Official Luthiers Forum!
http://mowrystrings.luthiersforum.com/forum/

Side Purflings
http://mowrystrings.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=13697		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  Mike Collins [ Wed Sep 19, 2007 5:23 am ]
Post subject: 
Hesh's dirty shop and lack of side purfs. lead me to start this post.

I have not use side purfs. in almost 25 years unless They are asked for by the player.
I do not like racing stipes on my guitars anywhere.
And some types of purfs look like them.
I was asked by a college student on a budget 30 years ago if they were necessary for the "tone" of the guitar!
And if it was more work for me and more cost for him!
So I started eliminating them and NO ONE has ever said to me "where are your side purfs" !
Players could give a hoot!
I've asked all my clients if they are wanted or thought they were needed.
99% say I do not care-I care about tone & playability!

When I do use them I use natural woods -not BWB -or WBW
The real wood looks much better and falls in line with a well made guitar!


Just my observation on side purfs!
Mike
www.collinsguitars.com
Author:  Michael Dale Payne [ Wed Sep 19, 2007 5:40 am ]
Post subject: 
Mike

If bold BWB are used I agree they look out of place. but I have to say in my opinion BWB or other thinline .04" or .06" side purfpling if miter jointed adds a refined finished look.

this is one of those things that is a personal view.
Author:  peterm [ Wed Sep 19, 2007 5:54 am ]
Post subject: 
Mike,
I could have it either way.... both look great and so far I have it done with or without with great (visual) results.
Depending on the wood combinations I may prefer to use purfs.




Author:  LanceK [ Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:20 am ]
Post subject: 
Personally, I love the look of the stark white and dark black. I also love the natural wood look, I think they all have there place.

Author:  Mike Collins [ Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:27 am ]
Post subject: 
Pete;
Nice work!
But the second guitar needed NO side purfs at all to my eye!!
Unless it was Coco & Maple!
But it is subjective as Mike said!
That's why I started this post !
To get as much input on the subject as I can!!!!


Thanks -man those are beautiful guitars!!!

Mike!
Author:  Mike Collins [ Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:30 am ]
Post subject: 
Lance ;
Is that an incredibly well cut top or what!!!!!!???
Looks like cedar!

Nice -I do like the one line purf.!
mc
Author:  jfrench [ Wed Sep 19, 2007 6:42 am ]
Post subject: 
I like side purflings. Not 100% of the time, but mostly. I especially like them when the binding wood is not a stark contrast to the body wood. Indian Rosewood and Snakewood make a beautiful contrast that is much better highlighted by side purflings, to me.

Also, it can be neat if using a very dark wood to use the same wood for the bindings and have it seperated by a single line.

They're another way you can express yourself artistically with your guitars.
Author:  LanceK [ Wed Sep 19, 2007 7:00 am ]
Post subject: 
Terry, I install the side purlfings at the same time as the bindings. I start by tacking down the mitered joint at the end, then I can fit the binding. Once every thing is tight, I can tape it down and do the CA trick.

Author:  jfrench [ Wed Sep 19, 2007 7:06 am ]
Post subject: 
I just counted the woods on one of my latest - 11 woods, no bling and definitely no "competing for your eye".

The thing is, using a variety of woods is not the same as overdoing something. For me, its a way to control colors in a subtle manner.

I guess people do expect side purflings on a classical guitar though, so I like to have fun with it and be artistic.
Author:  Mike Collins [ Wed Sep 19, 2007 7:34 am ]
Post subject: 
Yes;
using a variety of woods is more eye pleasing to me!
The racing stripe comment from 30 years ago goes through
my head everytime I think on side purfs.!

BUT we all need to build guitars for the buyer-not ourselves!
I just wanted to open a debate about the subject!
Man you guys responded with what I needed to hear!




Mike
Author:  Rod True [ Wed Sep 19, 2007 9:30 am ]
Post subject: 
I personally like side purflings, although I've only done one guitar with them.

I will try and convey my thinking with side purflings.

It's like a new car fresh off the lot, one has custom rims, the other has stock. Nothing but a preference in looks with little to no performance value.

It's like a two guys wearing Armani suites, one has pin strips the other doesn't. They both look like a million $ with no difference in performance value (that sounds stupid).

It's like a classic book which is bound in leather versus one that is set in an all paper cover and binding. The book reads the same either way, but one just looks better than the other.

It's totally subjective of course. I'd say that most of the time, a guitar body does not need side purflings but sometimes side purflings just give it that little bit more flare or raise the level of class.

To each his own of course. I like em and I think my latest looks better with them than it would without.

Subtlety is the key I think, don't make them to noticeable, just an accent, not a feature



Author:  burbank [ Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:01 am ]
Post subject: 
I like 'em. It's one of those details that could be invisible until you get up close. Not a big deal to some, but I like the tradition behind them, sort of like the reinforcing strip we put on the inside of the backs - not necessary, sometimes unnoticed, but a nice touch nonetheless. I agree if they're overdone racing stripes, it's a bit much, but done subtly to enhance the separation between binding and B & S wood, they make a nice detail.





Author:  burbank [ Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:08 am ]
Post subject: 
Meant to post this, but the upload button didn't work....

Author:  paul harrell [ Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:30 am ]
Post subject: 
For my own guitars I'm with Hesh on this one. Weather I'm building furniture or guitars I go by Saint Exupery's maxim, "a thing is finished, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

                    Peace, Paul
Author:  muthrs [ Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
I don't like side purflings either, but sometimes I'll do a single black line. To me, visually the fundamental difference between top & back purflings and side purfling is that top & back purflings have nice curves to compliment the curves of the guitar, while side purflings are linear (in two dimenions at least) and create a picture frame look.

Randy
www.rsmuthguitars.com
Author:  Jim Kirby [ Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm spending my time lately building classical guitars, and the side purfling/butt strip miter is one of the few places that you get to play, along with the treatment of the binding in the vicinity of the heel cap (which I always do as an extension of the back plate). To me, side purflings are just an integral part of the design. I can't imagine not having one.

Jim


Author:  bob_connor [ Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
Dave and I sometimes use side and back purfs, sometimes not.

It really depends on the total design concept of the instrument and whether they will enhance or detract from the finished product.

And that's always a purely subjective call.

Cheers


Author:  Steve Kinnaird [ Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
First off, a big round of applause to Pat Foster's side purfling/heelcap purfling detail.
Holy cow, that's not only beautiful, but perfect.
A very difficult feat to pull off--to line those up "just so"--and you did it. Great work!

Ok,side purflings: I've been wondering why I like them so well, when they require so much extra work. The reason I keep coming to was that my lutherie tastes were formed mainly during the reading of David Russell Young's groundbreaking book. He himself was guided by the classical guitar aesthetic, and that came through on all but his simplest models. It was a revelation to me of what a thing of beauty a guitar could be...as well as being a musical tool. Why not try for both?

Someone above has mentioned the thought of a picture frame, and that is what the purflings seem to add. With the framing, there is an accentuating of the back/side woods, not a detracting. (If not overdone.) And, I'll state my conviction that b/w/b (or w/b/w) is the perfect foil for natural colors. There is zero competition, no clash. And thus instead of drawing the eye away from the side or back, it adds that tiny bit of zest that enlivens them. Plus, it just bespeaks "care".

Steve
Author:  Bill Greene [ Wed Sep 19, 2007 10:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
Kudos to the Pat Foster guitar as well. Total class.

For me, I like them...but like others, I like them simple, understated and an accent only, not really emphasized.
Author:  Dave Anderson [ Thu Sep 20, 2007 1:04 am ]
Post subject: 
I like side purfs. Not the wide,bright,gaudy kind but just a nice simple line or a small b/w/b that doesn't take away from the the beauty of the wood.And I love the look of a nice tight mitre even if they can be difficult to accomplish. Also ,The idea
of using the same wood for binding as the side wood with just one dividing line is something I'm going to attempt soon.It looks very cool IMO.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/