Like I said, I used to own one and it was braced for steel … and stamped behind the headstock without a logo.
And when I got it, a critter made it its home. Don't know what species it was.
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://mowrystrings.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Martin 2-17 plans? http://mowrystrings.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=51963 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | KawaiianPunch [ Thu May 23, 2019 5:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Martin 2-17 plans? |
Where can I purchase plans for a Martin 2-17 … or any size 2 Martin? |
|
| Author: | Michaeldc [ Thu May 23, 2019 8:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Martin 2-17 plans? |
You’ve likely already seen this. http://217.dougschmude.net/index.html Looks like enough info to draw it up yourself. Best, M |
|
| Author: | meddlingfool [ Thu May 23, 2019 8:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Martin 2-17 plans? |
I got the 1-17 plans from LMI which I base my parlour on. Maybe you could use it as a base to size up? I wonder if John Arnold or Frank Ford may have plans? I believe they've been known to draft rough plans off of guitars in for repair... |
|
| Author: | KawaiianPunch [ Thu May 23, 2019 9:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Martin 2-17 plans? |
meddlingfool wrote: I got the 1-17 plans from LMI which I base my parlour on. Maybe you could use it as a base to size up? I wonder if John Arnold or Frank Ford may have plans? I believe they've been known to draft rough plans off of guitars in for repair... That's interesting. I thought 2 was smaller than 1 for some reason. I'll check dougschmude.net. |
|
| Author: | Clay S. [ Thu May 23, 2019 10:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Martin 2-17 plans? |
Size 2 is smaller than size 1, but not by a lot. The body shape follows the same general proportions. If you have the size 1 plan and the specifications listed on the Doug Schmude page you can draft a fair approximation. Even the originals had some variation in size, so one that varied a 1/4 inch in the lower bout could be a small size 1 or a large size 2 depending on the other specs. |
|
| Author: | meddlingfool [ Fri May 24, 2019 12:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Martin 2-17 plans? |
I actually don’t know what the numbers mean. Could be size down... |
|
| Author: | Bryan Bear [ Fri May 24, 2019 6:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Martin 2-17 plans? |
The specs listed on that site show the depth as being deeper at the heel than the tail.?. Can we assume those numbers are just transposed, or were they really made that way? |
|
| Author: | Clay S. [ Fri May 24, 2019 6:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Martin 2-17 plans? |
"The specs listed on that site show the depth as being deeper at the heel than the tail.?. Can we assume those numbers are just transposed, or were they really made that way?" The body depth numbers are wrong. Most sites list the body depth at 4 inches, which would be in the lower bout. Upper bout would probably be 3 3/4 or 3 5/8 inches. |
|
| Author: | Bryan Bear [ Fri May 24, 2019 8:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Martin 2-17 plans? |
Clay S. wrote: "The specs listed on that site show the depth as being deeper at the heel than the tail.?. Can we assume those numbers are just transposed, or were they really made that way?" The body depth numbers are wrong. Most sites list the body depth at 4 inches, which would be in the lower bout. Upper bout would probably be 3 3/4 or 3 5/8 inches. That was my assumption but I've never seen one of these and thought it could be an interesting quirk. . . |
|
| Author: | bluescreek [ Fri May 24, 2019 8:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Martin 2-17 plans? |
I own a number of these. They are not X braces and were fan braced instruments. What time period are you looking to copy ? Mine is from 1847 according to martins records. |
|
| Author: | KawaiianPunch [ Fri May 24, 2019 9:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Martin 2-17 plans? |
bluescreek wrote: I own a number of these. They are not X braces and were fan braced instruments. What time period are you looking to copy ? Mine is from 1847 according to martins records. I'm looking for the steel-string braced, 1922 model. I used to own one some time ago, but I didn't regret selling that much because it had numerous repairs. Instead of risking another vintage piece, building one should be way better. |
|
| Author: | Barry Daniels [ Fri May 24, 2019 12:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Martin 2-17 plans? |
My research indicated that Martin didn't start using steel strings until the late '20s. A 1922 model should still be gut strings. |
|
| Author: | Clay S. [ Fri May 24, 2019 1:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Martin 2-17 plans? |
The 17 series when converted to mahogany tops in 1922 were also braced for steel - the first Martin guitars built for steel strings, and also their lowest priced guitar. Other models were braced for steel on a regular basis in the late 20's. |
|
| Author: | KawaiianPunch [ Fri May 24, 2019 4:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Martin 2-17 plans? |
Like I said, I used to own one and it was braced for steel … and stamped behind the headstock without a logo. And when I got it, a critter made it its home. Don't know what species it was.
|
|
| Author: | Barry Daniels [ Fri May 24, 2019 7:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Martin 2-17 plans? |
Thanks for the clarification, Clay. I learned something today. I am currently restoring a 1931 00-17 that someone had replaced the top with spruce and other modifications. I'm taking it back to original specs. One thing I can't find out is what type of side reinforcements were originally used: wood braces or linen? |
|
| Author: | Clay S. [ Fri May 24, 2019 8:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Martin 2-17 plans? |
I had a couple of 17 style guitars, an O-17 from the late 30's and a OO-17 from the mid 50's IIRC. I don't remember seeing side reinforcements in either of them. It was a while ago - back then they were bought and sold in good playing condition for about $100. |
|
| Author: | Clay S. [ Thu May 30, 2019 6:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Martin 2-17 plans? |
I found my beat up copy of Longworth's book that lists dimensions for the various sizes of Martin guitars. Here are some of the dimensions for size 2 in inches: totl length 37 bod len 18 1/4 Width up bod 8 1/2 width low bod 12 depth up bod 3 3/4 dep low bod 4 fing bd width@nut 1 13/16 fing bd@12frt 2 1/4 dia snd hole 3 1/2 scale length 24.5 With a copy of a size 1 plan I'm sure you could make the necessary adjustments and come pretty close. If you compare dimensions from Longworth against Schmude's you will notice some differences. It may reflect differences in the individual instruments measured and in some cases errors of measurement ( I would hesitate to use a 2 3/8 in. string spacing @ bridge with a F.B. width of 2 1/4 in.@12th fret.) |
|
| Author: | TimAllen [ Fri May 31, 2019 2:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Martin 2-17 plans? |
Robert Corwin has some lovely--and very instructive--pictures of the inside of his 1930 2-17 here: http://www.vintagemartin.com/styles15_17_18.html When you carve the braces this would be very helpful as a resource. He also gives the dimensions and other details. As has often been said here, that site is a wonderful resource! |
|
| Author: | KawaiianPunch [ Fri May 31, 2019 4:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Martin 2-17 plans? |
Thanks Clay S. and TimAllen. Do y'all know if they had a back-radius? I can't remember if the one I had did. |
|
| Author: | Clay S. [ Sat Jun 01, 2019 10:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Martin 2-17 plans? |
I think most of the guitars I've run into have had a slight back radius, even the "early romantic" ones. Without some arching the backs would tend to look concave. |
|
| Author: | Barry Daniels [ Sat Jun 01, 2019 10:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Martin 2-17 plans? |
The one I am working on has a non-spherical back radius. Side to side it is about 25' radius, and top to bottom it is about 15' radius. This is consistent with descriptions that I have read online. |
|
| Author: | bluescreek [ Sat Jun 01, 2019 4:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Martin 2-17 plans? |
I found my 2 patterns from the old martin factory. the first steel martin production guitar the link was not correct in any of the specs clays listing from the martin history is correct by this time the back braces were reduced to 4 not the 5 of the original , the ladder and fan braces were now 1/4 in X. In the early 20s we see the beginning of the modern martin guitar. |
|
| Author: | Bryan Bear [ Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Martin 2-17 plans? |
Clay, did that book list the body length for the size 1? |
|
| Author: | Clay S. [ Sun Jun 02, 2019 7:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Martin 2-17 plans? |
Hi Bryan, Here is what it lists for the size 1 (in inches): ttl len 37 3/4 bod len 18 7/8 wid bod up 9 1/4 wid bod low12 3/4 dep bod up 3 3/8 dep bod low 4 3/16 wid F.B.@nut 1 7/8 wid F.B.@12th frt 2 5/16 dia snd hole 3 9/16 Scale Len 24.9 |
|
| Author: | bluescreek [ Sun Jun 02, 2019 11:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Martin 2-17 plans? |
https://www.martinguitar.com/features-m ... /sizetype/ this may be helpful; |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|