Here are three cutaway details for my new MJ. Which cutaway do you find visually pleasing.
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Poll: Which cutaway is visually pleasing http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=12819 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 3:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Here are three cutaway details for my new MJ. Which cutaway do you find visually pleasing.
|
|
| Author: | Jim Kirby [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 3:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
None of the above - I'm a florentine kind of guy (and like Ervin Somogyi's the best). But I voted for A |
|
| Author: | Sam Price [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 3:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Definetely A. I too prefer the floretine look, and I think that design A looks more balanced overall. B makes the guitar look too "skinny" and C looks like an electric hybrid, akin to something Fender would churn out. 
Just my two pence. |
|
| Author: | Mark Maquillan [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 3:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I agree with Jim but I voted for C |
|
| Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 3:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sorry I did not think of how the poll would take votes when I added the 4 question so just post if you would like to see a cutaway detail added to the MJ plans that will be available in the library of plans. |
|
| Author: | Sam Price [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 3:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
/\ Florentine, DAMMIT!!! and that first sentence SHOULD say, "I too prefer the florentine look, however out of the three posted, "A" looks more balanced overall. I'll engage my brain before my fingers next time, huh?! |
|
| Author: | JohnAbercrombie [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Michael- None of the choices really 'click' for me- 'A' is the best-looking of them , though. I think that perhaps a 'smooth,flowing' curve, rather than just two circles, would look better. (Flexible ruler or batten vs computer?) You might also consider narrowing the heel block on the treble side and getting the cutaway a bit closer to the heel- that could soften the curves a bit (and make playing a bit easier as well). Just my 2cents worth- I've looked at a bunch of cutaways, but haven't had the gumption to make one yet. Cheers John |
|
| Author: | Dave Rickard [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
A |
|
| Author: | Kim [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I like "A" and yes, I would realy like to see it on the MJ plans, it look great Michael. A Florentine always look nice also but given the way I play, that pointy bit could be a little risky, you could have somebodies eye out with one of them things. ROCK AND ROLL!!!!! 
Kim |
|
| Author: | Bill Greene [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
OK, I'm going to disagree with the florentine lovers. I think "A", or something very similar looks much more natural, and organic (to use a friend's term), on an acoustic guitar than a florentine does. There's no misunderstanding how complex and artistic a florentine is, but I think a venetian is a prettier "flow" for an acoustic guitar. I vote A, and yes to having it on the plans. |
|
| Author: | SteveCourtright [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hmmmm. IMHO I like A. B seems too closed in - like a telecaster and C is interesting, but I prefer the curved theme/shape to continue all the way around the body, so the straight section is a little too untraditional for my taste. |
|
| Author: | burbank [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Guess I'll be the loner here. A seems very geometrical to me, not much life in it. B has more grace and movement to my feeble eyes. Also there's something in B that brings out the curve between the treble waist and the upper bout. |
|
| Author: | old man [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
"B" 
Ron |
|
| Author: | Jim Kirby [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Actually, I like the side to come in flush with the heel (and use a wide, shallow heel) on cutaways too, so that would change all the geometries above too. (What a grump today! )
|
|
| Author: | Pwoolson [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I voted A but actually prefer a combination of A and C. That's the way I do my cutaways. Also, as JohnA said, why does the neckblock not meet the fingerboard on the trebel side? What's the point of having a cutaway if you are going to be banging your hand on the sharp neckblock? |
|
| Author: | Pwoolson [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Also, I just noticed that it's braced for a lefty. Is that intentional? |
|
| Author: | Mark B [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
i dont like either one of those. i think the new ibanez cutaway is easier on the eyes, and very easy to make and the shape doesnt suffer at all in the sound dept. mark |
|
| Author: | Pwoolson [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Insert edit button here: Never mind, I was double mirroring the image in my mind. |
|
| Author: | John How [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
C gives a little more hand room, my cutaway is even more open than that. Playing in the cutaway area is hard enough without being cramped so I like open cutaways. On my next cutaway guitar I am going to bevel the cutaway similar to an arm rest to allow just that much easier access playing in that area. My vote is C. |
|
| Author: | WarrenG [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'd buy C. The first two seem to eat away too much of the upper bout to me - very "Washburny". Whereas C reminds me of an older Lowden... 
|
|
| Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=JohnAbercrombie] Michael- None of the choices really 'click' for me- 'A' is the best-looking of them , though. I think that perhaps a 'smooth,flowing' curve, rather than just two circles, would look better. (Flexible ruler or batten vs computer?) You might also consider narrowing the heel block on the treble side and getting the cutaway a bit closer to the heel- that could soften the curves a bit (and make playing a bit easier as well). Just my 2cents worth- I've looked at a bunch of cutaways, but haven't had the gumption to make one yet. Cheers John [/QUOTE] By the way I can draw splined arcs as well true radii that is not an issue. I do tend to want to work cutaways with tangent radii for the ease of making tooling. It is funny you mention bringing the retuning side tangent to the heel. I do that as an option It is more work to adapt the neck block and the side to fit the curvature of the neck heel. So I offer that as a paid for upgrade option on my guitars. Yes I am a capitalist Besides I have an alignment fixture that I use to locate the neck block that indexes the face and 2 45deg chamfers during rim assembly glue up. when I contour the neck block so that the return on the cutaway matches the profile of the necks heel I have to hand fit and clamp the neck block. When I don't I just place the neck block in the assembly bolt down the neck block locating fixture and I don't have to worry about the neck moving on me during glue up.
|
|
| Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 6:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=JohnAbercrombie] Michael- None of the choices really 'click' for me- 'A' is the best-looking of them , though. I think that perhaps a 'smooth,flowing' curve, rather than just two circles, would look better. (Flexible ruler or batten vs computer?) You might also consider narrowing the heel block on the treble side and getting the cutaway a bit closer to the heel- that could soften the curves a bit (and make playing a bit easier as well). Just my 2cents worth- I've looked at a bunch of cutaways, but haven't had the gumption to make one yet. Cheers John [/QUOTE] Besides John when you use a flex curve or French curve it forms true radii connected by tangent lines. It just that you tend to make the tangent lines longer. Computer has really nothing to do with it. I think you were referring to some like this 
|
|
| Author: | Chris Cordle [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 6:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=Bill Greene] OK, I'm going to disagree with the florentine lovers. I think "A", or something very similar looks much more natural, and organic (to use a friend's term), on an acoustic guitar than a florentine does. There's no misunderstanding how complex and artistic a florentine is, but I think a venetian is a prettier "flow" for an acoustic guitar. I vote A, and yes to having it on the plans.[/QUOTE] I agree with Bill on this. I much prefer a venetian cutaway. To me the florentine is a bit too much for an acoustic. Kinda ends up looking like something Ted Nugent would play ... just a little to rock & roll for a traditional guy like me I guess. |
|
| Author: | Dennis Leahy [ Fri Jul 13, 2007 6:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Michael, I just recently asked a similar question on another luthier's forum: 
Most that answered my poll preferred the one on the left (which was my preference from the beginning), and I ended up going with it. So, I'll vote for your option "A" above as well. Yours is a very nice variant on an OM - I went for a bit more interior volume by relaxing the waist. Like Kim, I see Florentine cutaways as losing some of the sensuality of the smooth curves in favor of having a weapon on stage for crowd control. I don't play well enough to need crowd control (unless you mean blocking the exits.) Dennis |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
