Official Luthiers Forum!

Hi

Wonder if I could canvas the opinion of the classical guys on a good thickness for classical sides, I am using EIR.

I have several books all of which are slightly different.

Many Thanks

Russell

I always take EIRW sides down to .080"-.085" or 2.0mm-2.2mm. I've never had any problems bending the wood at this thickness, and I've also never had any cracks or problems at this thickness.

Cheers!

John

Thanks John

Thats the same as I would use it at on my steel string, wasn't sure if classicals were suppose to be thinner or not on the sides.

.085 to .090 works for me before bending. After final sanding and all it usually comes out about .005 less.

_________________
Joe Beaver
Maker of Sawdust

That's what I aim for too with my steel string guitars. I have read that some classical builders use sides much thinner than that; if I recall correctly Torres build guitars with sides as thin as 1.5 - 1 mm in some cases. True?

_________________
Rian Gitar og Mandolin

Russel,

I thickness most of my sides to 1.8mm before bending, for a final thickness of around 1.6 after binding. Of course, I am the opposite of the current trends (4mm thick double sides), but I base most of my building on the old Spanish makers who often had sides thinner than even I.

A cursory glance at some measurements -

Several Torres guitars ranging from 1.0 to 1.7mm (thickest for Cypress, Maple)

Several Simplicio instruments coming in at 1.3 to 1.7 (thicker for maple, etc)

and

Manuel Ramirez and Santos Hernandez coming in at less than 1.5 in all instances noted.

Measurements coming from "Masterpieces of Guitar Making" by Stefano Grondona and Luca Waldner.

_________________
Instagram: @jfrenchluthier
Web: https://www.jfrenchguitars.com/

I take mine to 1.8mm

Question for Joshua, Robbie, John, Arnt and anyone else who wants to lecture an old duffer:
How do you measure / what tool do you use to get that .1 of a mm? You know I'm not a metric guy, so you can quit laughing now.

Ok...now.

now?

SK

_________________
From Nacogdoches...the oldest town in Texas.

http://www.stephenkinnaird.com

Steve - a scraper and a caliper. A safe-t-planer gets it close.

_________________
Instagram: @jfrenchluthier
Web: https://www.jfrenchguitars.com/

Joshua--I think the answer I was looking for was your "caliper".
I asked my question so poorly, that I should re-state:
it's the measuring of those pesky little mm's down to a decimal point that has me so impressed. And how one accomplished this.
You must have a metric caliper?
I've never seen one, and I should have poked around your shop a little more closely.

Thanks,
Steve

_________________
From Nacogdoches...the oldest town in Texas.

http://www.stephenkinnaird.com

Steve,

Yes, you got it. I have a digital caliper that measures to 100th of a mm and 1000th of an inch. I love that tool! It has a little button you press to switch between inches and mm's, and it's dead accurate. It's one of those tools you use all the time and wonder how you ever managed to get by without it. I find it very useful for other things like measuring veneer as I'm sanding strips down to make rosettes, purfling, bindings, etc. It seems that almost every classical plan I have gives all measurements in mm's.

Cheers!

JohnJohn Elshaw38825.795625

Thanks John, I think if I had one of those gizmos I might switch to metric.
Or at least be able to talk to you guys more intelligently.

Steve

_________________
From Nacogdoches...the oldest town in Texas.

http://www.stephenkinnaird.com

Steve - I've got to encourage that. I know its an old debate, but think about how it can help ones understaning of the measurements.... when your point of reference is one and the deviation is only a tenth its simple. 1.9mm has got to be easier to understand than 75 one thousandths of an inch. When you have almost 2 of something, and your reference measurement (millimeter) is one its easy to understand. How does 75 one thouisandths relate to an inch in terms of a luthier's understanding? That seems more difficult than it needs to be.

What I mean is - its easier to measure to .1mm than .0748in. It is more accurate too. You'd need 25.4mm to make an inch. Its just easier to have a base measurement that isn't already a tenth of the desired thickness. You're starting at 1 instead of 1/25 basically (total estimation).


From LMI, IIRC. 1 represents one millimeter, 2 represents twomillimeters and so on. It makes it visually very simply. Love this caliper, I use it for everything (I even route my bindings with it!)
jfrench38825.8187384259

_________________
Instagram: @jfrenchluthier
Web: https://www.jfrenchguitars.com/

In other words, if I were using an inch as my standard unit (1), it is 25.4 times larger than if I used a millimeter.

_________________
Instagram: @jfrenchluthier
Web: https://www.jfrenchguitars.com/

just remember that a mm rounds out very nicely to .040". Its really .0397" but who cares. So anyway .1 mm is .004" or 4 thousands. 2mm sides are .080". 1.6mm sides are .064". It really is not to hard to get if, and only if, you use it often.
Mike

Oooh, a tag team effort!
Nice try guys. And, I know your approach is logical.
And Joshua, your arguments make perfect sense.
But, I guess all that's left to my foot-dragging is prejudice and long practice.
It did my heart good, though, when you answered the measurement question about the P/H width-- 3 inches, tapering to 2 1/2 inches. Good for you. A bilingual luthier!

Thanks guys, you just might make a convert yet.

Steve Steve Kinnaird38825.9108101852

_________________
From Nacogdoches...the oldest town in Texas.

http://www.stephenkinnaird.com

I go 1.6mm - 1.8mm

Thanks All

Much appreciatted.

Heh, Russell, nice burst on your avatar

Colin

_________________
I don't believe in anything, I simply make use of a set of reasonable working hypotheses.

[QUOTE=jfrench]How does 75 one thouisandths relate to an inch in terms of a luthier's understanding?[/QUOTE]
Easy, it's 3/4 of one tenth of an inch!