Official Luthiers Forum!

Hi Chris,
You know those old Martin archtops that get converted to flat tops? There's a reason..........

By the way, I've seen and played quite a few archtops that were not made of maple back and sides, but instead were walnut or mahogany.

These were either Epiphones or Gretschs.

As far as using different woods making for cost cutting, I don't think that floats. You can easily find wonderful maple without tons of curl and make a great sounding instrument.

Even with maple that's very curly, your costs will still be less than with honduran mahogany or any kind of rosewood, be it flat pieces or wedges.

Regards,
Howard

Hi Chris,
It may 'open up' more things you could use for the back of the guitar, but that doesn't mean it will sound good.

That was my point. Also, carved backs and tops are generally made from a pie-slice wedge of maple or spruce that is then split for book matching. I don't think the archtop makers use 1" thick pieces for carving.

By the way I own a 1927 Gibson L-5, and this guy is one of my closest friends since 1971 or so:http://www.monteleone.net/index2.html

I've been around a few archtops.....

Regards,
Howard

Hi Chris,
Here's a link to Sankey's sound files:
http://www.sankey.ws/guitars/gallery.html

You listen and tell me what you think.

Then you can listen to my L-5 here:http://www.howardemerson.com/music1.html and click on Nokie's Blue Bottle.

You should hear a difference aside from the musical piece being played.

HE

[QUOTE=verhoevenc] is it possible
to get a traditionally sounding archtop with the flat back[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, probably not. At least, not traditional-sounding. It might be possible to make a good, if different sounding, instrument though; but I'm not sure if anyone's found the key to that yet.

Interestingly, there have been some good-sounding instruments made the opposite (more expensive) way, with a flat top and arched back. Guild used to make a lower-end dreadnought with a pressed-ply arched back.   When one came off the line with a top that deviated from their usually over-built standard, it had a very good sound--superior to many higher-priced guitars, according to many critical bits-and-pieces I've read over the years. It would be quite interesting to hear what a skilled luthier could make with a carved back and flat top.

Not sure if they still do, but I know Santa Cruz Guitars made a guitar with flat top and arched back - there was an article in the old LMI catalog about the process of carving the back. It's on my list of 'things I want to try someday" drfuzz39023.7848842593

Here's an example:

1938 Gibson L-37 archtop acoustic.

Here are the technical specs; The nut width is 1 3/4", the neck width at the 12th fret is 2 3/16", and the scale length is 24 3/4". The action at the 12th fret reads as follows; Bass side 5/64" and treble side 4/64". The body width at the lower bout is 14 3/4" and 10 1/8" at the upper bout. The body depth is 3 5/8".

The back is NOT carved

CrowDuck

_________________
Chris Nielsen
Soquel, CA.

Hi Crow,
I'm very familar with these. Richard Brooker, who did my art work for 'A Tale To Tell', has an L-37, and a student of mine has an L-47.

They're different sounding that the Martin attempts: Not as resonant, but actually more even sounding with more sustain than the Martins but not as loud.

All in all.......The reason they don't make them anymore is pretty straight forward.

Now.......That having been said.........I happen to enjoy odd sounding, old, instruments, especially when they are really L-00's in vague 'disguise':-)

As long as you don't have high expectations, or you want to put a magnetic pickup on it, they can be a lot of fun.

Regards,
Howard