Official Luthiers Forum!

All I have read in print or on the net says L-0 , L-00, L-1 Gibsons were "lightly built".

So what is "lightly built"?

Anyone have a range as to thickness for sides, tops, and backs?

I get the whole Symogi thing about keeping records, testing for top deflection, tuning a top, etc, but this assumes
you will be making a string of guitars and learning from experience and your kept records.

Having built only one guitar (a jumbo), doesn't give me much experience building a much smaller
guitar like a L-0.

So I'm looking for a starting point to work from. (I'm working from the Grellier plan ).

Thanks

I think you answered your own question here. The plan is a good starting point. Stick to plans for now and you'll build some nice guitars which will sound good too. Only you'll know when you're ready to try something different, and when/if that fails, you can always ask why or just keep trying...

"lightly built" is only relative to something that is "built heavy" in which case is subjective from one maker to the next.
Too lightly built means the guitar will fail (I've done that before). It all depends on the sound you want, but following plans till you get a few under your belt will render you a good sounding guitar that you can be proud of.

_________________
My Facebook Guitar Page

"There's really no wrong way, as long as the results are what's desired." Charles Fox

"We have to constantly remind ourselves what we're doing....No Luthier is putting a man on the moon!" Harry Fleishman

"Generosity is always different in the eye of the person who didn't receive anything, but who wanted some." Waddy Thomson

Grellier's plan was taken from a 1940 L-00 so my assumption is it's an accurate representation. If L-00s were lightly built then following the plan should produce a lightly built instrument as well. I also have Kerry Char's L-00 plan from GAL, which was taken from a disassembled 1937 L-00 and it seems pretty consistent in its bracing with Christophe Grellier's plan. I would think you couldn't go wrong using either.

I have an all black '37 L00 that measures around .087-.090" and the braces all telegraph, but the top is not overly bulged and it has good action. Sounds wonderful, mostly because of age. I prefer instruments a bit thicker than that though. Thin topped steel strings tend to sound a bit thin IMO.

Snaglpuss: As has been stated go by plan for now and build a bunch of guitars.Guess you can call this paying your dues. Not much way around it unless you have a mentor on hand who can help.Otherwise study,look at good and bad sounding guitars and proceed acordingly. When folks are on their own some people grasp it quicker then others. Hope your a fast study.
Tom

_________________
A person who has never made a mistake has never made anything!!!

I totally agree with that: while it's possible (but not guaranteed) to get powerful and overwhelming bass volume with thin tops, the mids and trebles generally tend to be wimpy and unfocused, and dynamic range limited.
It's entirely possible to build very light with thicker tops: the back doesn't have to be thick like a brick, for example. Nor do the sides and the overall bracing structure.

_________________
Laurent Brondel
West Paris, Maine - USA
http://www.laurentbrondel.com/

I think normal for a steel string is around .115 to .130.

I'd place "thin" at about .100 to .115.

I think anything below .100 on a steel string is a bit risky, assuming traditional bracing. It can be done, but I think it demands good woods, good workmanship, and good humidity control (both during and after building).

I do think it's equally possible to have a .130 top and to still have it built lightly by underbracing it...but for some reason, when you hear about a lightly built guitar it typically refers to one with a thin top.

Trev

_________________
http://www.PeakeGuitars.com

Interesting perspective. My guess that most of us that have the Somogyi influence routinely make our tops under 0.100. (With a typical piece of spruce.) But prior to my change in style I did routinely thickness to 0.105 to 0.115 but with no reason for doing so other than tradition and following existing plans.

_________________
Andy Z.
http://www.lazydogguitars.com

It definitely is, and very importantly, as well as the scale length used. On an OM type a top that I would leave at .115" would become .105" or so on a single 0, and a hair thinner on a parlour.
I understand the concept behind using thin tops and tall bracing, or bracing that somewhat compensates for the minimised mechanical properties of the top, but for one it is not a sound I seek, and those tops tend to distort more easily.

_________________
Laurent Brondel
West Paris, Maine - USA
http://www.laurentbrondel.com/

Body size is a factor.....ABSOLUTELY!!!!
I have a degree of deflection that I use for each body size. Greater deflection with smaller body guitars.
Less deflection for larger bodies and for 12 strings.
With this, I still end up with relatively thinner tops than conventional guitars

_________________
Andy Z.
http://www.lazydogguitars.com

I've read many posts where folks use "thin" tops and stiff tall braces. I've also read where folks want "balanced" tops where neither the top nor braces carry more than their share of the load. So what does a thicker top with lighter bracing sound like? Is this a a top that takes longer to break in and open up? Does it give a more even, balanced tone? Curious.

_________________
Formerly known as Adaboy.......

I definitely agree with regard to body size - those sizes I listed are more for an OM size.

I think the tone is so dependent on so many things that it's hard to conclude anything more than a generalization. With that said, I think thin tops generally have more overtones and that thicker tops typically give a stronger fundamental.

Trev

_________________
http://www.PeakeGuitars.com

Wow....
Thanks to all who responded.

FWIW the Grellier plan lists-
Sides 2mm - .079"
Back 2.5mm- .098"
Top 2.8mm- .110"

Hi Darryl,
A top that is too thick will usually make a guitar that lacks bass and is quieter overall. The thicker the top, the more they sound like an unplugged solidbody.

Too thick is a relative term. It's the combination that counts. Thicker top, lighter braces, and so on.....

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

Also remember that many of the "Lightly Built" ancient Gibsons had design features that are now "Frowned" upon...

One of these features is uncapped X-braces that are made of 1 long leg and 2 short legs butted into the long leg - they would then fit wedges into the gap to form the X.... Another is braces that ended sharply right before the linings or where the very end of the brace was "Crush fit" into the linings...

So... While the bracing wasn't necessarily "Lighter" overall than what is now used by luthiers - it was very much less built into a "System" - so when it took a good whack, the bracing structure came apart....

Thanks

What is that about? Every Ralph Lauren guitar I've seen have been badly overbuilt.

Alex

_________________
"Indecision is the key to flexibility" .... Bumper sticker

Some kind of forum infestation...

Not quite what was asked but surely what we should be aiming at is to build to the right degree of stiffness, strength, flexibility whatever we want to call it.

Trevor Gore offers an excellent test of this, suggesting that a change in angle of the bridge between string load and no load should be around 2 degrees.

The reason I claim this is an excellent test is that of the several classical guitars I have built it is only the last one that showed this degree of rotation that is a really responsive guitar. It is much more lightly braced than my previous efforts. It has volume and sustain. The quality of the sound can be debated but it is clearly a more successful build than the previous ones which showed much lower bridge rotation.

Perhaps surprisingly Trevor shows that the rotation figure also works for steel strings; the extra stiffness of the top coupled with the extra tension of the stings leads to a similar result.

This test clearly works after the guitar is built but can point the way to the design of future instruments. (and indeed one may be able to reduce stiffness of a built guitar)

As people have said the route to this correct stiffness may be through thinner tops or less stiff bracing but at least this test allows you to measure the results in a quantative way.

Dave M

I've found Trevor's "2 degree of rotation" target to be very useful. And it can be used as a guide during construction before closing the box.

I glue the braced top to the sides (which I weight following Trevor's excellent advice) and clamp the bridge firmly to the front of the guitar using six screws/nuts through holes that will eventually be reamed for bridge pins. Then I clamp the sides tightly in an outside mold using spreaders and hold the assembly vertical in a wood vise, neck end down. By, using the full length of the screws projecting from the front of the guitar, I hang weights to provide the 80 inch-pounds (½" by 160 lbs.) of torque that the strings will eventually deliver to the top via the saddle and bridge. Then I measure the deflection angle. It's invariably less than 2 degrees, no matter how "lightly" I've thought that I built. A bit of brace carving and top sanding brings me to 2 degrees. I've been pleased by the resultant tone -- after a couple of weeks of breaking in.

All of a sudden I have the urge for a new pair of shoes. IDK what's gotten into me.

it seems the new server is not well equipped to fight spammers

_________________
John Hall
blues creek guitars
Authorized CF Martin Repair
Co President of ASIA
You Don't know what you don't know until you know it

Hey, Mr Barraza, at least you could try to include some designer pick guards or haute couture strap buttons. C’mon!

_________________
My memory is so good, sometimes I remember things that never happened.

perhaps...I reported the first post this *edited* made today and I think it got removed...but obviously this *edited* wasn't banned to boot (which is *edited*)

anyway, it's not the server but the forum software, and whilst I know of an addon for vBulletin that allows for the importation of lists of known spammer IP addys, I am totally ignorant of what is available for any other forum software

Hans that is a very innovative way of using the two degree test. As you say it is surprising that however much you think you have 'lightly built' you usually haven't.

Dave