Official Luthiers Forum!

I was visiting another site and read most of a thread posted about "dislikes in a guitar"
I was surprised by the number of people who don't like excessive inlay or abalone purlfing etc. Pickguards and dread styles, off set soundholes, even sound ports among many others including plastisized finishes.
I didn't reply with my opinion, but thought it was a good poll and could be very helpful with future builds and models.
I agreed with many of the posted responses, as I have a pretty extensive background in woodworking in general and see an acoustic guitar as a fine piece of wood work and not a cracker-jack prize, so there need be no bling, paint, reflection, plastic or sea shells on my personal player.
Curious what builders think of this.-N.C.

_________________
Nehemiah Covey
www.coveysacoustics.com

First off these comments are not directed at or about any individual. This is just a personal commentary relevant to the topic.

Well for me the longer I build and the more woods I work with I prefer not to over do any ornamentation be it shell, paint or wood purfling. That said there is a place in this craft for inlay, pained art and such. If you are making money on client specified builds then you have to put certain personal taste aside to more than just some degree. A lot of clients want an instrument that is personalized. Also there are times for commemorative instruments, dedication instruments. And just whimsical fantasy instruments.

I personally agree anything can be over done but I read a bunch of post like this and the satin vs. gloss post where it seams there is an underling agenda to exclude one genera or another from the sate or relevant work. Well I say bull malarkey. I have seen, held and played some of the most tastefully, exquisitely crafted instruments in the world that have a bunch of abalone purfling, custom inlay. None of this made them less instruments. It is all personal taste. Trying to determine if my personal taste is the right taste to follow is nothing but a vain attempt to convince my peers that my way is the right way. It is not an honest objective attempt to view the art side of this craft.

Not everyone likes Monee’s work or Picasso’s work but none the less they are each important contributors to their craft. Each of their bodies of work, while miles apart in t technique, hold equal status and relevance.

Each time I read a post with a question like this I ask my self if the media being discounted, truly deserves being discounted and I have yet to answer myself “Yes”

There is a place for over the top inlay. There is a place for simplicity of the wood.

Very heart felt reply MichaelP, I completely agree with your viewpoint.
As a builder I watch and listen to others for an input on what is considered desirable
in terms of appearance and design. I have built many guitars with abalone everywhere, and some that look like an unfinished kit guitar. All in what a commission asks of me. One of my goals is to have a half dozen or so instruments available for sale to players of all types, so knowing what the people want in general, is key to my own success in this industry.
I do like abalone rosettes and purfling though I don't engrave my logo on the headstock unless asked.
I applaude your reply--N.C.

_________________
Nehemiah Covey
www.coveysacoustics.com

I have to admit to being very old school - I don't like inlay, cutaways, bling or weird flatsawn figure. I like beautiful straight grained wood and subtle contrasts in binding and purfling. But - I have no illusion that I am right, except for my own guitars. I build what pleases me, but try to appreciate what other people build regardless of style. Even though I don't do elaborate inlay on my guitars I enjoy seeing the amazing skill of the people who post their inlay work on the OLF.

Michael, well said. I have just run into a problem with a client that has very much to do with this whole issue of what I feel should and should not go on a guitar with my name on the top. Issues like this can put a builder smack in between a client wanting a "personalized" guitar and the limitations of what a builder does and does not want under his or her name. While I do feel that some things, like abalone sounhole and top purflings are perfectly acceptable, there are some things I will not do if it cannot be done artfully by me, or the client doesn't want to shell out the extra bucks to send the guitar to someone (Lavin comes to mind) and have them take the idea to fruition in an artful style. And things like crayola red binding and novelty type peghead inlays on a Brazilian rosewood guitar is just plain disrepectful to the wood, at least in my opinion. I have the guitar boxed in, and have stopped the build because the client keeps changing his mind or can't make up his mind, and if I make a suggestion (no backstrip in a BRW with sapwood in the center) and he agrees to it, then changes his mind after the guitar is boxed in. I've learned a few lessons on dealing with people on this build.

One reason I like to build is that people like to customize their guitars, but I have certain limitations as to what I will do, or will have done, and the above example is not something I want to do. Michael, you make a very good point about the builder's taste and the client's taste. I feel I have my own personal taste, and I will sometimes go with a clients taste as long as the guitar with my name on it doesn't come out with something that I would be embarrassed to call my own. Crayola red bindings on a BRW guit and a crab and a tree on the peghead is beyond what I want to do. Now, if he decides he wants to pay to have the guitar sent to an inlay artist and have something artful, say, a mangrove scene with a tree overhanging the water, and a crab under the water, I'd go for it, and bloodwood bindings, maybe....anyhow I guess I'm off subject so I'll sum up.

I feel, that if a builder is uncomfortable having his/her name on the PH of a guitar that they think is tasteless, they should have it set up to where they have the option of not doing it. "Proper appointments" to me are appointments that both the client and the builder can agree to, in a nutshell.

I'll shut up now

_________________
Brad Tucker

I see beauty in skillful execution. There are a lot of guitars with sub-par inlay work that makes them look terrible. Ditto with poorly executed complex binding schemes, etc etc. I believe that the execution of an aesthetic feature has a lot to do with how 'tasteful' we find it when viewing it.

Some builders have an aesthetic sense, and the building chops to execute it, that allows them to use a lot more 'bling' sometimes without their instruments becoming gaudy (ie: Peter Marreiros, Kevin Ryan, Tim Diebert, and Ron Thorn come to mind). Some other builders don't have that aesthetic sense or the chops to pull off the little details and produce 'shell covered disasters' with filler everywhere and loads of botched details.

_________________
Bob Garrish
Former Canonized Purveyor of Fine CNC Luthier Services

One thing that comes to mind is why someone is buying a handmade guitar....and not an off the shelf model. That is, sometimes a player truely wants that one of a kind, hand made guitar that they will keep for ever. I think those are often done over the top and display the true craft of inlay, execution and taste. I think every almost every guitar play has at least one of these in some form or another.

On the other hand, for those musicians that are looking for a guitar to play out, the trends tend to be a little less bling. For example, I am a player first and foremost. I will probably play close to, or just over 100 gigs this year. For most musicians, that is a lot of gigs per year....only a small few play more than that per year. The most common instruments us working musicians play are what we consider "standards". EX: Les Paul Standard. Stratocaster Standard, D18's etc. This is not just due to price. Its sort of Function over form to some extent. Less up-keep, maintinence etc. On the used market, a Custom vs a Standard are hardley any difference in price. New, they are only a few hundred apart. I own 6 or 7 Standard Les Pauls and only 2 or three customs. I could afford either at the time of purchase. I do own a "supreme" which is somewhat over the top and plays great. It hardly leaves the house.

I would think if you were building guitars in advance, to hang on a wall at a guitar shop, the less bling and more standard would be the safer build. If you are building them one at a time..as commisioned, it really doesn't matter. Build what the player is asking for.

Just my two cents.

Joe

_________________
Joe

I believe this is one place whereby you'll get a different answer from each person you ask. Bear in mind that the question was posed on the acoustic guitar forum which is very taylor and modern- lower end of the handmade market.

If you asked the same question on the Vintage section of UMGF you may find a very different set of answers.

I think flexibility in terms of appointment is the way to go.

Warmest regards,
Terence
www.guitarbench.com

I'd like to add my 2 cents in here.
I have tried to do many different inlay patterns, from vines to planets to people...you name it. I came to the conclusion that I do not do great inlay. And if you are going to do inlay it MUST be great. The pieces that I have done with these inlays have gone to family, or are still in my possession. I can build a great guitar...and I can ruin a great guitar with a bad inlay...so if a potential customer wants something out of my wheelhouse, I would rather lose the commission than do a bad job on a great guitar and have a disappointed customer.

That being said...beauty is in the eye of the beholder...and there are some beautifully adorned instruments out there.

As a luthier, I will continue to do what I do well to the best of my abilities. I am content with a simply adorned working piece of art called a guitar.
Cheers
David

I like building to individual specifications
whatever each one might entail. Lots of bling or none at all.
I read a lot of these forum posts to see how I can focus my instruments geared more toward a "players" guitar. I have had more commissions from people that use their instrument for stage and gigs than those who might just play around a campfire or on occasion. So it is very helpful to see a demographic , even if it is a forum site poll about the preferences "most" people look for in a guitar. Not just a hand made-small shop guitar , but a guitar in general.
I usually take my finished guitars, one at a time to local shop owners I know. These guys have at least a localized vantage point as to what is popular and what is in demand as far as acoustic guitars and how they should sound and play.
I started this post, not as avenue to harsh instruments of high apppointments or bling, but rather to evaluate my focus on appointments with instruments I build for show and display. To be sold outside of a commissioned custom build.---N.C.

_________________
Nehemiah Covey
www.coveysacoustics.com

What is hot in the retail market issue? Just a personal belief here. What is hot in a retail store is so far from what my clientele want I don’t worry about that at all. Retail trends come and go. Fine crafted instruments, simple appointments or extravagantly inlaid either one are eternal. it is the heart and tone and soul of the instrument that maters not the how it is dressed in terms of playability.

Hey, that's why there are guys making their living doing inlay! A great builder + a great inlay artist makes a great guitar that's a work of art, and there's no reason you need to be both!

_________________
Bob Garrish
Former Canonized Purveyor of Fine CNC Luthier Services

I'm only a hobby builder so I build what I want. But Inlay and appointments to me all depends on how it all comes together in the end. Sometimes it works and sometimes it may not work. It's sort of what you are after in the end. It's all the sum of the parts and yeah the sound and tone and playability are first place and appointments second. But I think we all take pride in putting out a pretty instrument. And enjoy when someone says your guitar is gorgeous or beautiful. At least I do and I always ask ,"How do think it sounds?"
But a simple torch inlay on the peg head is sometimes just enough sometimes. It really is a personal taste thing in the end. " Personally I don't like flashy guitars." Pay no attention to that Avatar!!!

Being a guitar builder and an inlay artist gives me a motive in both direction in this point. If anyone
sees the guitars that I build for myself, they're always surprised at how simply adorned they are. I get
comments like, "Wow! I'm surprised that you didn't include one of your inlays on this one." I guess the
fact that I can do inlay is enough for me so I never feel compelled to do it on my own guitars.

That's the guitar builder in me and what it prompts me to pursue and achieve, but the inlay artists
in me takes me down a separate path during the build process while never taking me off of it. Even
though I don;t do inlay for my own guitars, I love doing it on those commissioned by other players.
All of my inlay projects are an effort to capture the vision of the customer while still being tasteful
and staying within the overall design scheme of the guitar being complimented by the inlay.

That's where I believe inlay can take a bad turn. When the inlay becomes the goal or the project in
itself and the guitar that is its backdrop isn't considered. Both need to be matched and the product is,
after all, the guitar, so the inlay should serve as an embellishment to it or compliment it.

I've played guitars built by a few guys who are primarily inlay artists and not necessarily luthiers, but
have learned to build over the years. It has been obvious to me that they were simply building to create
playable canvases for their inlay work and that the inlay work was th primary show piece in the package.
That's a sad imbalance since that inlay could have been shown off in a nice block of wood and placed
on a mantle or in a display cabinet somewhere rather than in the fingerboard and/or headstock of a
mediocre guitar.

I have a customer who has become a good friend who came to me after paying in excess
of $12k for a guitar with an elaborate inlay from one of the famous inlay artists who decided to build
guitar to display his work in. When he received his first of the four guitars he's commissioned from me,
he asked why it was so much louder and more responsive then his heavily inlaid guitar that cost more
than three times as much. I simply responded with, "Hey, I must have gotten lucky and all of the right
pieces of wood ended up on the bench at the same time." knowing that there was much more to it than
that. After a short time of owning his first Omega, he called to let me know that he had really bonded
with it and it had become his main guitar for both live and studio work in New York City.

He commissioned his second, third and fourth guitar over the following five year period and has used
them on countless recording projects and has played in front of thousands and thousands of people with
them and has sent many players my way who have commissioned guitars as a result of his gracious and
genuine endorsement of them. All of his guitars from me are relatively understated and very organic and
woody in appearance and are a far cry from the billboard like look of his inlay project guitar.

The funny thing is that every time he goes to a small gathering where he's going to be sitting in a circle
with other great players and sometimes very well known players......you know the kind that he may want
to impress for whatever reason....he brings this ornate inlay centered guitar with mediocre built quality,
less than stellar tone and terrible playability. He visited once and showed me photos of him with some
famous players and they he was, arm in arm with them, holding that guitar. When I asked why he didn't
bring at least one of his Omegas to play with them, he replied, "Well having that guitar really impresses
people." He was using an inlay and the reputation of the artist who did it to impress people and that's a
sad thing to see as it proves that some folks are sucked in by it and put far too much emphasis on
appearance and the price they paid for something.

It's not all that uncommon in our industry while players want to throw the name of the builder of their
guitar out there to impress people before the guitar itself has a chance to make the impression. You don't
always get more just because you paid more even though huge prices paid for things does make a certain
impression on people and causes the ill conceived and unfounded perception that price is directly
connected to and indicative of quality. Not so in many cases.

When I've had people ask what I though of the guitars built by these guys I always reply, "He's a great
inlay artist." and say no more. Inlay is art by all means, but it is art in our business that needs to take a
back seat to the appearance and quality of the guitars we build and especially to the pursuit of great
tone. There are those inlay artists who tried their hand at lutherie, but quickly abandoned it to get back
to their inlay benches after finding that there's a bit more to it than creating a canvas for what they are
really gifted with.

Don't get me wrong now....I love to design and execute a beautiful and tastefully placed inlay, but I'm a
guitar builder first and foremost and I've always kept that as my primary direction...the creation of guitars
that sound great, play great and look great as they do. A little inlay can be just some icing on an already
great cake.

Just a view from both hills.

Regards,
Kevin Gallagher/Omega Guitars

Dear Kevin,

If you wrote a book of musings on lutherie, I'd buy two copies in case I lost one.

-Bob

_________________
Bob Garrish
Former Canonized Purveyor of Fine CNC Luthier Services

I agree and thought this was very well said.

Personally I am not the biggest fan of inlay on a guitar unless the guitar is designed to be a visual statement that incorporates inlay as one of the vehicles to express a theme.

Just as new builders often over build when I was a new builder I tended to try to incorporate everything that was also new to me that I wanted to try on a guitar on a single guitar. This included numerous types of wood, inlay, cool tuners, and sometimes - you guessed it......... p*int........

These days I think that all of the above has it's place in guitar building but nothing should ever make me take my blinders off from tone and playability as the primary and usually the only objective.

Don't get me wrong I greatly appreciate well done inlay and I would go to one of our inlay pros here on the OLF if I end up building a guitar with inlay but it's not a personal interest of mine or something that I want to really see on a guitar that I would be proud to own. Besides it adds weight.......

And another thing........ remember the one millionth Martin? That thing has so much shell on it I could not imagine that it could ever sound very good. And who would want to be seen with the thing....... Although interesting to some folks I think that Martin made an error in judgment in creating an iconic instrument that was intended to be primarily and only a visual statement.

Guitars are made to be played and it's assumed that a big part of this is to sound fantastic too. I think that Martin should have endeavored to create a millionth Martin that was produced to be the pinnacle of tone AND exploit their rich, historic heritage.

Nehemiah, you sure generate interesting discussions!

I'm pretty much with everybody here on this. If I were to build a dream guitar for myself (wondering if that day will ever come), it would have the finest woods and absolutely minimal ornamentation, perhaps to the point of looking stark, and my target tone, which is lots of character, some bark, very responsive. I'd like its tone and playability to leap out of an instrument that looks tame. Inlays might consist of a small headstock piece and side markers on the fretboard. Now that I think of it, my first car, in the 60s, was that way. It was very tame in appearance, but I had put a monster engine in it, very quiet, what we called a sleeper, but I ate Corvettes and GTOs with it. I guess I'm still trying to build to that aesthetic.

Paraphrasing what someone said here awhile ago (Rick Turner?), we should evaluate guitars by first playing them blindfolded. We could call it gauging the instrument's "guitarnicity," I suppose.

my 2¢

_________________
formerly known around here as burbank
_________________

http://www.patfosterguitars.com

[quote="Hesh"]And another thing........ remember the one millionth Martin? That thing has so much shell on it I could not imagine that it could ever sound very good. And who would want to be seen with the thing....... Although interesting to some folks I think that Martin made an error in judgment in creating an iconic instrument that was intended to be primarily and only a visual statement.


Well this would be all good if it weren't for one big fact- This is what Martin wanted.
It was designed, commissioned, and decorated this way to be a museum piece first. They wanted a guitar that was a testimonial and a visual triumph celebrating their heritage and history. The guitar does that. And no one is going to be seen with it. They have had offers on it and they are not selling it. It's not about that.
Imagine if the number one million had no "visual" reason to exist- what would separate it from the other Martin's? It's great tones and wood choices? They are all supposed to have that.
What if they made a huge placard and had Larry inlay that? Then people would say " that was dumb" they should have put that on a guitar"...

Does the guitar make people talk about it? Yes- Are there strong opinions over it? Yes.
Are humans visual creatures primarily over every thing else? Yes.
How is the guitar not a complete success in achieving it's goals for the company? It's a museum piece. It's also not my style at all and I don't care for it personally, but the man who did the inlay is not your average human, nor is the work. It's an inlay Olympic event- a testimonial to a company, and an inlay "supreme master" who is a huge part of that companies modern heritage, and an engraver (Dave) who is also at that level.


Go for it.. I have time for this.


Craig L

_________________
www.handcraftinlay.com

I saw and held the 1M Martin while visiting the Martin exhibit area at NAMM summer session in Austin last year. It was a stunning piece of art. I did not strum it as I felt that was not what I was offered but I can tell you that a lot of thought and consideration when into the design. It will never be sold and never seriously played. It is as Craig said a commemorative instrument, A display piece, A calling card if you will for the Martin Museum.

Would I own it? But of course. Would I play it? Absolutly not. I certainly would not build anything like it to be used as a working instrument. But if by some great fortune my grandsons or granddaughters and their offspring and so forth should carry on my shop long enough to reach a major milestone and wish to fabricate an elaborate inlay commemorative guitar to display to their patrons: Would I roll over in my grave? Not in the least. A guitar like that is about the celebration not the instrument.

So.... Craig and Michael my friends are you saying that you don't think that it's butt ugly?

I mean.... said like Arlow Guthrie in Alice's Restaurant ...I understand that it is a testimonial to a rich history and heritage but even as a marketing vehicle I think that it falls short of what they could have done with it. It gets some press where it is but how many places can one lone guitar be...... That was a rhetorical question.....

People are generally more attracted to something that they too can hold, play, and even own. So perhaps Chris and the guys could have in some way linked the 1M Martin to the "Authentic" series as brother/sister guitars. This would have tied in Martin's vintage sonic excellence with a tangible that people can actually own. And of course this would have provided additional justification for the folks that want them, the authentic series, to drop down 6K for a D-18. By link I mean make the 1M Martin, even looking as it does, s/n 001 of a series that kicks off the availability of the authentic series. The IM Martin still could be the museum piece that it was designed to be. I just get the sense that the strategic marketing value of the 1M Martin could have been far more than it was and is. I mean...... after all what an enormous accomplishment producing 1,000,000 very fine guitars is AND what an incredible work of art the 1M Martin is.

Just a thought....

I don't disagree with on anything but the butt ugly issue. It is surly over the top but pictures do not show it off well. It is a whole other thing up close and personal. The gold piping detail work does not photograph nearly as well as it appears in person. The inlay work is remarkable.>>>>> Hold the presses I am thinking of the wrong commemorative I am thinking of the 750k. The Peacock with the diamond eye. But that still does not change a thing. like I said both are what they are commemoratives. Like when a 4 Star use to retires from the Amy he would receive an over the top engraved and gold leafed dress soard. It is a commemoration of an event.

I would not want a playing guitar like it. However I would be more than honored to own it.

To me it is what it is and I have no problem understanding what it is.

It's only a trophy. And I think it's Okay and would like to see it.

Wow! I guess I did stir up a hornets nest.

I think I have to reiterate my reason for posting this thread.
I build guitars...I build for people in what ever manner they desire. I have no problem with lots of inlay. I think in moderation it is very nice, but it leaves me thinking that the fundamentals of an acoustic instrument , from a builders stand point, when over done, is secondary. With that said, I guess if I could inlay like Craig, (or articulate my opinion like Kevin), I would be a little more apt to offer more art work. I target a demographic of consistancy, and popularity. I also like the way a "stark" guitar feels in my hands. Like it came from some unknown Spanish luthier living in a remote village, but embodies the heart and soul of ingenuity and old world instrument crafting. Alive with tone and bears the finish of a the artists intent.
I'll keep building my instruments with this inspiration and hope that the demographic swings my way. I would like to say I'd refrain from poking sticks at nested bees, but that's not much fun!--N.C.

_________________
Nehemiah Covey
www.coveysacoustics.com

Hesh,
I've actually played that 1,000,000th Martin on a few occasions and I think you'd be surprised by
its tone. You have to remember that they used some beautiful Brazilian Rosewood and an awesome
top and all of the components were really hand picked....unlike any for any other guitars that move
along the line faster than the speed of sound.

Another thing to consider is that Larry Robinson....my personal inlay hero....is the master of the
craft of inlaying into fine woods. He not only has an incredible skill for cutting very intricate patterns
and very small pieces with mind blowing accuracy and repeatability, but also inlays them at depths
that are very shallow so the wood removed and the tonal effects created by the loss are minimized.

I look at that guitar and marvel.....partly because I love a great Martin....and partly because I truly
understand and appreciate the level of skill and incredible patience that it took to create the whole
inlay scheme by Larry.

Someone asked me once if I would be willing to just imitate....with variation and my own interpretation
incorporated....a portion of the millionth Martin's inlay on the back of a commissioned guitar. I gave them
Larry Robinson's contact information and told them that i be thrilled to send the neck and body out to him
for inlay that was conceived and contract as the result of a collaboration between the two of them, take
them back when he was done and complete the construction and finish of the guitar as a regular commission.

For whatever reason, he didn't go for it and just had me do a custom inlay for him. I don;t know of he ever
contacted Larry or not....I should check and see.

Larry's a great guy and as humble as he is talented and he deserves every accolade that he gets and more.

Regards,
Kevin Gallagher/Omega Guitars


Bob,
I actually have three books in the works. The first is a deeply detailed book on guitar construction and the
many different philosophies that are applied by modern builders, another is a coffee table book of fun and
interesting photos of guitars in the final and complete forms as well as in all different stages of construction.
Anyone who appreciates beautiful wood before, during and after its use by a skilled luthier to create a great
guitar should love it.

The third is a sort of specialized market offering and is a running book of the many thoughts and feelings
that accompany....and sometimes plague me while designing and building guitars and working in close contact
with a customer as we both try to communicate to one another what the final product should and hopefully
as far as tone, playability and appearance go. This book will likely fall more under a book of musings about lutherie
and will be both emotional and spiritual along with being very technical at times.

I think all luthiers have experienced deep emotional things that spark thoughts in them that nothing else can
like leaning over a bunch of wood with a vision of joining it all together into the tone creating marriage that a
guitar is. The same can be true for many in a spiritual sense as we look at that same pile of wood and wonder
why it that we happened to be born with a certain gift and then live a life that exposed to all of the necessary
elements to make us able and willing to build instruments from it.

I think we're all a little weird and eccentric in our own ways, but I've come to appreciate those idiosyncrasies
and eccentricities and chalk them up to too much dust, too much noise and thinking way too much about the
very smallest details in a build. That's what makes this community of people so special, though...we're all different
from one another and we all have different ideas, opinions and philosophies about what we do and why we do it,
but this craft makes us all able to respect and enjoy one another and the work that we do.

I'm hoping to have a transcript ready for proofing and editing soon so we can start shopping it out for even
some small publishing interest.

Thanks,
Kevin Gallagher/Omega Guitars