Official Luthiers Forum!

So I have the GAL plan and have built one of these. Awesome little parlour guitar. When I try to google them, it invariably comes up with 0-18 style and very little on a 1-18 style. Is this a Ted Davis interpretation or was there actually a 1-18 out there? I am building a couple of more right now for my daughters as I really like the size and sound of the guitars built from this plan.

I'm sure some experts will chime in shortly. I'm not one, but I appreciate old Martins and like to learn about them. Have you looked at Robert Corwin's sites, earlymartin and vintagemartin?

This page shows a 1-28,

http://www.earlymartin.com/sizes.html

and that chapter gives dimensions. I would expect there were 1's made in mahogany. In a quick search I don't see any 1-18's displayed on his site, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.

_________________
Tim Allen
"Never hurry, never rest."

That's one site I haven't seen that adds a little more info. The size 1 is definitely referred to although the 1-18 is sure in the background? Thanks for adding. Must be a little more info out there. In the meantime, it's a great plan IMO.

yes there are some 1-18s out there. The earliest ones that I have seen were gut strings.

_________________
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

Thanks John. Ive seen that too and beefed up the braces on mine to handle extra light steel strings. Maybe that's it then that the gut string guitars just kind of disappear into the background once the steel string ones started coming out? Still loving the shape and style of the 1-18.

Hi Darrel,
The size one guitars are my favorite size to build. They were Martin's full size guitar back in the 1800's , the smaller ones being designated 2 through 5. When Martin started building larger bodied guitars they added size 0, then 00, and 000. D was designating Ditson, which when adopted as a Martin, became Dreadnought.
I have owned two original size 1 guitars - a 1-21 which I still have and a 1-26 which had it's original wooden case and was in like new condition (which I sold many years ago). The 1-21 could handle light gauge steel strings O.K. , but the 1-26 was too lightly built for anything but gut or nylon. The 1-26 was great for a collector because of it's pristine condition and unusual model, but not a great sounding guitar compared to a Spanish classical.
The early "18" style guitars had rosewood back and sides and spruce tops. This was changed to mahogany sometime before 1917.
The "ones" I build I model after the 1-21 but often use the longer 25.4 scale length on, rather than the 24.9 of the originals. I have built a few variations of them - some with slightly deeper bodies, one with 8 strings, and presently I am working on an HPL B/S travel guitar.
I think the longer body (almost as long as an O.M.) is what gives the size 1 it's great sound.
I recently added some 1/4 inch spacers inside the form of my size one mold and reduced the size to make a size 2 guitar. It is an extra deep body and used a 24.9 scale (rather than the 24.5 original) and really surprised me with how good it sounds. These little guitars don't give up much to their larger cousins.

Here are a few pictures of some I have built:

The source for Ted's pattern was an actual 1918 1-18 that he repaired. Martin production records began in 1898 with the introduction of serial numbers. Production of 1-18's after 1898 peaked in 1919, with 236 built that year. It tapered off rapidly after that, and the last one was built in 1927 (the only one that year). That would indicate that there are very few 1-18's built for steel strings.
Ted was very impressed with that guitar, which led to him drawing the plan. I don't know how many he made, but I do know at least one had Osage orange back and sides, and there was a partially finished 1-45 in the shop when he passed in October 2008. That was inspired by a 1904 1-45 that I had restored for the Martin historian Mike Longworth. It was the first 1-45 Martin made, and it is currently for sale on Ebay (no affiliation with the seller).

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

_________________
John

I had a steel strung 1-28 for many years. Great little guitar.

Dave

Thanks for the additional information Clay and John. Some nice looking guitars Clay! I really like the one I built. It's a lot of great sound out of such a small guitar. Mine is all pine (from a 2" x 4") by the way as it was built for a $100 MIMF challenge back in 2011 I believe? Anyway, even the neck is pine with 4 hacksaw blades glued in on edge to provide stiffness. I just did a minor neck reset on it which was easy as it's a bolt on neck. Playing it just reminded me of how great these guitars are and made me start thinking. Thanks again.

Upon further reseach John. I really appreciate your history and connection to Ted Davis and how special this guitar plan is. I'll be making a few more. My pine one sounds great and I'm sure better woods will only make it a better guitar. This is my pine one!

Pine gets an undeserved bad rap, IMHO. I used Ponderosa pine (sourced from shelving boards) for bracing on several of my early guitars, and it worked just fine. I even did a couple of four-piece tops. One of those tops was on my first commission....a copy of my 1959 J-45 that I finished around 1977 or 78. That guitar found its way back to me a few years ago.

_________________
John

I have to agree that many woods work but tradition calls for spruce. I have seen guitars made entirely of Poplar , Catalpa , and Fir all sounded fine. if your just starting use them ti dial in your process. On the Poplar Martin had made on entirely of poplar neck fretboard and bridge. Sounded fine to me.

_________________
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

Touched on but worth clarifying...the designation 1-18 is both a size ( and for a while, a body shape) and style.

Martin used the first number (as mentioned earlier) to designate the size of the body. The Size 1 was the largest of the early Martin guitars and the Size 5 the smallest. As guitars moved out of the parlor and into larger venues, the need for larger bodies with their higher volume and more robust bass response pushed Martin to larger sizes. Given that the size designations had already been in use for a few decades at Martin when the first mention of an 0-sized guitar is seen in the production records, a similar system to designating buckshot sizes must have seemed attractive, with 0 (i.e., ought) larger than 1, 00 larger than 0, and 000 larger than 00. This system held up well until the larger instruments of the 20th Century such as the dreadnaught arrived, as the designation 0000, 00000, etc. was both cumbersome to speak and easily misread, leading to the use of unique letter sizes...D for dreads and the early M and J designations for what is really a grand auditorium sized instrument....that size designation (roughly 16" lower bout) arises once again from earlier Martin practice (0 = concert, 00 = grand concert, 000 = auditorium, so 0000 should equal grand auditorium).

Martin styles started out as a way for the foreman to avoid having to write out every detail of each instrument produced... sometime in the 1850's, the use of a style number became shorthand for 'so many layers of purfling of these materials and thicknesses...' then evolved through the use of the number to mean the trim level or 'number of quality' per Martin (higher equals better) as well as price for at least the time when the nation was on a functional gold standard (e.g., the 1-21 cost three dollars more than a 1-18 at one point), then finally to a formalized shorthand for trim materials (e.g., Style 18 binding, purfling, rosette materials and appearance common across all or most sizes produced).

All this is better explained on various sites such as the UMGF and in the two-volume series from Martin, 'Martin Guitars: A History" and "Martin Guitars: A Technical Reference" - worth owning both volumes, if only to have at least some of the fine points on vintage Martin practice ready to hand.

_________________
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)

One thing to keep in mind with "style" numbers, is that over the years the appointments and materials were sometimes downgraded on some styles. The "18" style went from rosewood back and sides to mahogany back and sides, which I think is what most of us now associate with this style. Also the fretboard and bridge changed from ebony to rosewood (as it also did on style 21).

I have built 4 size 1's, 12 frets to the body, all of a different wood spec. All were built for light ga. steel strings.
I took dimensions from a 1-17 (or 18) Martin that came to the shop for repair.
Mine were very lightly built and performed best with fingers rather than a pick.
I still own the first one I built, it is Eastern White Pine, top, back & sides & a Mahogany neck. Very light weight and very resonant, not a guitar that you want to bang on though.

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008907949110

Thanks David. Mine has been beat on hard at times with great results depending on the level of soberness (new word?) of the individuals. Thought about putting a pick guard on at some point, but then visualized a Willy guitar. We'll see. Playing a couple of new tunes on it as we speak. Finger and strumming!

Here is a neat Size-1 of White Oak b&s, Carpathian top.
[url=https://ibb.co/sqgzbTP]
[url=https://ibb.co/nb9gRHQ]
[url=https://ibb.co/YQLPXSj]
[url=https://ibb.co/Tcncf9W]
[url=https://ibb.co/4Scbkff]

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008907949110

That oak looks great David. I like the minimalist/no binding look as well. When I'm done the 000 I'm working on I'll be starting on another 1-18. I have some Cuban mahogany or cocobolo that I may use.

David, that guitar is neat in every sense of the word! Great job!

_________________
Tim Allen
"Never hurry, never rest."

If you wanted to use light gauge steel strings with these plans from GAL, how would you beef up the bracing?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

If you don't have much experience working with this size, using bracing similar to what Martin uses for a size O steel string would put you in the ballpark. Some of the originals will handle extra light strings with no problems, and some won't. I believe this is more because of the wood's stiffness than the size of the braces. If you have a stiff top and stiff braces the original dimensions might work fine.

I don't know about "beefing up" the specs on a Size-1 guitar. What are the specs on the Ted Davis plans?
My own Size-1 guitar, the first one up there I show, was built with extra-light strings in mind, but after the first set of strings was worn out I switched to Regular Light Ga. Martin strings, and have never looked back. I don't remember exactly the brace dimensions or the top thickness, but it was built pretty light all around.

[url=https://ibb.co/QbP03pj]

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008907949110