Official Luthiers Forum!

Jimmy, is this short or long scale?

_________________
"I want to know what kind of pickups Vince Gill uses in his Tele, because if I had those, as good of a player as I am, I'm sure I could make it sound like that.
Only badly."

[QUOTE=Don Williams]    

Don't expect to be able to walk into a vintage builder's shop and be able to get plans and templates etc. Those guys have busted their butts to get to where they are, and won't just hand over trade secrets to you. And why should they? They understand the importance of the learning process. They didn't have the luxury of shortcutting that process and feel that others who want to go that direction should also cut their teeth like they did. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
[/QUOTE]

There aren't many luthiers working today who haven't benefitted from the open exchange of techniques and information that's been a characteristic of the US/Canadian scene for the last 30 years or so. Organizations like the GAL and even places like the OLF are responsible for the lively and creative guitar-building culture we see today.
To go back to the 'old days' with 'trade secrets' (measurements of older factory guitars=trade secrets?) would not be a positive thing, in my opinion.

John

One Sweet looking guitar Jimmy, love the shape and the inlay job is superb!

Awesome!

Jimmy I avoided cracking open this thread for fear it was another raging debate as to the appropriateness of using jigs, fancy power tools and pre-made parts vs. the value of learning your chops using traditional hand tools. Phew glad I cracked it open.

That is a seriously scary good looking retro. I have played but a handful of few vintage Martin's and Gibson's and too was shocked at how light they are and how good they sound. I'd love to see what you have done.

I think it was Don who commented on the need to use a dovetail joint. Why? Unless it's just part of making it a true reproduction?

By the way dovetails aren't difficult - just a little more figety when aligning the neck and flushing the cheeks to the ribs.

I too would love to see your jig that Tony Karol asked about.

Thanks for posting and glad I opened the thread -- please show us some of the progress pictures.

Thanks, Jimmy. I was recently wondering what was going on in the Caldwell workshop, and now I know--magic!

Anthony,

If you're building these things as Martin reproductions, then there are a couple reasons for using a dovetail. One is that the skinny heel of the Martins makes using the mortise and tenon a bit tougher to do. It could still be done if you're not going for an exact replica. The other reason, and perhaps the one more economically driven, is that the folks who buy the reproduction vintage stuff (mainly collectors) demand everything look and be as faithful to the originals as possible. In short, they demand dovetails. You could make most of it with a cnc, and they would pretty much accept that, but it's got to have a dovetail! Go figure.

They also look for things like triangular linings and such details that scream "Vintage Martin". And don't even think about using a non-Martin shaped headstock! That's practically Blaspheme.

_________________
"I want to know what kind of pickups Vince Gill uses in his Tele, because if I had those, as good of a player as I am, I'm sure I could make it sound like that.
Only badly."

Don -- thank you for the explanation. Makes sense to me.

Jimmy,

That's an absolutely stunning little beauty! What's in store for fretboard and headstock inlays?

_________________
now known around here as Pat Foster
_________________
http://www.patfosterguitars.com

I do think it's important to use the traditional methods if you're building vintage style instruments. No one is sure how each component or technique affects the tone of the final instrument. But if you look closely at the way things were done 80 years ago and the way things are done today, you'll see quite a few differences. How much does each variation contribute to tone? I wish I knew. It just makes sense to me that I've got a better chance of getting closer to that tone if I do things as close to way things were done back then. It doesn't mean I don't use modern tools, because I do. It does mean that the design, materials and makeup of the components should match the originals as closely as possible. That's all I'm attempting to do.

For those who wanted more pics, here are a few more. I don't have a pic of the top after I finished shaving the braces to their final profile.They came down quite a bit from the profiles in this picture. The FB extension jig is just a piece of 1/2" MDF with 3 pieces of plywood placed so that my dremel tool cuts the correct outline. I will say this this is rather exacting work because you only get one chance at this. Do a practice run on a scrap. It's particularly important that you keep everything exactly on your centerline during all phases of construction. If you don't, the FB extension inlay will show it. There's just no room for error. Someone asked about scale length and it's 24.9". I'm setting this one aside for a couple of weeks, as I've got three others to finish up.




Jimmy Caldwell39067.5880208333

_________________
Jimmy Caldwell
http://www.caldwellguitars.com

[QUOTE=JohnAbercrombie]

There aren't many luthiers working today who haven't benefitted from the open exchange of techniques and information that's been a characteristic of the US/Canadian scene for the last 30 years or so. Organizations like the GAL and even places like the OLF are responsible for the lively and creative guitar-building culture we see today.
To go back to the 'old days' with 'trade secrets' (measurements of older factory guitars=trade secrets?) would not be a positive thing, in my opinion.

John
[/QUOTE]

John, I hope I'm not taking you out of context here, but while the open sharing of information has been quite helpful to everyone it does have its pitfalls too.

We've often come to believe that the guitar is somehow under-engineered and that with our more advanced minds we can improve upon it. Soon, with these improvements we arrive at something that is different, rather than better.

This diversion changes what we expect from a guitar, and in going back to these older instruments people are finding a new sound - the old sound. It gives a lot of perspective, since we have a tendency to make things overly strong by comparison, to be looking at these older instruments and finding where they decided the threshold was (for thickness/stiffness and the like).

The old days were about experience - and researching the old guitars and making some of this type could only add to one's experience. No one can do it for you. Knowledge and information sharing only gets you so far, and in some cases it can be a dangerous thing.

_________________
Instagram: @jfrenchluthier
Web: https://www.jfrenchguitars.com/

[QUOTE=Jimmy Caldwell] I do think it's important to use the traditional methods if you're building vintage style instruments. No one is sure how each component or technique affects the tone of the final instrument. But if you look closely at the way things were done 80 years ago and the way things are done today, you'll see quite a few differences. How much does each variation contribute to tone? I wish I knew. It just makes sense to me that I've got a better chance of getting closer to that tone if I do things as close to way things were done back then. It doesn't mean I don't use modern tools, because I do. It does mean that the design, materials and makeup of the components should match the originals as closely as possible. That's all I'm attempting to do.
[/QUOTE]

Jimmy that is very sound reasoning.

Great pictures and great work! Please let us know what you think when she's finished - you'll be able to provide a unique perspective as someone who has experience in more modern designs as well.

_________________
Instagram: @jfrenchluthier
Web: https://www.jfrenchguitars.com/

This is a stunningly beautiful guitar. Thank you for posting the photos of the jig and the bracing.

_________________
Jim Howell
Charlotte, NC

I agree with this. You understand more deeply when you're active in the
learning process.

I also agree with John in that a starting point is always very helpful.

But you know, sometimes you've gone to some length to learn something,
often spending a lot of money or other resources. Asking these guys for
what they've learned scott free isn't the most considerate or respectful
way to go.

Jimmy, this guitar is gorgous!    

[QUOTE=James Orr]
I also agree with John in that a starting point is always very helpful.

But you know, sometimes you've gone to some length to learn something,
often spending a lot of money or other resources. Asking these guys for
what they've learned scott free isn't the most considerate or respectful
way to go.

[/QUOTE]
to Don, James et al - on learning and sharing.

My point was quite simple. Most instrument builders have benefitted from the instrument specs and info (old and newly developed) freely shared through the GAL and perhaps similar organizations.
When you are in a situation (eg having taken specs from customers instruments) to 'pay back' the 'community', you should do so. Any other approach is ethically inconsistent, and shows a fundamental lack of respect for all the people who have helped you (without pay) along the way.
If, on the other hand, you learned everything 'by yourself', you need not share. Of course 'learning everything by yourself' doesn't include grabbing specs and patterns from Martin instruments without the company's permission.
John

[QUOTE=jfrench]   

John, I hope I'm not taking you out of context here, but while the open sharing of information has been quite helpful to everyone it does have its pitfalls too.

We've often come to believe that the guitar is somehow under-engineered and that with our more advanced minds we can improve upon it. Soon, with these improvements we arrive at something that is different, rather than better.

This diversion changes what we expect from a guitar, and in going back to these older instruments people are finding a new sound - the old sound. It gives a lot of perspective, since we have a tendency to make things overly strong by comparison, to be looking at these older instruments and finding where they decided the threshold was (for thickness/stiffness and the like).

The old days were about experience - and researching the old guitars and making some of this type could only add to one's experience. No one can do it for you. Knowledge and information sharing only gets you so far, and in some cases it can be a dangerous thing. [/QUOTE]

???
J?
I don't really understand what you are trying to say.
Here's the situation-
JJ (Jimmy?) posted pics of a beautiful guitar which he said he'd built to specs from old guitars he'd measured.
There was a request from an OLF member to share those specs (and perhaps a template?).
Don and James have both stated that the request for info was unreasonable/disrespectful, etc .
I commented that sharing is 'part of the deal' if we have benefitted from info shared by others.
And your point was that this could be 'dangerous' ?
John

[QUOTE=JohnAbercrombie] [QUOTE=jfrench]Don and James have both
stated that the request for info was unreasonable/disrespectful, etc .
I commented that sharing is 'part of the deal' if we have benefitted from
info shared by others.[/QUOTE]

John, there's either been poor communication or misinterpretation, so let
me clarify. I think it will be helpful.    

In saying that I agree with you that having a starting point is good, what I
meant was that I agree with you to that length.

When I said that being a part of the discovery process deepens
understanding and learning... Well, I believe that our understanding is in
direct proportion of how much effort we extend into the learning process.
Which goes directly into the most important idea I was trying to express.

Lets say I call up John Mayes and say, "Hey man, give me info on the
Walkers?" John's put a lot of effort into measuring here and there and
going deep into some things. X brace height, what have you. This is just
a hypothetical example, but it would be disrespectful. He's put a lot of
work into taking those measurements and recording them down.

I believe in study partners, but I don't believe in skipping class because
you can ask someone else for the notes. How could I help someone else
out when they help me? It's my privilage to be helped, not my right.
That's what I'm trying to express. I hope this helps clarify that.         & nbsp;         & nbsp;         & nbsp; 

Fabulous little guitar Jimmy, but with your skills we would expect no less! I've got three 30s Martins and they are all incredibly light, yes we do tend to over engineer our guitar today, I'll be very interested in your opinion of the final sound.

Joshua won't be surprised when I say that the more guitars I build (30 or so now) and my lutes, plus the historic instruments, some dating back to the 17th century, that I'm priviledged to repair, the more I think that our modern instruments have lost a great deal during their 'improvement'. It would do us all some good if just occasionally we tried what Jimmy is doing, we might be surprised at how good guitars used to be. An understanding of the history is critical in understanding why we are doing what we do today.

John How's little ladder braced guitars also show what can be learned by looking back.

Colin

_________________
I don't believe in anything, I simply make use of a set of reasonable working hypotheses.

Jimmy,

I noticed the hole in the heelblock.
I presume for a truss rod.

SO... are you using a vintage truss rod?

Thanks for the extra pics. Really nice looking.
Now tell me again where Spicewood is? I'd love to come over and hear this thing.

Steve

_________________
From Nacogdoches...the oldest town in Texas.

http://www.stephenkinnaird.com

Jimmy really great work and love the 42 style. You are really getting it done bro. Don't know why the move away from the vintage. Anyone care to expound on that, just curious. Sounds like you really went to homework and study on it. Another great builder of these vintage types is John Slobod. Check out www.circaguitars.com   He is in Maine and work for Dana and, was with Julius before that. I was amazed. Like Jimmy said, get the research books out and study, study and then more. Get someone who can do it and see if can learn from them. That was what John advised anyway. Feather light. You just have to hold one to know.

Jimmy, quite an ambitious project you’ve taken up there!

I’m curious though, will you finish the guitar with the old way of oil rubbed varnishing?

Robert

_________________
Everything has beauty, But, not everyone see's it!

That is a beautiful guitar,Jimmy.

I once owned a 1904 Martin O-28.

Before I sold it I took some measurments and copied the bracing pattern.
As stated by others,it was a "feather" light guitar,but was still playing well after 90 years.
It had an incredible tone.
If anyone is interested I would share this information and patterns.

Brad -- yes please I am about to start an "O" for my daughter.

Brad-
Thank you very much for your offer to share your info.
When its convenient, please send me a pm so I can arrange to get some $$ to you to cover your postage costs, duplicating costs, and trouble.
Regards
John