New commission - advice required

[SausagesBeGone]

I am currently discussing specifications for a new guitar with a very well liked UK based luthier.

I know that I want Adi over Rosewood, 24.9" scale, 1 3/4" nut and 2 5/16" string spacing at the bridge. I play fingerstyle only.

The natural body shape is an OM but I am also considering a shallow depth dreadnaught. I'm not small but still I find prolonged dreadnaught use to be uncomfortable.

The luthier has suggested a shallow dreadnaught will not lose any discernible volume but instead will gain more focus. This will be his first shallow dreadnaught build.

What are your thoughts? Should I play it safe and go for an OM?

Thanks

[gitarro]

Your luthier's advice would usually be best followed.

However if I were you, I would not want my order to be the first time the luthier is trying out a new idea. I would instead prefer to ask the luthier to give me the design that he is most familiar with so as to have the highest chance that the guitar will turn out to be a great one.

Not even the greatest luthiers in the world will be able to score perfect marks for every guitar - more often than not the resulting guitar will be "merely" good rather than great. Why make the odds worse for yourself?

Furthermore the second hand value of the model that a luthier is best known for making is frequently higher than other less popular models and there is less demand as well. So if for example the OM is what that lutheir is best known for, it is also a good idea financially to order that model.

YMMV of course!

[DamianL]

Cant see myself liking the shallow dreadnaught concept, but you never know....

But that's more to do with elbow position than simply body-depth...

All other things being equal I would prefer a fatter/normal depth and less width.

It's a tough one to advise on - depends on why you personally find dreadnaughts uncomfortable....

I do however like smaller dreadnaught shapes and find them to be great for fingerstyle.

I am sure you have read the current active Custom Shop thread on smaller dreadnaught shapes already...its pretty interesting stuff.

Compromise position - Dreadnaught with Manzer wedge?

D

[gitarro]

That sounds reasonable - for me, the only reason to order a dreadnought shape is precisely because of the sheer volume and power and bigness of sound that tends to come with it. The depth of the dreadnought seems to be important in this respect. If the dreadnought is scaled down, but the depth is also only scaled down proportionately then that seems safer than making it shallower per se - my one experience with a shallower custom build was disappointing as the resulting guitar lacked power and volume.

However I do not like the dreadnought shape at all from an aesthetic POV. More importantly I don't like the unbalanced nature of its sound along with the wooly bass. As well it doesnt seem tp like to stay on the knee when played sitting down. Which is why somogyi's modified dreadnought design was great because it addressed these issues very nicely.

Originally Posted by DamianL

Cant see myself liking the shallow dreadnaught concept, but you never know....

But that's more to do with elbow position than simply body-depth...

All other things being equal I would prefer a fatter/normal depth and less width.

It's a tough one to advise on - depends on why you personally find dreadnaughts uncomfortable....

I do however like smaller dreadnaught shapes and find them to be great for fingerstyle.

I am sure you have read the current active Custom Shop thread on smaller dreadnaught shapes already...its pretty interesting stuff.

Compromise position - Dreadnaught with Manzer wedge?

D

[ukejon]

As suggested by Damian, what about a Manzer wedge so you get the best of both worlds. My new guitar has this feature and it does make a considerable difference in terms of shoulder comfort.

[amyFB]

I am on the side of the poster above who was reluctant to be the guinea pig for a new idea.

Unless , that is, the OP likes to be involved in test driving new ideas, then go for the luthier suggested modification.

Personally, IF I were to get a custom dread, I think that Manzer wedge looks like the approach that would please me, both aesthetically and as a comfy design to play.

good luck! we'll be watching for updates in picture form!!!

[redir]

I was going to suggest a wedge too. I think it's a mistake to think a shallow guitar won't be louder. They actually seem to in fact be louder, and as the builder mentioned more focused. The bigger box has more air to push around the then shallow one. The bigger box will be deeper in sound. The thinner box will have a higher pitch.

For any given note played on the big box you will get a more spread out range of pitches. So for one well played note you will get a few weaker ones that come out. The smaller box having less air to push around will stay true to that well played note.

That might actually give it the appearance of being louder and certainly more focused.

[SausagesBeGone]

Yes, I think I'll ditch the idea of a shallow dreadnaught. The wedge, would also result in the fingerboard being tilted unless you compensate both the fingerboard and bridge. It all gets a bit complicated in my opinion.

The other option is a Laskin style bevel to aid comfort. The luthier, while building many of these tends to think they affect tone and are a fad.

The bevel intrigues me. If it isn't a valid choice then I'll go with the OM.

[BradHall]

Originally Posted by SausagesBeGone

Yes, I think I'll ditch the idea of a shallow dreadnaught. The wedge, would also result in the fingerboard being tilted unless you compensate both the fingerboard and bridge. It all gets a bit complicated in my opinion.

The other option is a Laskin style bevel to aid comfort. The luthier, while building many of these tends to think they affect tone and are a fad.

The bevel intrigues me. If it isn't a valid choice then I'll go with the OM.

The bevel on a Manzer wedge is on the back side, not the top. No tilted fingerboard or bridge.

[ukejon]

Correct....feels absolutely normal.

[SausagesBeGone]

Originally Posted by BradHall

The bevel on a Manzer wedge is on the back side, not the top. No tilted fingerboard or bridge.

My mistake.

I can see that now from the picture that was posted. I think this would be a first for my luthier. I'll ask anyway.

[gitarro]

A manzer wedge is actually quite unobtrusive and is an excellent idea. If you want, you can have the fingerboard tilted the other way as well to counter the rotation - i once commissioned a guitar like that- but that isn't strictly necessary.

As for a bevel, there are many luthiers employing it and it really adds a lot to the comfort of the player. If the likes of Kevin ryan and William laskin have no issue over bevels... If you are worried over the loss of surface area of the top, you could see if the luthier will be able to do a bevel like schwartz guitars where the top is bent to form a bevel.

[bedu]

Why are you being coy about naming the luthier? It might be easier for us to help if we knew who it was. I would feel more comfortable experimenting with Nick Benjamin as he is constantly evolving his own designs; rather than Alister Atkin as he is basically working from Martin and Gibson templates. That is no slight to Alister, his guitars, especially the Gibson-style are better than the "originals."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Howard Klepper]

As a builder, I would not try a new body design on a client's commission.

So far, the OP has offered no reason why he should want anything other than an OM (000, actually), or what advantage might accrue from having a shallow dread instead (I take it that the builder is suggesting a shallow dread will have more focus than a deep dread, not that it would have more focus than a 000. The latter would be a shaky expectation). He has said that he gets uncomfortable playing a dread. Why is this not an easy decision?

[ataylor]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

Why is this not an easy decision?

This was my first reaction as well. I'd go with the OM/000 without thinking twice based on the contents of the first post.