Sneak Peek at No. 2

[David L]

Completed making the top bracing, my first attempt at making my own braces.

David L

[David L]

What's wrong with this picture? (other than the fact that I'm not a good photographer). In the process of making/laying out the back braces (using the Waldron template obviously) something just doesn't seem right. This is for a OO-14 fret, for those who don't know the template not only shows where the braces go and have cut-outs to trace the pattern onto the back itself but it also clearly lists (right on the template itself) the dimensions of each brace. The given dimensions listed for the two braces on the lower bout are .75"x.25". Looking at the template it is clear that the .75" dim. is to be laid flat on the back. This hardly seems thick enough (.25") to have enough rigidity to hold the 15' radius especially after removing the material to obtain the radius. The waist and upper bout braces seem to be good, dimensions are .25"x.63" and it is obvious that the .25" dimension is the width and contacts the back and the .63" dimention is the height. Is this layuot correct? Does anyone have any pictures of a OO-14 fret back that is already braced up that they would like to share with me? BTW, I'm making the braces for the back out of walnut.

David L

[kencierp]

Typically the wide flat back braces are .75x.375 the vertical grain on the on the .375. The thinner braces are generally 1/4" or 5/16" by .625. Of course I have to add my $.02. -- I tend to favor using the taller braces in all four locations. I've seen in my shop and when I was doing repairs where those wide braces flatten out and even develop a reverse curve -- something to think about.

[tippie53]

The Waldron templates are very accurate to pre war specs . I think this is from a 44 but not sure. Email Ken and ask him. I supplied a number of tracings to him and he had a good library of period instruments. A 00 braces is smaller than a dred . The braces were changed in the 1980's to the higher braces you may see now . It depends on what I am making . I do like the lower back braces as it does allow more response from the back , but from a stability standpoint the higher braces to make the back more rigid . The braces were changed not so much other than they did allow the back a lot of movement with RH swings.

[David L]

Thanks Ken and John for the input. After doing a lot of thinking (something that I mostly unsuccessfully try not to do) I have decided to recycle (think green) the two lower bout braces and they now carry a new label, kindling! While the whole idea of getting a little bit of action out of the back by using thinner flatter braces is intriguing, I'm not crazy about the idea of having a back that is more susceptible to movement from environmental changes. With the "sick" humidity levels that we have down here in south Louisiana, at times being off the chart, just the act of taking the guitar from inside the house (where humidity levels are stable and reasonable) to the great "out-of-doors" could possibly pose some problems that may require some serious re-work down the road and I must emphatically state that "I detest re-work". I sure do admire you "repair" guys but I sure don't envy you. Another consideration that helped in my decision making process is the whole reflective back versus responsive back debate (not sure if debate is the right word), where I'm at right now in my own little short-lived inexperienced guitar building world, I subscribe more to the reflective side of the issue. I have no experience or data or anything substantial to support my view (and at the risk of opening up a can of worms), it's just the reasoning sounds better to me. So, out to the shop I go to make narrower taller braces for the lower bout.

David L

[David L]

Routed and inlaid backstripe today. Backstripe is a piece of walnut binding with B/W/B purfling on each side.

David L

[SKBarbour]

looks nice! was it difficult routing the channel or do you think it would be easier to sandwich the strip next time? I'm only asking because I've never tried either way and might look nice on my next project.

[Darryl Young]

I'm loving the look of the white oak back!

[Kevin Sjostrand]

David, that dark back strip looks great with the oak. Nice job.

Kevin

[David L]

OK, here's the scoop, I had John joint, join, and thickness sand the back and sides for me (he also bent the sides for me as I didn't have my bending machine at the time). He was also gracious enough to add the zipper (or whstever design it's called) backstrip for me and I thanked him for it, however, I have a totally different design theme that does not include that particular backstrip. The dilemma was that the top is thicknessed at about .115" and the binding that was to be used was right at about .070", So simply cutting the backstrip out and re-joining with my new and improved backstrip was not an option due to the difference in the thicknesses plus I would have had to re-joint them. Routing and inlaying was the only way I could think of to do this (I'm sure there are others).
I used the Stewmac inlay jig with a dremel attached, set the depth of the cut first, measured how wide my new centerstrip was (3/8"), so I drew a line 3/16" from the center of existing backstrip on both sides of centerline, clamped a straight edge to the back and workbench all in one shot to where the cut was on the line when jig was butted up against the fence. From that point I ran the router down the back, Using a hammer tap each end of the straight edge to move it slightly and make another pass with the router, checking constantly to make sure that I stayed parallel, when I started to get close to the strip fitting in , I tapped the straightedge ever so lightly so as to sneak up on my final dimension until the backstrip fit snugly.

David L