Hesh wrote:
Hi Andy. No one said that you did sacrifice quality
Hesh wrote:
Regarding getting the guitar back to the student we book orders at full price (and quality) or nothing at all
This was your response to my approach.
BTW I use the term chamfer loosely (and incorrectly), much like you mentioned doing rabbit (sic). We both do rabbets, I suspect. I have a dedicated tool for quickly doing so, given how many guitar bridge repairs I perform where either top finish is thick (cheap instruments) or top contact area for the bridge has so much tear out that I have to rout the top down to get good glue surface (and hence requires ... ahem ... yep, the rabbet).
Hesh wrote:
I also need willing partners in civil conversation.
Are you implying there are no willing partners in civil conversation? Are specific people not being civil?
Hesh wrote:
I did want to ask you if you are meaning to say that HHG in higher gram strength is more gap filling?
As I mentioned, "sheer is sheer" and no glues I know of handle that well. HHG is no exception. Let me explain the reason I use 300g for this operation, since it was not obvious. Often I find bridges take some top-wood with them - there is tearout. This leaves less wood surface area for mating in the glue-up. One choice is to rout down to clear wood (since tearout is often shallow). In my case, with less expensive guitars, I find gluing back up with 300g gives me extra bond strength which helps with the reduced gluing surface area (since the tear out areas are not going to have wood-to-wood mating). Hope that clarifies. To my original point, this takes some work out of the repair and helps make a more practical cost for the owner of an inexpensive instrument.
Hesh wrote:
Now to be clear I am discussing methods with you and not being disagreeable since that seems to be how I am being wrongly... perceived.
My original comment was to simply share with the community that I do many bridge repairs on inexpensive classicals, and how I've found a way to make it work for my customers and my shop. What I am sharing is my approach, my experience with the quality of the repair (they don't come back), and with the customer's experience. Every one of my customers has a brief feedback session with me - via email, text, and some times phone - 1 to 2 weeks after they have the guitar back. This provides them customer services, allows for identifying any follow-up needs, and as a luthier gives me feedback on a per repair basis which lets me improve my approaches. In my world I'm customer obsessive as at the end of the day, they are my sole judge.
Hesh wrote:
Regarding routing the bridge patch. We don't do this and here's why. On new construction the chances are that the dome of the guitar is pretty uniform and likely pretty even in controlled RH. With a homogenous surface such as this routing off finish is more reliable. It's also more reliable if you are not flirting with the line of the perimeter where one slip and it shows.
Since you are responding to my routing, and contrasting why you don't, I'll reply. I rout when there is enough tear-out present that I'm concerned about having a healthy bridge patch for a wood-to-wood glue-up. This is the only case in which I rout the top.
Hesh wrote:
In our repair world we often work on stuff old enough to have top distortion and using a small router base and either a laminate trimmer or a Dr*mel won't provide uniform results. That's our experience. We don't leave any finish on our gluing surfaces. This is a statement of what we do not an insinuation of what you do to be clear, again.....
With older instruments with questionable top geometry, I will support the top from the inside. I only use a laminate trimmer and custom made the template for routing the top. This is an activity that happens once in a while - not that common in my shop. Again I'll only rout where the top has enough tear-out that I'm concerned about the bridge patch mating surface.
Hesh wrote:
Although initially when learning this a decade ago using an uber sharp chisel and scoring with a single edge razor blade had a high pucker factor at least for me these days it's old hat and I'm comfortable with the process and even more comfortable with the results. I do read the runout and favor certain directions with the chisel as a result taking it down to bare wood. I also scrape the bridge patch and bridge underside within a few minutes of applying glue and setting the clamp(s).
With minor or no tearout, I do something similar - single edge razor and sharp chisel with a calm hand helps clean up any fuzz or other things. Works well.
Hesh wrote:
But I've never been able to get uniform and reliable results with older guitars routing finish so we don't do it.
I'm only talking about routing the top where there is significant tear-out damage to warrant creating a copacetic mating surface.
Hesh wrote:
Lastly for now you mentioned that the guitars sound better when you are through with them. This is a measure that we won't go near. Again not arguing with you just sharing experiences and methods.
And you don't need to. My customers are the ones that tell me that. I'm just passing along my experience.
Hesh wrote:
It's our experience with the $25 capacitor that makes you sound like Clapton and the $10,000 Authentic that has you sounding like Tony Rice that they really don't and that our trade suffers WAY too much from BS claims and snake oil. At our gatherings with other pro Luthiers the conversation is often about how much snake oil is being pushed in our trade. Again this is not directed at you to be clear.
I've never tried putting a capacitor on a classical guitar ... but hey ... learn something new every day!
Hesh wrote:
Between us I'm sure that we improve the tone of plenty of instruments and I completely agree with you that the idea that a more completely coupled bridge with HHG will likely sound better. I just won't guarantee it, attempt to quantify it, or offer it to a client, their mileage may vary and that makes it likely a sore spot with some people so we won't go there.
In my experience I've never had a customer show up with a bridge flying off a classical guitar, asking me for better tone. They are concerned their guitar is ruined, and/or hope I can fix it. When they receive the guitar back, they frequently report that the guitar sounds better. I'm not surprised - first off I find many bridges are progressively ungluing themselves which certainly isn't helping sound, and well I've never seen any articles from Al Carruth or in my journal of acoustics that shows an improvement in sound by creating a nice gap between the top and bridge, and filling it with glue. So yeah, I'm not surprised that clients frequently report a better sounding guitar.
Hesh wrote:
Thanks.
Likewise.
Andy
Login
Register
FAQ
