Official Luthiers Forum!

I'm posting this for anyone who does not have a set of Antes plans

There is something in this whole discussion that I am not grasping. Maybe I am wrong, I don't know

If I am making an exact Martin replica, of a certain year, the scale matters.

If you are making an OM size, generic, does it matter what your scale is?

SCGC uses 25.375, many small builders use 25.5 and they are using the OM designation based on the body. It's a fine point to talk about how the scale length really defines the OM and the other are 000 or GC, unless you are building an exact, specific year, Martin copy. Very few builders do that. What really matters is the way you are tooled should be consistent with whichever you are building.
The original production OM was a pretty specific beast built for 3 years in the '30s. Things varied after that.

Just wondering what you guys think

I guess it all depends on the individual. One of the things I love about Dan Erlewine is he is meticulous, precise and thrives for perfection. Seeing how widely he is regarded and respected, I am apparently not alone in my admiration of him.

I can only imagine that when Martin originally developed the 25.34" scale for their OM, they went to the hundredths for good reason. And, if what I have read is accurate, players loved the OM and that included that specific scale. On Martin's website they refer to 25.4" as the scale they use on their OM and Dreadnought. But is that a generic use of the scale and the scale still remains 25.34"? I don't know. What I do know is Stew Mac does not sell a 25.4" fret template or rule. They are both 25.34" for the Martin long scale.

Would anyone have a problem altering the scale of a Fender Strat or Tele by a few hundredths? I would think that would get people screaming, if they knew. All of the Strats and Teles I've made adhere religiously to the 25.5" scale because, to me, precision matters. When I made a bass based on the Ric, I stuck with the 33.25" scale that bass had originally, even though there were no fret templates available at the time. But that's what the player wanted.

In the reading I've done about how certain guitar makers came up with their specific scales, the thing I see over and over is that particular scale created a sound players wanted. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

There's a video on YouTube where some big names in guitar repair talked about the fall of Gibson. They seemed to be in agreement that the scales Gibson chose weren't well liked, in part because they were hard to intonate. Gibson scales are only a fraction off Martin's short scale yet it caused at least three seasoned professionals to conclude that it contributed to their downfall.

So yeah, I'd say adhering precisely to a tried and true scale matters if you wish to achieve a reasonable semblance of the original.

_________________
Julie Moriarty
http://JulimorCreations.com

It's interesting and I never noticed before, but LMI does have a 25.4 slotting template (SPFS2) and a 25.34 slotting template (SPFS14). I bought the 25.4 template because the Antes plan said 25.4.


A question to all you folks - I mill the saddle slot after the bridge is on the guitar. I can't imagine someone can hear the difference in scale length of 25.4 and 25.34 on the same guitar body, if the saddle slot was cut to the correct location in both instances. I would assume the 25.34 would be critical if you were slotting an existing Martin instrument where the saddle slot was already cut. Am I correct in thinking this? Or can you really hear a difference between these two scale lengths (on the exact same guitar body)?

Edited to add: I guess I just asked the same question as Tim a couple posts up. Sorry about that, but I am interested!

_________________
Insta - https://www.instagram.com/cbcguitars/
Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/cbcguitars

Also, we should update the title to say 25.4 and 25.34 so there is no confusion?

_________________
Insta - https://www.instagram.com/cbcguitars/
Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/cbcguitars

Sometimes I get a headache...

Sorry, was it something I said? BTW: Thoroughly enjoying the Mando thread over in the other forum. Your work is amazing.

_________________
Insta - https://www.instagram.com/cbcguitars/
Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/cbcguitars

Based on the timeline we use in the shop, the OM (as stamped on the neck block, and long scale, 000 body shape, and 1-3/4" nut) was made from 1929 to 1933, with Martin offering a complete line of 'Orchestra Model' guitars - 0, 00, 000, and D - by 1934, dropping the OM designation as pertaining to any one particular model (so the OM-18 of 1933 is the 000-18 of 1934, with neck block stamp to match). In 1939, bowing to the demands of a vocal minority of small-handed guitar players, Martin narrowed the nut to 1-11/16" on all of the Orchestra Models, so the 000-18 became a long scale guitar with 000 body and 1-11/16" nut. In the 1940's, Martin rationalized their offerings, and the 0, 00, and 000 14 fret instruments began sharing a common, shorter scale length of what is referred to by many as 24.9". Although a few long-scale 'OM's were built on special order prior to 1990, that is the year that Martin finally reintroduced the OM (a 1/4" scallop-braced, long scale, 1-3/4" nut guitar) alongside the standard 5/16" straight-braced, short scale, 1-11/16" wide nut standard 000.

One note on the Antes plans - they are all quite awful with regard to accuracy. We are certainly on the fence here in the shop as to whether Mr. Antes ever built an instrument, or even measured the prototypes which inspired the drawings, but it would appear likely that he did not, given that the plans are dramatically over-braced, and have some glaring technical errors, such as tuner post spacing and poor descriptions of trim elements such as the rosette. On body shape, our own tracings of 1930 and 1933 OM instruments vary considerably from Mr. Ante's efforts, just as his Size 5 inspired 3/4 size guitar and his Size 2-inspired Small Concert plans are clearly not based on a tracing of either of those prototypes.

In general, other than Mr. Arnold's carefully documented early 1930's tracings with measurements for D and 000 instruments, nothing in the way of the plans we've seen or have in hand do a very good job of documenting vintage Martin 0, 00, 000, or D instruments, so getting the details correct becomes an exercise in seeing enough older instruments to sample the variations and decide on which elements are appropriate (for a reproduction) or to use (for an 'inspired by').

On Martin developing the long scale for the OM, it's worth noting that the long scale was used on early 00 guitars per Martin (there is more than a bit of debate on this point) and on the 000 when introduced early in the 20th century. Martin's own reproduction of the Ditson dreadnought uses a long scale, so it may be that by 1917, both the 000 and large Ditsons were using that scale length, so Martin's choice to employ the long scale on the OM in 1929 may have been more a case of their largest guitars already using it than some of the other reasons floated on UMGF and other enthusiast sites.

_________________
For the times they are a changin'

- Bob Dylan

I was aware of the over bracing issue, Woodie. I attributed that to possibly "playing it safe". As you expertly noted, the plans are awful and I would guess most experienced luthiers would realize that quite quickly upon inspection. More importantly, experienced luthiers wouldn't be purchasing those plans so the plans are most likely to end up in the hands of novices and maybe that's why they over-braced.

As to the tuner spacing, what should those numbers be?

_________________
Julie Moriarty
http://JulimorCreations.com

The spacing given on the McRostie plan is representative of the spacing on many Martins with 3+3 tuners - the first pair of tuner posts are spaced 1-7/16" apart (E2/E4) center to center (C2C), as are the second pair (A/B), with the third pair spaced 1-11/16" apart C2C. From the face of the nut, the first pair of posts are 1-7/8" up the peghead, with 1-5/8" spacing between the three pairs...all of this based on a 2-7/8" wide headstock of 6-1/2" length from the face of the nut. With a 1-3/4" nut and the usual E2/E4 inset distances, this provides good string paths from nut to tuner posts, and adequate set-ins which can accommodate either bushed or screw-down tuners.

We see a lot of variation, but the pattern - relatively narrow spacing for the first two pairs, and roughly 1/4" wider spacing on the last pair seems to work, although I feel it's probably worth the effort to draw the nut and peghead full scale to check clearances if in doubt, or if using something new in terms of a head shape.

_________________
For the times they are a changin'

- Bob Dylan

I've wondered for a long time why 25.34" and 25.4" scale lengths would even exist with such an insignificant difference between them. Coincidentally a similar topic was on the AGF last week and John Arnold posted this:

"Martin chose to include first string compensation in their scale lengths. For example, Martin's 25.4 scale actually figures to be 25.34 when you double the nut to 12th fret distance."

_________________
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right - Robert Hunter