Parlor size classical kit??

[MichaelO]

Hi folks,

New to the forum so a big hello! Also new to the world of kit guitars. I have to confess to visiting this forum to gather info on the process of kit building and my chances of success. And it's inspiring to see all those wonderful guitars.
I have recently started my first build, a beautiful 00-14 fret guitar from John Hall (Honduran mahogany and stika spruce) . It seems to be going well and loving the process. I am also working on a scratch build with a luthier Mike Regan in Wexford, Ireland, on a classical guitar. So I see myself working with kits a lot as it seems to be a great and affordable way of getting materials and keeping the costs down (so I tell myself and herself!)

Anyway eventually I gathered up the courage the sign up here in the new fancy forum (which look great), and I have a few questions. I am looking to build a small bodied nylon string guitar. I know there are crossover nylon string guitars with narrower necks but what I am looking for is something similar to the Art & Lutherie AMI nylon string model. It seems like a parlor size model strung with nylon but I assume the bracing caters for the different tone and tensions. I have also seen similar small bodied instruments from luthiers so I would like to see if I could build one.

I have looked on the web and I can understand why they don't exist in kits but would it be possible to modify a pre-existing kit say 0-12 or a standard classical? Could I modify the bracing and go in that direction? I realise a scratch build would be the right way but cost and lack of skill hinder that route at the moment.

I am hoping that this possible build will be a gift so any information, thoughts, advice would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers

Mick.

Have to thank Bill Cory while I am here - using his guide book for current guitar and it's great. Cheers Bill.

[tippie53]

we can make that kit but there is no reason you can't modify any kit. The thing is , to know what you can and what you can't change. The neck of a classical is wider and flat most of the time. The bracing will also be much different as will the top.
So the best advice is to talk to your supplier and see what they can tell you and help you along.

[Freeman]

Mick, first welcome, and second, a few observations from someone who has built both a classical and a parlor.

We tradtionally think of a parlor as being a size 0 or smaller, and in modern designs, they are braced for steel strings. Scale lengths are short (24.0 to 24.5 usually), but fretboards are often wide (1-3/4 is common). The ones that I've played (including the one I built) tend to be "boxy", or "bluesy" sounding - good mids and trebles but maybe a little weak in the bass (duh). The early ones were often ladder braced, most modern ones are X braced with one tone bar and one set of finger braces. They are, of course, pinned bridges, and can have either dovetail or bolt on necks.

Classicals usually are closer to a 00 size (the one I built fits a 00 case perfectly). They only have about 1/2 the string tension so the are some very different construction techniques - they are fan braced instead of X (or ladder), the top plates tend to be a little thinner, most use a 650 cm scale (which is a little on the long side). The usually have Spanish heel neck joints, no truss rods, the relief is planed into the neck. The bridge is a tie block, and while they do have bridge plates it is to stiffen the area under the bridge, not for string balls. Classical playing technique favors a wide flat fretboard. There is a whole lot of really wild experimenting going on now with lattice bracing, laminated tops with c.f. or nomex - but this is for the folks that really know what they are doing.

Classical guitar design has been refined over several hundred years to give the Torres-Hauser designs we know today and the sound that we associate with them. I personally think that you would be altering so many variables to try to convert a parlor kit (or plans, LMI sells a nice set of plans) for all the things that are different that you really have no idea of what you would end up with. I followed the Hauser plans carefully and have what I think is a very playable and "classic" sounding guitar - but I would hate to reduce its bass reponse any by making the box smaller or screwing around with the braces.

The exception to this, of course, is if you can find a guitar like the A&L that you really like and duplicate it. Measure the plate thickness, look at the bracing and all the other parts of it (this is what I did when I built a ladder braced 12 string - I collected every bit of information that I could and designed my own based on that).

Whatever you decide to do, keep us informed with pictures and maybe clips when you get done. I would also suggest hanging out on some of the more truely luthier oriented forum (mimf.com) - there are folks there who do nothing but build classicals for a living. Good luck

[Freeman]

Just for perspective, here is the insides of the parlor. You can see a pencil line indicating the final inside size



and the classical, in this case the final inside size will be roughtly the ends of the braces



completely different critters

[MichaelO]

Hi guys,

Thanks for the reply and the advice. In relation to the differences between both the parlor and the classical I see where the problems arise. I am currently working on a classical guitar based on Romanillos model. It is fan braced and I suppose I had this thought that I could incorporate a similar fan brace system into a parlor kit.
Freeman, the point about the weakness of the base is well made and does concern me and I figured this would be the main challenge. As for the neck I would be reducing the width of the neck down to 48mm (about 1 7/8" I think) at the nut and radiusing the fretboard. I am doing this with the classical I am building at the moment (I will horrify the purists out there I know!). The top is thinner also than on a steel string - using englemann here.
I do see a set of Courtnall plans for a short scale (604) smaller classical Torres model on LMI. Has anybody seen them or built one? Maybe I should get my mitts on this drawing and see what that might show up. Maybe between a plan and one of John's kit I could just pull it off, or completely wreck a great kit!
I know it all sounds unorthodox but one of the reasons I wanted to build this was to build a guitar for my dear lady that would be extremely comfortable to play.
Any suggestions for different woods that might elevate the bass a little?

Thanks again guys.

Mick

[JJDonohue]

Freeman...

I was looking at the bracing pattern for your parlor guitar (top pic) and had a few questions and comments:

1) How wide are your braces? They look like they're wider than 1/4" and it just looks way too heavily braced. I've used 1/4" and less successfully.

2) What is the height of the X at the intersection (excluding the cap)? I've kept mine at less than .500". These guitars often use a short scale with light strings so the bracing can be lightened up considerably. That cap could be a LOT thinner. All we're trying to do is lock in the intersection with a sliver of wood and glue.

3) What is the distance across the center of your bridgeplate...from the outside of each X-brace leg? If your bridge is 6" wide then its wings should be supported by the x-brace. The pic makes this area look too wide for a standard bridge, I could be wrong.

4) Is this design from a Scott Antes plan? His plans are good for dimensional accuracy but bracing is notorious for being battleship heavy. I've made 2 parlor guitars from his plans but reduce the bracing significantly.

I love these little parlor guitars but they so often seem tight and tinny. Someone told me a long time ago to be bold with the bracing and they were correct as far as I was concerned. This could be an interesting discussion on bracing and tone.

[Freeman]

Freeman...

I was looking at the bracing pattern for your parlor guitar (top pic) and had a few questions and comments:

1) How wide are your braces? They look like they're wider than 1/4" and it just looks way too heavily braced. I've used 1/4" and less successfully.

2) What is the height of the X at the intersection (excluding the cap)? I've kept mine at less than .500". These guitars often use a short scale with light strings so the bracing can be lightened up considerably. That cap could be a LOT thinner. All we're trying to do is lock in the intersection with a sliver of wood and glue.

3) What is the distance across the center of your bridgeplate...from the outside of each X-brace leg? If your bridge is 6" wide then its wings should be supported by the x-brace. The pic makes this area look too wide for a standard bridge, I could be wrong.

4) Is this design from a Scott Antes plan? His plans are good for dimensional accuracy but bracing is notorious for being battleship heavy. I've made 2 parlor guitars from his plans but reduce the bracing significantly.

I love these little parlor guitars but they so often seem tight and tinny. Someone told me a long time ago to be bold with the bracing and they were correct as far as I was concerned. This could be an interesting discussion on bracing and tone.

I'll answer the last question first, since it will answer the others. Yes, it is the Antes LMI plans (and for that matter, an LMI kit with some modifications). So the braces are whatever he shows - the excepting is that I scalloped a lot more than indicated on his drawing. And yes, the X cap is kind of thick - that was my first time with the bridge (I had used small bore rifle cleaning patches before).

I do agree that this guitar sounds kind of choked, however it is amazingly loud (that isn't a contradiction). I call the tone "boxy" for want of a better term - it certainly isn't full and rich like an OM or 000.

While we are talking about bracing on a parlor, I happen to have a little 23 inch scale Tacoma in my work area, I'll poke a mirror inside and see what I can see.

I'm surprised that you didn't comment on the one big glaring "what the..." As you probably know (and I found out late), the Antes plans are drawn as tho you are looking through the top, almost every other one is drawn from the inside looking out (as you would look at the top as you braced it). What that means is the tone bar is bass-ackwards - my little guitar is braced to be a lefty. Oh, well.......

[JJDonohue]

LOL...I made a lefty Parlor also...same plans. I then made one right and there was no significant difference. And we're not alone, Freeman...a common mistake, I hear!