Official Luthiers Forum!

We all know steelstring guitars come in a bunch of different shapes and sizes. But Dreadnaught-shaped guitars tend to be offered in one size. And I have not seen a plans vendor offering smaller-bodied Dreadnaughts for those of us who think that the shape is attractive but the bulk is not. I know of only one manufacturer (Martin, who offered the 7-28 to an indifferent market) who tested the water once and found no reason to persist. But manufacturers sell bunches of 'travel' guitars and 'O' or '00' sized instruments.

Is there any reasoning behind this one-size Dreadnaught phenomenon? Has the shape been proven to perform poorly unless used in full-size Dreadnaughts?

Thanks, folks.

_________________
Peter Havriluk

I build one that is a half inch smaller in both directions and 4.5. It's awesome!

_________________
Pat

A guitar body is by size , a 7 while a smaller version of a dred it is known as a 7. I have done thinner versions of dreds that had body depth of a 000 that sound great and are more comfortable to play on the couch. Taylor has a size 10 also a dred that is just a touch smaller than the Martin . There is no reason that you can't make one smaller but remember if you do shrink it too much you have to understand the scale length may have to change with it. I would think as long as you keep the body length such that the scale length doesn't push the bridge too far down the body, and your bracing will have to move with it.
All little things you have to keep in mind.

_________________
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

You might google "Ditson guitar sizes". Martin originally made that shape for the Oliver Ditson company (D for Ditson) in three different sizes. The dreadnought was the largest size.

Many of the questions in Lutherie that speak to why they did this or that etc. are often easily answered with occum's razor. A really good example of this is G*bson and all of the bastardized no-specific-models-actually-match-the-parts-on-my-ax thing.

G*bson often used what they had laying around to complete batches of instruments. Other manufacturers did this too but G*bson seems to be one of the worst or best depending on perspective in not feeling encumbered to have anything even vaguely resembling configuration control in their manufacturing process.

When I'm keen to attempt to understand why Martin or someone else did what they did back in the day often a bit of understand of the issues associated with musical instruments back in that day will shed some light.

For example prior to the advent of the electric guitar guitars in general struggled for acceptance in the marketplace because they were difficult to hear over other traditional band instruments of the day. From banjos to horns the six string acoustic guitar kind of remained a wall flower of sorts in respect to the volume of sound it was able to produce.

Of course there is likely no hard and specific answer to your question but if we attempt to reason why things were as they were some possibilities emerge.

Dr*ads remained, for the most part... large likely because of the volume thing and the need of some artists to collaborate with other musicians.

I'll add another possibility about the dr*ad and not so much why they remained the same size for the most part but why the shape was never refined from something that resembles a pear.....

Why are new builders pointed toward dr*ads as the first project? One very good and understandable reason is that the shape of the sides do not have any really difficult curves to bend. As such new builders who may be bending wood for the first time benefit from not having to do a tight waist or cut-away, etc.

Taking this thinking further f*ctories very much benefit from anything that reduces their risk and waste and the dr*ad shape likely had less waste from cracking sides in the bending process.

These days the dr*ad has been around so very long now that we expect them to look as they do. If folks want something smaller there are lots of shape choices for that too.

Something else that's related to a time tested model and shape being physically reduced and what the market acceptance was/is is the G*bson 335 where the 339's, a smaller version of the same thing, are on fire with lots of demand unlike the few attempts at smaller dr*ads.

Of course I can't know but it could be that since the dr*ad did not succeed in a smaller form factor and the 335 does to this day and beyond what's the difference between the two examples - electrification for one thing which takes us back to just how big a voice a dr*ad has. A 339 has the same volume as the 335 since we can always turn the amp to 11.... A smaller dr*ad may not generate the same volume as it's larger sister.

Also since the dr*ad is very well known, the standard of the acoustic guitar industry, it's now a commodity or something that is pretty well understood as to how it should look, form factor, etc. which also determines case size as well.

As such my guess is that there is no over thinking this one - a dr*ad is what it is because of tradition, historical needs to be heard in a band, the fact that it caught on over time and is very much an industry standard these days, and I am going to also add my speculation that in manufacturing speak the dr*ad shape represented a lower risk product with less waste from more radical side bending angles.

But nothing stops any of us from building a dr*ad any size that we wish except perhaps some small realities such as availability of a well fitting case, if we sell our creations will the market want this, and the possibility.... that a smaller dread would have a smaller voice as a result.

On a positive note 12 fret dr*ads are popular these days AND because of the shorter scale many of us believe that this pushes the bridge more into the sweet spot of the top. A smaller dread could do this too, push the bridge more into the sweet spot of the top.

You can do what ever you wish with Lutherie and when inclined to imagine that a great deal of thought and research relying on tons of empirical data went into how we got from there to here - perhaps instead consider the very most basic considerations, what they had, what sold, manufacturing risk and costs, and the historical setting where in this case prior to amplification guitars in general struggled for greater acceptance.

Happy New Year!

Around these parts we have a family bluegrass band, Daddy plays huge acoustic bass, mama plays guitar, daughter fiddle, two of the boys on banjos and a boy on mandolin. Mom started out with a really nice OO but since has gone kicking and screaming to a D (too big to be comfortable) but now you know there is a guitar in the group.

I've pondered a slightly smaller wedge D style for the ladies but, don't know if a really good OM could do the same thing.

What a wonderful thing we have going here - - - ask a question and get a thorough and nuanced answer in half a day. Thanks, everybody, for addressing my question. Enough encouragement to proceed.

(parenthetically, a propos Gibson's 'variability', I wonder if the Les Paul boat floats the whole company and they can continue their wandering ways with acoustics secure in the knowledge that acoustics keep the name visible and Les Paul pays the bills. If Gibson was financially dependent on acoustic product, they'd have died a long time ago. I think.)

_________________
Peter Havriluk

That's true but their quality control of acoustics coming out of Bosman is SOOOO much better than it used to be.

_________________
"I've been had again"
Tim Benware
Creedmoor, NC

Hesh, happy new year. Guardian cases make larger cases.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trust me on this ---- There is a huge steady following and demand for Gibson acoustics. Moving the operation out west separate from the electric facility did turnout to be a good move but it was necessary to fulfill the "demand" --- not lack of demand. The J 45 and its variations, L00 J200 and J185 have been wildly popular for many, many decades.

_________________
Ken Cierp

http://www.kennethmichaelguitars.com/

the move was covered in these you tubes. Ren Furgeson there is a whole series . Like Ken said there were many hi demand gibsons for years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09Kf6jyBuak

_________________
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

Played some of the j35 models, sound pretty good and they're a reasonable price too.

The Jackson Browne model I played was really good, very deep but with a wedge and the 12 fret joint could be a comfortable guitar.

This happened just last week so it was my final doofus move in 2014.
After waiting for what seemed like ages I finally got a break in the weather. Bright sunny, no wind, and decent RH. I prepared to spray my first session of nitro and didn't lock my spray cup lid down so when I started to shoot the nitro blew out the top and made a big mess of my nice leveled vinyl sealer.

Oh no, this was supposed to go in another thread, this is my First doofus move of 2015.

Re-post, and you've doubled your coverage!

Alex

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

Who knew that posting your doofus, was in fact, another doofus ... thus, doofus squared ...

_________________
Tony Karol
www.karol-guitars.com
"let my passion .. fulfill yours"

That's too funny Tony!

I am sensing a run of T shirts .... maybe we can get our goat loving friend to work something up, I am thinking a couple goats, with Doofus ^2 superimposed over top of them ...

_________________
Tony Karol
www.karol-guitars.com
"let my passion .. fulfill yours"

Back to the OT... It sounds good to me if used in a smaller size. At one time I made two 14" lower bout guitars with essentially dreadnaught shape. As with any shape, there seems to be an associated characteristic sound. In a way they are better smaller, as the bass is more balanced.

Obviously the Ditsons originally came in three sizes. Has anyone else noticed that this shape was a retro revival of renaissance guitars? If you look at the small size Ditson, it is very obvious. Compare it to the Stradivari guitars, for example.

It looks like Mr. Ditson, unencumbered by taste, said, "Hey this little one is so cool let's also make it in some extra wide sized guitboxes to go with it! That'll look nice in my store!"

I've heard people say over the years that the dread shape emphasizes the bass, and this has seemed true to me based on what I could observe comparing large narrower waisted guitars' sound to dreads. But that's a comparison it's difficult to be sure of. Yesterday I read in Gore and Gillet's Design book that they measured this difference in wide-waisted guitars, which gives me more confidence in the notion.

This set me to thinking. While the dread's bass emphasis isn't the balance you want for a solo finger picking guitar, the loss of treble in the middle works well for singers, and there sure are plenty of people whose main use for a guitar is to accompany singing. The standard dread size is uncomfortable for many people to play; makes me think a smaller dread might be a good thing to build for such a person. Something like the Ditson "Grand Concert" size. I guess I'll have to add that to my already impractically long list of guitars I want to build.

_________________
Tim Allen
"Never hurry, never rest."

Aren't the Taylor Baby and Big Baby smaller dred shapes?

_________________
A man hears what he wants to hear, and disreguards the rest. Paul Simon