). Sometimes it's wood choices, and also thickness of the top.

[FWIW, my Forshage "ergonomic" guitar is 4.6 lbs, and my 16" Holst (laminate) is 5.2.]

[medblues]

Ken Parker archtops

Lightest Jazz Guitars?

[Mark M.]

Dennis, who is building this guitar for you?

[Dennis D]

Don’t ditch bindings! They protect the guitar from serious dings etc.
Not sure if weight is really the issue like a Les Paul? The weight is way more distributed due to its large body size. Also things like headstock size be careful it balances aesthetically as well as on a strap properly.

Other than say body depth and overall width and length being tweaked to one’s preference. The original designs were usually well thought out and have maintained for a reason.
I’ve owned so many guitars and always see to come back to the Classic Designs in the end.

Saying that though I’m still for future designs !

I guess I'm spoiled by my 50's L-7, and equally disappointed that the P-90's never appeared in those, or didn't very often, or all I've seen are McCartys or D'A's, or 'just missed one last week', etc etc etc.....And Guilds of that era are either equal or even heavier.....

[Dennis D]

Dennis, who is building this guitar for you?

That's it - - I now have to make the call.....

[nevershouldhavesoldit]

Don’t ditch bindings! They protect the guitar from serious dings etc.

This is an interesting issue. I’ve always shunned guitars without binding, for exactly this reason. But I’m currently looking for a used laminated archtop in excellent condition and am finding a few really good guitars that were made without binding, eg the Unger American Archtop Dream. I dismissed them out of hand, assuming this to be true. But I started thinking about the dozens of guitars I’ve owned and gigged with over 60+ years - and I only recall one or two very minor dings in binding. Almost all of the few marks I’ve left on my guitars have been on the headstock or body surfaces.

I also realized that repairing damaged binding is probably harder and more expensive that simply filling and spot refinishing a serious ding in a well made guitar without it. So I drove several hours intending to bring home one that seemed ideal for me, if I liked it. I loved it, although undisclosed wear made the asking price much too high since it needs new frets. So I came home without it.

But I looked closely at the construction, and I was amazed at how beautiful the body edges were without binding. Many luthiers believe that binding adds resistance to top lifting and separation because there’s a circumferential glued interface in both vertical and horizontal planes. But I think that’s probably of little extra structural value since it’s a small fraction of the glued area of the kerfing against the top and the back. For my money, binding now seems like more risk than reward. I’ve had binding separation on two guitars, one on the body (Larrivee parlor) because I didn’t humidify it enough and one on the neck (new ‘73 LP custom) because it was made badly.

Per sgosnell’s concern, I was also impressed by the light weight of the Dream. The laminated top and back seem quite thin, and I don’t think there are many carved archtops the same size that weigh as little.

[jads57]

Years ago I had a Carvin Acoustic Electric small body electric and chose not to have binding. And the Spruce top recieved some dings, that otherwise would have not happened to the normal binding.

Lesson learned for me.Even if you go with wood bindings definitely better to have some sort of protection.
Not sure of Dale Ungers design for this. But he does make some very nice modern Archtops in the Benedetto style.

[Dennis D]

Years ago I had a Carvin Acoustic Electric small body electric and chose not to have binding. And the Spruce top recieved some dings, that otherwise would have not happened to the normal binding.

Lesson learned for me.Even if you go with wood bindings definitely better to have some sort of protection.
Not sure of Dale Ungers design for this. But he does make some very nice modern Archtops in the Benedetto style.

Of course this is hypothetical, but it occurred to me that if -
1. Jimmy D'A were still alive and building instruments, and
2. Money were no object -

... if I were to walk into his store, and discuss having him build one for me, he might say, ' no body bindings ', I'd say ' fine with me '.... : )

Has Dale Trenier ever visited this subject ?

Thx.

[Cunamara]

The L-7 is an acoustic archtop, the WesMo is an electric guitar. The wood in the L-7 has been drying for 70 years and is probably beautifully resonant. The top is much thinner than that of the WesMo. If you tried to amplify it, though, it would feedback much easier than the WesMo.

So a couple thoughts: thin top and back plates and sides aimed at acoustic properties; solid mahogany back and sides rather than maple; mahogany neck; rosewood fingerboard and bridge; single rather than double truss rod; lightweight tailpiece rather than a large metal one.

[jads57]

Well I’d say to Jimmy D come up with a solution for bindings so my Archtop doesn’t get damaged. Or I’d just have another fine builder build me one instead, I guess, Lol

[Dennis D]

Well I’d say to Jimmy D come up with a solution for bindings so my Archtop doesn’t get damaged. Or I’d just have another fine builder build me one instead, I guess, Lol

Of course some times when the master speaks, it's best to listen....

But hey, that's just me......

: )

[Gilpy]

I like lighter acoustic archtops too, and was always looking for something that was small and lightweight with great tone. I ended up with this beautiful Andersen Model 14, probably under 4lbs:



The guitar was well balanced but so light that there was no mass to resist the normal hand movements of playing. Without that stability, I almost had to grip the guitar to keep it from moving.
I think about 5 pounds is about the minimum for me.

[Dennis D]

I like lighter acoustic archtops too, and was always looking for something that was small and lightweight with great tone. I ended up with this beautiful Andersen Model 14, probably under 4lbs:
The guitar was well balanced but so light that there was no mass to resist the normal hand movements of playing. Without that stability, I almost had to grip the guitar to keep it from moving.
I think about 5 pounds is about the minimum for me.

And that's an interesting port. Do you get used to the sound and is that something you tell yourself you'll never be without ?
Curious....

Thanks

[Gilpy]

Having the port in that position is great because you can hear your instrument better.
But regular f holes with a port on the side is just as good. If you’re having a guitar built, I would highly recommend it.

[RJVB]

Adding a soundport in the left shoulder can be done on most guitars. I think there's a topic about it on the AGF.