Official Luthiers Forum!

I brought home a 1943 Martin 000 18 today for inspection - belongs to a co-worker.  The first thing that became imediately apparent is how incredably light it is.  Put it on the scale and it's a whopping 3lb 2.5oz.  My first guitar is very nearly the same physical dimensions, but am embarrassed to say how much it weighs.  The only significant difference in wood species is the fretboard and bridge, which are rosewood on the Martin versus ebony on the tank, I mean mine.

Do you any of you great builders out there have a goal for final weight of the completed instrument?  How much should a newly built mahogany 000 18 weigh?  Obviously it will vary depending on species of wood, body size and style, among other things, but any info would be appreciated.

Thanks - Doug

i think that the light weight is partly due to the fact that after almost 65 yrs the resins that give a lot of weight to new rosewood have dried out.

plust martin built some of their guitars with quite thin sides and backs. it all adds up to a lot than you don't have to lift.

Hesh,

Are you weighing your plates during the course of the build to track the effect thickness, bracing, species, etc. has on the final outcome?  Ok, I'll come clean...my first one weighs 4lb 10oz all strung up.

On my current 2 projects I'm taking the plates thinner than before - .085 to .090.  Thin the braces a bit, smaller head/heal blocks - figure it all adds up.

Doug

Hesh...yeah, but is she a good kisser?

I'm sure the old Martin has dried out contributing greatly to the light weight.  But it's seems apparent that they were doing a lot of little things as well.  The back braces are noticably skinny, the fretboard seems thinner than I'm used to seing, and things like the bias tape you mentioned.

Obviously you think the HHG is worth the effort.  How much of a nuisance is it if you aren't in the shop every day?  Do you think it contributes to the weight loss program?  (Is there a Jenny Guitar Craig program?  Maybe Meat Loaf could be a spokes person.)   Have you weighed the guitar in the white imediately prior to finish to see how much the actual final finish weighed?  Maybe I'm getting a tad obsessive.

Doug

Also, the mahogany that the 18 series is built with is considerably less dense than rosewood, which seems to be a standard of sorts for how much we think guitars should weigh. But I think if it had dried out enough to make a noticeable difference in weight, it would be cracked and warped (sort of like me ).

_________________
now known around here as Pat Foster
_________________
http://www.patfosterguitars.com

Interesting thread. You guys got me to drag out the scale and weigh my nearly completed cedar/cuban dred. I weighed every part except for the bridge, saddle, nut, and strings. It came to 3.5 lbs and I still have to carve the neck shaft and apply finish. The body is already french polished. This thing really resonates. I hope it holds together.

Hesh, I've got a '37 Gibson that's built very lightly. It's had a rough life (looks like it's been all the way to New Orleans) and has a couple of holes in the back, top, sides. The back and sides are a little under a 1/16" thick and, despite the damage, is still holding up fine. I based my dred guitar on this info.

Ever since I bought my triple beam balance, I started weighing many of the components and subassemblies and recording those weights in my journals.

I have no idea what they mean yet but I suspect that after I collect enough info, some direction will emerge. Obviously, the key vibration components like the bridge, bridge plate, top braces and completed top are where we should concentrate our observations.

I also have a feeling from listening to folks like Mario and Alan C. that light is good...except sometimes. I think it makes a difference where mass is concentrated and that's where some sonic tricks will be discovered. When we tune a top, we are trying to find where the braces need to be and how their profiles need to be adjusted...likewise, mass distribution is still another component that needs to be taken into consideration. I'm sure that Alan's glitter patterns might reveal some clues.

So...while we marvel about how light a guitar might be, I think we need to dive deeper into the guts of the guitar and determine where weight reduction is good and where it's not so good.

_________________
JJ
Napa, CA
http://www.DonohueGuitars.com

Bruce, that's incredible - back and sides less than .060"!  More details please.  What species is the wood?  It's not cupped or warped?  How much does the guitar weigh?

Doug

Good point JJ. I would like to lighten up too
But I don't want to lighten areas that need to be strong,I'm Still learning where to lighten and where not to.! What kind of scales do you guys use?

_________________
Anderson Guitars
Clearwater,Fl. 33755

I'll get some pics for you when I get home, but it's really nothing special. The b/s are low-grade mahogany -they don't even match. No warps or cupping - just damage from a family member's 60s college dorm life and a dozen moves across the country.

Be sure you know why you are reducing the weight of any particular part of the guitar, weight loss of itself is not necessarily always a good thing but a balancing act. In fact my guitars are getting heavier again and are showing improvements in sustain, volume etc. Sure get the weight of the top down (though that's not as clear cut as it seems, I'm adding weight there as well but in the right place). But, what did the old flat pickers do when they wanted more sustain, why put the capo on the headstock. My favoured cherry necks are heavier and stiffer than my old mahogany ones and the results are good allowing more of the energy of the string to drive the top.

Think carefully before you pare, and have a good reason for each shaving you take off.

Colin   

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

Colin makes a lot of sense. Shaving weight for the sake of weight loss in and of itself may or may not be good. Efficiency is king.

I don't know if I buy into ultra light neck construction as a good thing. Adding carbon fiber would add to your necks weight, but can have nice results. Very thin necks have never perfomed well for me even though they are lighter. Bolts add weight to a guitar as a whole, but they have some nice advantages. I would not think that a little extra weight(bolts) in the neck block area is going to hurt efficiency much if any.

Peace,Rich

If I might "weigh in " here...

In addtion to my little Kalamazoo KG-14 (light as a feather), I also own, and play regularly a Collings D2H. I will tell that one of the first things you notice is how much it weighs. I don't know the exact weight, but I will tell you - it is heavy (by comparison). But I will be VERY quick to add, she ain't no slouch. This guitar is the best I have ever owned and one of the best (IMHO) I've heard. Quick, responsive, all the headroom you'd want with plenty of seperation and clarity. Did I say loud? I play in a 5 piece Bluegrass band - she's there, and you know it.

I think weight does play a roll. But would you agree that it is not the defining factor? Heavy doesn't mean bad, and light doesn't mean good.

BTW, the KG-14 turned out better than I had hoped for. Finished this past weekend. Busy right now, but I'll try to provide an update later - what I did and how it turned out.

Interesting discussion. It always amazes me how differing approaches can all yield excellent results. That’s one of the things that keep me interested in building guitars.

Hesh and Doug:

I just weighed the Gibson on my triple beam balance and it weighs 3lb 3oz. Here are a couple pics:

[QUOTE=Hesh1956]


I still had my triple beam from the 70's.....



[/QUOTE]

Whoa man... like I think I totally dig what you're saying...

_________________
Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils - Louis Hector Berlioz

Chansen / C hansen / C. Hansen / Christian Hansen - not a handle.

Christian

Bruce, thanks for the pics - is that some future back and side wood in the background?  I like the shape of the little Gibson.

Obviously there are no easy rules when it comes to the subtleties of design as it applies to the weight of components or the weight of the finished instrument.  It reminds me of a comment I read on that "other" forum that went something like "it's hard to make a hand built guitar that sounds bad".

JJ you wrote "When we tune a top, we are trying to find where the braces need to be and how their profiles need to be adjusted...likewise, mass distribution is still another component that needs to be taken into consideration."  Are saying you that you determine location of the braces differently from one top to the next based on the repsonse of the particular top?  Could you elaborate on that please?

Doug

 

[QUOTE=Doug O]

JJ you wrote "When we tune a top, we are trying to find where the braces need to be and how their profiles need to be adjusted...likewise, mass distribution is still another component that needs to be taken into consideration."  Are saying you that you determine location of the braces differently from one top to the next based on the repsonse of the particular top?  Could you elaborate on that please?

Doug

 

[/QUOTE]

Some tops are stiffer than others. I have made slight adjustments on the X-spread and whether it's forward shifted or not based solely on a hunch. If it is stiffer, I believe that one can spread the x-legs a few degrees and allow for more top movement.

For some time, I've been curious about where mass is good and not so good on a top. Now that I have 3 completed guitars of my own, I want to temporarily add mass to various sections and observe any changes in response, tone, volume and sustain. Who knows, but it seems likely that one should be able to detect some differences and hopefully some will have a positive effect.

_________________
JJ
Napa, CA
http://www.DonohueGuitars.com