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

Traditional vs. reverse kerfing linings.
http://luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=32114		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  jm2 [ Thu May 05, 2011 10:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Traditional vs. reverse kerfing linings.
I see the odd guitar with reverse kerfing linings. I am curious to know what others think about the advantages and disadvantages of reverse kerf and traditional linings. There is no doubt traditional linings are much more common, at least in factory made guitars, and that has me wondering why one might ever choose the other.
Author:  Mike Lindstrom [ Thu May 05, 2011 10:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Traditional vs. reverse kerfing linings.
I like the clean look of the reverse linings, but it's harder to hide the breaks if your linings snap on you. Also, the reverse linings seem to make the rims much stiffer. People will debate the pros and cons of it the stiffer rim, but it makes building easier for me.

Mike
Author:  bluescreek [ Fri May 06, 2011 5:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Traditional vs. reverse kerfing linings.
Todd nails it. I personally don't see any advantage . All it is is glue surface area . One thing is if you get your sides out of shape , you can't reshape them with reverse kerf.
Author:  Alexandru Marian [ Fri May 06, 2011 6:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Traditional vs. reverse kerfing linings.
I like them because they make a clean seamless look for the brace pockets (much fun for me making these with a sharp chisel) and are easier to clamp to the sides. If anyone wants a stiffened rim they should try laminated/solid :)
Author:  David LaPlante [ Fri May 06, 2011 8:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Traditional vs. reverse kerfing linings.
I'm very used to working with the standard type kerfed linings and have acquired a large supply over the years (inexpensively) so that certainly makes the decision to use that type rather easy.
I've also used the solid bent type but as long as I don't have to make the kerfed type, the solid bent type is more labor intensive.
The Torres style brace ends (full height with rib blocks and linings cut all the way through) makes for a very stiff structure so I don't think the lining type (at least more or less standard sizes) makes much difference overall.
Attachment:
LaPlante-#100Linings.jpg

Attachment:
LaPlante-#100Backfit.jpg
Author:  Mark Groza [ Fri May 06, 2011 8:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Traditional vs. reverse kerfing linings.
I never have seen a good reason to use reverse kerf linings. Don't feel the glue joint would be as good on the sides, so i don't use them.
Author:  WudWerkr [ Fri May 06, 2011 8:42 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Traditional vs. reverse kerfing linings.
I have made all my Mandolas with traditional Linings , and My first guitar with Reverse . I agree they are a little harder to put in but all in all I like them better . One upside , I made a mistake and caused a situation where I hand to sand the sides down an 1/8" to fix a [headinwall] The reverse linings made that job a super easy task where as the traditional would have wanted to break off easier . So I guess they seem more forgiving in the long run ..... Just my observations !
Author:  Tony_in_NYC [ Fri May 06, 2011 8:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Traditional vs. reverse kerfing linings.
If you need to adjust the profile of the sides, say because you didnt do it properly to begin with (DAMHIKT) with RR kerfing, you can remove 50% of the height and still have plenty of depth to route for your binding channels. Also, you do not lose any gluing surface for the top and back. If you tried that with traditional kerfing, you would not have enough glue surface left. Now, I am not saying one should use RR kerfing as insurance against having to reprofile the sides, but its nice to know you can!
On the wedge OM I just finished, I needed to sand the back edge in my radius dish quite a bit after I had installed the linings to get the back to sit nicely. I thought I had a good fit when I installed the linings, but I was wrong. I was very happy I used RR linings when I realized my error.
Author:  Tom West [ Fri May 06, 2011 9:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Traditional vs. reverse kerfing linings.
I don't see any negatives to using the reverse linings. I think they are easier to make,easier to install,and give a much cleanier look when inletting for back braces. Some folks get so trapped in what is traditional by certain manufacturers that they refuse to experiment with any thing that is new. Steal all the good ideas and try them to see if they work for you.
Tom
Author:  jfmckenna [ Fri May 06, 2011 9:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Traditional vs. reverse kerfing linings.
I don't think it really matters. I don't like reversed personally because it always looked to me like it was an attempt to look like solid linings when they are not. I prefer solid on my classicals simply because I feel it's more traditional and regular kerfed for my SS guitars. Pure aesthetics, nothing more, and to each their own is all good. As for tone? I'd like to see what anyone has to say of that matter because it seems to me it would be impossible to actually tell a difference in tone with any manor of linings.

idunno
Author:  WaddyThomson [ Fri May 06, 2011 9:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Traditional vs. reverse kerfing linings.
I'm really loving the Ryan A-4 linings for my back linings. The look is outstanding, and they are amazingly easy to install. Structurally, I don't think it matters much once the back is on, as Todd stated.
Author:  Ian Cunningham [ Fri May 06, 2011 1:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Traditional vs. reverse kerfing linings.
I use solid linings. I like bending wood. :mrgreen:

I also like the stiffness they add. A nice rigid frame is nice to work with. With a single lining the thickness of your side (~3mm) you get plenty of surface area for a basic binding channel. If you must, just add another layer. Kerfed linings just look so "factory" to me anyway. Why make a handmade guitar look like you just sort of put pieces together on an assembly line?
Author:  John Mayes [ Fri May 06, 2011 2:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Traditional vs. reverse kerfing linings.
WaddyThomson wrote:
I'm really loving the Ryan A-4 linings for my back linings. The look is outstanding, and they are amazingly easy to install. Structurally, I don't think it matters much once the back is on, as Todd stated.


+1 for the Ryan kerfing. It is UNREAL easy to install. By far the easiest I've ever dealt with. On the down side it's a bit expensive, and is fragile when routing for brace pockets, but if you go slow with a sharp spiral bit it's not a big deal. I save a ton of time when installing them though. And you almost never have to even give a second thought to gaps because the conform so well.
Author:  letseatpaste [ Fri May 06, 2011 3:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Traditional vs. reverse kerfing linings.
In my limited experience, I've had a bear of a time with the reversed-kerf linings. They always want to make a gap at the waist where the lining doesn't want to sit flush against the sides. Attempts to clamp it harder to force out the gap usually resulted in crushing the linings a bit. Now I use traditional triangular and install it in ~6" segments so I don't have to force it to curve both ways, and that's worked out fairly well. I'd really like to try the Ryan A4 linings, though I'm not sure I like the squarish look. Sure seems like they'd be the easiest to install. John Mayes used the Ryan lining in his new cutaway dvd.
Author:  Darryl Young [ Fri May 06, 2011 4:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Traditional vs. reverse kerfing linings.
I've not heard of the Ryan A-4 Linings. Anyone have a pic or a source?
Author:  John Mayes [ Fri May 06, 2011 4:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Traditional vs. reverse kerfing linings.
Darryl Young wrote:
I've not heard of the Ryan A-4 Linings. Anyone have a pic or a source?



http://www.advancedshelltech.com/Produc ... rfing.html

Image
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/