Official Luthiers Forum!

Hello everybody, I'm new here, though I've been a long time reader of the awesome threads in this forum.

I'm going to build my first guitar in a month or two and I'm making sure I have all the info and resources I need to help me on my journey. After watching countless build alongs on youtube, blogs, forums and such; reading Somogyi's articles, forum discussions and such, I think I'm ready to plan all the specifics and start purchasing tools, wood, books, plans etc.

So, I want to build a small guitar to play some mellow bluegrass/folk leads (thinking David Rawlings, Milk Carton Kids) with a focused punchy midrange, and hopefully, that echoey sound. I figured the Martin 0-15 that Kenneth so artfully plays is an easier build than the archtop Epiphone Olympus.

The thing is, I don't know where to start. I need guidance on a few things (and surely, many others, but this will do for now):

1. Where do I get plans for a 1930-1940 Martin 0-15 or 0-17? I figure they are very similar and I should be happy with either design (I'm basing this opinion on videos of 0-17's on youtube). I have found plans for a Martin 0-18 on Ultimate-Guitar-Online, and bracing details of a 1933 0-17 on the UMFG. Do you guys think this is enough to guide me through the process?
(source: https://umgf.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=84 ... ss#p200314 )

2. I have found very little information on thicknessing, bracing and voicing all mahogany tops. Do you guys have any advice on the topic? How should I adapt the 0-18 plans to better fit a mahogany top? How should I try to "tune" the back in relation to the top? What woods should I use for bracing (top and back) and kerfing?

3. I am guessing these guitars were built with genuine Honduras Mahogany and would like to replicate that. Unfortunately, I have read that the genuine mahogany available today isn’t of the same quality that it was back then. I am under the feeling it might be due to older, slower growing trees, that made it denser, stiffer and more consistent in grain. Having that in mind, would you advise to use mahogany alternatives (that are known to be slightly brighter, heavier and stiffer than mahogany nowadays) such as Sipo, African mahogany or Sapele in order to emulate the tone wood from these vintage guitars?

4. Maybe the most important point here is a "how to." What is the best source for a step be step, thoroughly explained guitar building process? Preferably for a builder with a limited amount of power tools. I have heard Cumpiano is a good one to start with but a bit outdated. What book would you recommend to complete Cumpiano with a more in depth understanding of the the "why's" of each step and their consequence on the instrument's sound?

Well, thank you all in advance. Sorry for the long post!

Welcome,

I personally think the Cumpiano book is a great place to start! It's a step by step book using largely hand tools. After that the sky's the limit on great resource books and links. The Gore books are also excellent but may be more than you need to take on for your first build.

Cheers, M

I am with Michael. Let me expand a bit:

1. For your very first build, if you are light on power tools, the Cumpiano/Natelson book is really good. You will want to substitute an updated version of the neck joint now recommended by Cumpiano on his website, and any miscellaneous corrections to the print version he likewise has on his website, but otherwise, following that book is a great first guitar experience. Maybe substitute a store-bought truss rod, too.

2. I would not recommend trying to build your dream guitar the first time out. I think you will be better off building the steel string guitar outlined in the Cumpiano/Natelson book, so you can follow along and not have to substitute lots of measurements. Then, after you have built a whole guitar, go back and figure out how to make the small body guitar you want to make. People can get pretty messed up trying to switch between the Cumpiano instructions and the measurements for the guitar they want to build. I think that balancing act is easier on guitars other than your first one.

Just my opinion. Good luck!

Thanks guys! Seems like Cumpiano is the way to go. The Gore and Gillet books look awesome but I can't justify the price given my inexperience...



I think that is some sound advice. What would you think of building two guitars in parallel? A standard one following the Cumpiano book were I can allow myself to learn from all my mistakes, and the other one to try to apply the new learned skills on a more challenging project (like the 0-15).

Personally I'd start with just the one... There'll be plenty more opportunities to screw up your second guitar in new and different ways.

Best, M

Yeah, I am currently building two at once, and I wish I were just building one. Batch building is something to do for efficiency later in your building, not at the beginning. Plus, keep in mind that two guitars take up twice as much room. If you have jigs, workboards, whatever, you might have to use two of each of those at once. I don’t think it is a good idea at the first guitar stage.

Welcome to OLF and the wonderful world of building guitars. I'll make several comments, not necessarily in any order, but things to think about.

First, another vote for Cumpiano. He describes everything you need to know to assemble your first guitar. There are lots of other great books, including Gore, that you will add as your building progresses, but if you have to choose one C&N would be my choice.

Next, I love small bodied guitars and I love all mahogany guitars. I have built both and can help with a few of the questions you posed. One thing to remember is that the "0" (or 00, or 000) is the size in Martin's scaling system, the 15, 17 or 18 is the woods and appointments. One bit of confusion, in the 1930's a style x17 guitar was a very basic all mahogany instrument with minimum binding or other bling.

They have reintroduced the x17's as a shaded topped spruce guitar with Martin's "A frame" bracing - in my opinion the old ones were the best. And the 15 series are new all mahogany guitars. So, in 1930 they had x17 (all mahogany), x18 spruce over mahogany and x28 spruce over rosewood. Today there are x15 (all mahogany), x17 (kind of funky spruce over mahogany), x18 (spruce over) mahogany, and x28. Confused?

I have used the Scott Antes plans from LMI to build my small bodied guitars. They are close to a Martin size 0 but not exact. I would be leary of the Ultimate plans, anything on UMGF is probably good. I would also check with John Hall at Blues Creek - he is a regular contributor here. There are a few more folks building 0 sized guitars.

I wouldn't worry too much about the mahogany available today. It is a good basic wood, easy to work with and fairly consistent.

I'll make a couple of suggestions regarding how you approach your build. First, trying to do everything is a worthwhile experience but some parts of building are much harder than other or take special tools. Consider buying a preslotted fretboard and premade bridge, maybe even a cnc shaped neck. The old Martins all had dovetail neck joints but I would recommend a simpler design such as a bolted mortise and tenon. Depending on your tool situation you may want to consider a kit - it will have the sides bent, top and back the correct thickness and neck, fingerboard and bridge will be roughly done. John Hall and LMI can both furnish parlor sized guitars and if you stick with mahogany there shouldn't be issues shipping to you in Spain.

Just for a bit of inspiration, here are three of my guitars. On the left is a parlor sized guitar built from the Antes plans, in the middle is a all mahogany 00, the right is my first guitar, a 000, built from StewMac plans. For the 00 I took the 000 plans and made them a little smaller and moved some braces around. All three guitars play well, each has its own voice and character

Build one at a time. If you are careful your mistakes will be correctable and you will have a playable guitar. I would use good materials, but don't go overboard. Mahogany makes total sense - it is relatively affordable, easy to work with and makes a great guitar. The three most difficult parts of building a guitar are (usually) setting the neck angle and geometry, doing the binding (plan something fairly simple for your first) and the finish. Any home finishing system is a compromise but there are some pretty good options.

For your second guitar, build something a little bid different (I built a classical). For your third, different yet (I built a 12 string). For your forth......

My advise is to not "over think" it. It sounds like you have done your homework.

Get started!

there is no substitute for for making mistakes....
(If I didn't make mistakes, I wouldn't make anything...)
you will learn more from them than anything else.
Also the great thing about mistakes is that you can learn a lot from figuring out how to fix them

I also recommend the Cumpiano book, it is definitely NOT "outdated"
The only thing that I would recommend that differs from he book is to use a domed sanding dish for the back arch (and front arch if you go that way-I don't) and make yourself a go-bar deck....

Jonathan Kinkead’s book is also good for a novice, and I found it a bit better illustrated than C&N -but both have their strengths and I used both as guides for my first build. They both refer to building a000 or OM size but it would not be a problem to build a smaller body if you have an appropriate plan to give measurements, while referring to the books for other methodology.

All mahogany would be a good choice for a first build. A mahogany top would be taken down thinner than spruce. You could aim for around 2.2 to 2.5mm, while spruce would be 2.5 to 2.8. (Sorry, I don’t do inches). I agree with the others who advise “just get started”. Oh yes, and make a go-bar deck

The O-17 is a relatively easy build and if that is what you want - Go for it! The traditional all mahogany guitar didn't have fancy purflings or bindings and a simple rosette which will save you much aggravation on a first guitar.

I don’t think it can be overstated that your first build shouldn’t be an attempt at a dream guitar. Every year at the school we get 25 new people starting their first guitar. Inevitably there are students who insist they are going to build a 9 string parlor lefty guitar with a tailpiece made from the remains of their great great grandpappy’s civil war casket. No matter how much I try to tell them they should build a practice guitar or two first they are steadfast. 9 times out of 10, those are the students who never manage to actually build a completed playable guitar.

Building a guitar is death by a thousand small cuts. No one step is really that hard, but there are many steps and many places for screwups. There is no substitute for just building a few to see where the challenges are going to be and how you personally best can overcome them. If you are too precise or precious about your first build it is hard to keep an open mind and work through the inevitable stumbles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

One guitar it is, then!


Maybe just a bit hahaha. But I am quite sure that in the 30's and 40's Martin did produce 0-15's as their cheapest option (25 dollars I believe was the price back then) with a slightly forward shifted soundhole and braces, but still (like the 0-17) with no binding or purfling. I am only interested in building upon the design of the vintage instruments; the soundclips I've heard of the newer replicas are not as nice.



I am definately buying a preslotted fretboard and premade bridge! I wouldn't trust myself with such fine measurments... Plus, I was planning on using the radiused fretboard face to sand a radiusing block. Is this a good idea? I had already set my mind on doing the Cumpiano bolt on neck (on his websyte). I would rather, though, not go the kit route. I really want to build as much as possible. Since I've heard mahogany is relatively forgiving for bending, I'll give it a try.

Also, your guitars look great! They give me hope that I might get a usable guitar out of all this... How would you say is bracing a mahogany top different from bracing spruce?


Well, at least with my project I won't have to worry about the binding! That's one thing less at least. The neck joint really scares me, but I feel like the bolt on method might help get away with more mistakes than the dovetail joint... As for finishing, I was planning on using French Polish with some pumice on the top coats for a lower sheen.

I know what you mean. Unfortunately I'll be away until September, and I would die of impatience if I started the build and left it half done... I am definately starting full on when I get back! I do plan on using a Solera for top and back. Thanks!


Kinkead's book looks great, I'll look into it. Thanks for the recommendation! I guess the main problem will be to find a decent plans. Thanks for top thickness tips! I'm definitely making a go-bar deck.


Hmmm, I am torn apart... I really thought a 0-17 was a good place to start given its simple design and forgiving wood species, as Clay. S mentions. I do plan to help myself with a premade bridge, truss rod and fretboard. But even so, I don't want to play the fools part. Maybe an all mahogany OM based off of Cumpiano's plans is a good compromise? I would only need to tinker with the thickness and maybe bracing when voicing the guitar. Maybe?

http://store.octopus.com.tr/ in Turkey or https://maderasbarber.com/ in Spain has tonewoods and supplies. Good luck and post pictures of what you are doing.

_________________
John Lewis
Wannabe builder owned by 2 crazy dachshunds

The Style 15 guitar was introduced in 1935, with the 0-15 and R-15 archtop models, so in terms of lineage, the Style 15 originated during the so-called Golden Era of Martin production. The Style 17 guitars originated much earlier, evolving from models of the 1850s, and the Size 2-1/2 Style 17 establishing itself as the company's most popular model through the last half of the 19th century.

We build all-mahogany instruments with top thickness reduced about 15% - 20% over spruce tops. For an 0 sized guitar, around .090" (2.3mm) would be the starting point, with thinning on the edges to about 0.080" (2 mm), and top stock chosen from the lighter end of the spectrum.

On mahogany substitutes, Mr. Caruth's posts in the archives re: density, top thickness, damping, and stiffness are useful...mahogany appears to be one of the relatively few hardwoods that works well for tops because of an acceptable combination of density, damping, and stiffness. Other similar appearing woods may or may not have similar physical properties, and most are not nearly as pleasant to work with as genuine mahogany. Of the substitutes, khaya and sapele have been used here with success on Weissenborn and baritone uke instruments, with both having acceptable working qualities versus genuine mahoganies. Khaya varies broadly in density, as it is a genus composed of seven species, with the ivorensis being closest in average density to the average densities of the Swietenia genus.

As materials are a relatively minor part of the total cost of a first instrument (tools and all the other stuff - bench, etc. factors in to a much greater degree), acceptable sets of plain-figured mahogany in the ( ~ $60US) and a nice neck blank capable of producing two necks and 2 sets of solid neck & tail blocks (~ $115US in mid grade for 30" blank) will run your total cost for back, sides, top, and 2 full neck to about $260US delivered. Buying two plane-figured sets of mahogany will provide the top, back and a spare set of sides - a very handy thing for a new builder. Adding a third back and side set to the cart plus a top will run about $100 more and provide body and neck woods for two guitars for a total of $370 or so.

These are prices from the current Hibdon site, but similar pricing and options can be had from the OLF sponsors or other vendors. Outside of the US, the usual higher costs associated trade blocks and varying implementations of CITES will apply in terms of VAT, duties, availability, etc., but the ratio of raw materials costs versus all-up first guitar costs should hold in most places (e.g., shipping seems to be a real sticking point in some places).

A custom serviced kit for US-based builders would be an option, but you might also see if such things are available to you.

In terms of a first instrument, the Style 15 versus Style 17 avoids the learning curve and tooling associated with binding and tail graft, although the top and back joints, as well as the tail joint on the rim needs to be cleanly done to avoid gaps or other flaws which would be invisible under binding.

_________________
We have become a civilization that elevates idiots, prostitutes, and clowns. Am I still to defend it? Yes, for its principles. Yes, for what it was. Yes, for what it still may be.

-Mark Helprin, The Oceans and the Stars: A Sea Story, A War Story, A Love Story (A Novel)

[/quote]
In terms of a first instrument, the Style 15 versus Style 17 avoids the learning curve and tooling associated with binding and tail graft, although the top and back joints, as well as the tail joint on the rim needs to be cleanly done to avoid gaps or other flaws which would be invisible under binding.[/quote]


Getting the top and back joint tight without binding is not an easy thing to do,and if not done cleanly will ruin the look of the guitar.....

I agree, er...agreed!

_________________
We have become a civilization that elevates idiots, prostitutes, and clowns. Am I still to defend it? Yes, for its principles. Yes, for what it was. Yes, for what it still may be.

-Mark Helprin, The Oceans and the Stars: A Sea Story, A War Story, A Love Story (A Novel)

Welcome to OLF, François. I also came here recently for help in building my first acoustic guitar. I'm still working on it.

From what I have learned so far, I have three pieces of advice:

1. Pay close attention to what the members here have to say and learn from it.

2. Following their advice, proceed with the build.

3. When you get in a bind, repeat 1 and 2

_________________
Julie Moriarty
http://JulimorCreations.com

"I don’t think it can be overstated that your first build shouldn’t be an attempt at a dream guitar"

If the guitar you are dreaming of having is a simply appointed, bog standard model, I still say Go for it! Don't waste time building a guitar you are less interested in building. If the first one doesn't turn out to your expectations you can always build Dream guitar 2.0. Cumpiano is a good guide to follow in the sections that apply but there is nothing special about the particular model he builds.

"Getting the top and back joint tight without binding is not an easy thing to do,and if not done cleanly will ruin the look of the guitar...."

No big deal - if you screw this part up you can always bind the guitar. Working toward an unbound box will make you work to closer tolerances (not a bad thing) and you always have the "out" of binding if you fail in the attempt.

Since you are not starting right away you might look around for some Honduran or Cuban mahogany - it is out there and shouldn't be overly expensive compared to rosewoods. Mahogany isn't the easiest thing to bend, so Woody's suggestion of having an extra set of sides is a good one.

Here is another thing to think about:

There are tasks that either require access to power tools or better than average skill with hand tools. I am thinking specifically of thicknessing the top, back and sides. Make an honest assessment of your hand planing skills, which include the ability to tune the plane for ideal planing and the ability to sharpen the iron. If you are not pretty good at hand planing, but you don’t want to buy a thickness sander, maybe you can figure out a way to get access to one. Schools, woodworking clubs, drinking buddies, etc. Or, invest some time in getting better at hand planing.

I do think that the Cumpiano/Natelson building experience goes easier if you have access to, and experience with, some of the traditional hand tools, including a sturdy bench, decent planes, decent chisels, card scrapers, etc., and the ability to sharpen edge tools. If you have to learn all that stuff, too, it is not impossible; it just takes longer.

First, thanks for the information on the old style 15's. I was only aware of (and played) a few 00-17 and 000-17's, these wire the inspiration for my all mahogany guitar but I wasn't really copying any particular one.



I know that current 15's are not bound and some of Taylor's less expensive guitars lack binding, personally I think it makes the guitar look unfinished and the end grain is much more easily damaged. But I wanted that look on my 00 so I bound it in mahogany with no purfling lines. If you look carefully you can tell that its bound but the idea was to make it look like it came out of the Depression



I would consider binding your but use something simple - a single black or tortoise binding would look good and be much easier than trying to stack herringbone or a bunch of fancy purfiling. A simple rosette would fit this style of guitar too

Sure will do! I am aware of Maderas Barber. We also have Madinter here in Spain. I still don't know which one is best... Maderas Barber does have kiln drying and surface planing to measure for a supplement, though Madinter seems very decent as well...


Thanks for the specs! Sounds like either Swietenia or Sapele is the way to go (I do prefer the golden colour of genuine to Sapele). As for project cost, Spanish suppliers have some very nice prices (specially for mahogany substitutes). However, big neck blanks for 1 piece necks(x2) are rare and expensive, I was thinking of going the scarf joint route... Anyway, where approximately on the soundboard should I look to start the taper down to the 2mm?

Thanks for the warm welcome! I will try to follow this very sound advice!


Thanks for the encouragement! I am still a bit scared to go with a different build though... I take everybody's advice with great appreciation and consideration. The binding option to cover mistakes seems like a good fallback to depend on. Also, the Swietenia Mahogany I have available in my local suppliers is either from Guatemala or Brasil, are these ok? They're nowhere as beautiful as the mahogany at Hibdon that Willard suggested but look well quartersawn and even.


Thicknessing has me worried... I am fortunate enough to have my father's old handtools available to me (some very nice big and small handplanes, chisels, scrapers etc.), but even so, my only experience with them is of building a longbow... Maderas Barber supplies reject Sapele sets very cheap (under 10euros) which I might use to practice thicknessing, bending and such. I might look around town for possible alternatives also.

I like the idea of binding mahogany with mahogany. I'll probably buy a few sets of binding just in case.

What I take from all your comments is that building an OM with the Cumpiano book is probably the safest way. But the alternative of a 0-15/17 is not to much of a stretch, and, even though it does add some challenge (not having the exact measurments provided in the book, having to force myself to do very clean joints) it does offer a good compromise. I just bought the Cumpiano book on amazon and it should get here soon. My plan is to read through it and see if trying to follow the build along with different dimensions for a 0 size is realistic for my level... Otherwise, I just might do a Hog OM and work from there...

What Cumpianio will do is talk you step by step thru the entire building operation. It doesn't matter what the size is, you still have to do all the steps. There are some things that you might want to consider doing differently - most of us build classical guitars on a workboard as he does, but we use outside body molds for steel string guitar. I would recommend doing that and can point you towards some references. His neck joint is a mortise and tenon which uses "barrel bolts" put into the tenon from the side. That works and has a slight advantage of tolerating some misalignment when setting the neck - I happen to use slightly different bolt on configuration. Again, we can talk about that as you move forward. I think the combination of Cumpiano, a good set of plans for the size you want to build, and this group to answer question and walk you thru the build, will result in your success.

OM's are about the most popular size for a very good reason, and a spruce topped mahogany one would be a great guitar. You could do the all mahogany 0 as your second.

Mahogany on mahogany is a lovely look...the Santa Cruz 1929-0 is is much as you describe, and is a lovely little instrument (as are the other mahogany-on-mahogany pre-war SCGC models). Other than the bizarre, half-finished-looking truss rod access used on those instruments by Mr. Hoover & SSCGC, I would say 'go!' for replicating those features.

Keep in mind that mahogany is a bit more difficult in general to hand-bend than the rosewoods often suggested for a first guitar, such as East Indian, which is why the extra sides suggested earlier int he thread might be a handy thing to have. Asking a vendor for two matched back/side sets before the wood is shipped (with the top and back out of the two back sets) is much easier than contacting them 6 months later to inquired about matching a broken/cracked/crinkled side from a photo or the vendor's memory of what was stocked at the time you purchased.

While a 'V' shaped grain appearance on the back of a guitar seems to work fairly well, for a mahogany-topped instrument (as seen in the SCGC 1929-0 photographs), a straight-grained top looks more appropriate to my eyes. Purchasing a dreadnaught-sized set versus classical/'parlor' sized set affords more options with regards trimming, at just a 10-15 percent premium on cost.

Most vintage instruments have much shallower binding depth than what is seen on many instruments today - usually 3/16"/4.8mm or a bit less. Deeper binding helps hide the occasional mistake, but after having the opportunity to compare vintage and vintage-style guitars and more modern treatments, the shallower binding depth adds to the charm of these instruments. With side sets usually around 5"/~125mm in width, these binding strips can be gotten out of your side blanks prior to bending and still have the 4-1/2"/115mm rough width needed.

On tapering the thickness of the top from bridge to rim, you might consider foregoing that in lieu of a uniform thickness of about 0.085"/2.2mm on this first, and focus on getting through the process, versus perfection in either tone or appearance. We taper as an approach to tuning top compliance, usually with the random orbit sander, scraper, and 1/4 sheet sanding block to wrap up and avoid the printing of brace locations. At this point in your progress from new builder to one seasoned by years of panic, disbelief, and disappointment - and successes, of course - getting to the point where you know YOU can finish an instrument is more important that any approach to optimizing tone, etc.

Of all the advice given, Ms. Moriarty's seems most worthy of printing out and pinning to the wall of your building space, followed by a page or two of other sage advice given.

_________________
We have become a civilization that elevates idiots, prostitutes, and clowns. Am I still to defend it? Yes, for its principles. Yes, for what it was. Yes, for what it still may be.

-Mark Helprin, The Oceans and the Stars: A Sea Story, A War Story, A Love Story (A Novel)

François, take a look in the Restoration and Repair subforum. DanKirkland is doing a major repair on an 1930's 0-18. That will give you a very good idea of what the original braces looked like - even tho your top might be mahogany the braces will very similar.

Woodie, it was a SCGC 1929 that was the inspiration for my little 00. My son and I were kicking tires in guitar stores in Portland Oregon one rainy day and the most stunning guitar that I had played that day was the little hog Santa Cruz. As we walked out the door he said "dad, I thought that was going to follow you home" I said, "no, I'm going to go home and build one". Its a far cry from the one in the store but its still a pretty neat little guitar.