Custom ordering concerns and lesson?

[gitarro]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

Part of the problem is that the vast majority of luthiers, even the most reputed and expensive ones, do in fact build guitars with two-tone tops -- at least occasionally.

Most of the "masters" started building guitars when they had a hard time selling them for $500. Different times, different crowds. Nowadays a nice guitar is about the price of a decent car.

Perhaps different expectations may be applied for a guitar made by that luthier in, say, 1987, at the early stage of his career when it may have cost $500 as compared to one made at the culmimation of a lifetime of experience in 2017 whixh may cost $15000...

[iim7V7IM7]

A couple thoughts on the tale of two-tones:

• Luthiers select quartersawn tops that they believe have both sonic potential and aesthetically suitable to build a guitar with their name on the headstocks. I believe that they want their clients to be happy and do not intentionally use sets that they prospectively believe will present visual runout or are inferior in any way.
  
• Depending on the spruce species, the cost of visually higher grade sets can demand an upcharge from AA to AAA grade sets. AA grade sets don’t reflect a propensity for visual runout but inherent grain count, grain uniformity etc. The use of an AAA grade set by builders is standard for some and optional upgrade for others. I have a number of custom guitars with both AA and AAA graded tops. I have paid an upcharge for some AAA and it was standard for others.
• Experienced luthiers further minimize the risk of a finished top presenting visual runout by choosing well quartered sets AND deciding how they choose to join the set by aligning the edges that are most on quarter. Many book matched top sets fall off quarter slightly from the center seam to the rims but don’t present runout visually.
  
• Unfortunately, even with well quartered and joined tops visual runout in a guitar top is still not always evident until the guitar has finish applied (e.g. all the work is done). Even with all the precautions described this can and does happen even with AAA aesthetically graded sets.
  
• In my view, unless this specific aesthetic aspect is discussed prospectively by a client and a luthier, I would not expect a luthier to re-top the guitar. All builders will run into a surprising top if they build enough guitars. I expect a builder to attempt to minimize the likelihood of visual runout through best practices of top selection and joining.

[tadol]

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7

A couple thoughts on the tale of two-tones:


- Luthiers select quartersawn tops that they believe have both sonic potential and aesthetically suitable to build a guitar with their name on the headstocks. I believe that they want their clients to be happy and do not intentionally use sets that they prospectively believe will present visual runout or are inferior in any way.

- Unfortunately, even with well quartered and joined tops visual runout in a guitar top is still not always evident until the guitar has finish applied (e.g. all the work is done). Even with all the precautions described this can and does happen even with AAA aesthetically graded sets.

Thats the reality almost always - I’m sure that there have been problems, but I can’t imagine someone specifically choosing material that they think is gonna be a problem and then putting as much work in as it takes, and especially for a custom order. I think one has to be be really specific with a builder if the aesthetic issues are the priority, instead of sound and playability. I would personally much rather have a guitar that had some minor visual issues but had that “something special” when played, rather than one that was absolutely visually perfect and stunning, but played and sounded more “average” - but that said, the issue of price comes into play - when you get up above 15,000 - 25,000 for a custom instrument, I guess you can expect everything, ‘cause at that point you really aren’t just buying a musical instrument -

[gitarro]

.

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7

A couple thoughts on the tale of two-tones:

• Luthiers select quartersawn tops that they believe have both sonic potential and aesthetically suitable to build a guitar with their name on the headstocks. I believe that they want their clients to be happy and do not intentionally use sets that they prospectively believe will present visual runout or are inferior in any way.
  
• Depending on the spruce species, the cost of visually higher grade sets can demand an upcharge from AA to AAA grade sets. AA grade sets don’t reflect a propensity for visual runout but inherent grain count, grain uniformity etc. The use of an AAA grade set by builders is standard for some and optional upgrade for others. I have a number of custom guitars with both AA and AAA graded tops. I have paid an upcharge for some AAA and it was standard for others.
• Experienced luthiers further minimize the risk of a finished top presenting visual runout by choosing well quartered sets AND deciding how they choose to join the set by aligning the edges that are most on quarter. Many book matched top sets fall off quarter slightly from the center seam to the rims but don’t present runout visually.
  
• Unfortunately, even with well quartered and joined tops visual runout in a guitar top is still not always evident until the guitar has finish applied (e.g. all the work is done). Even with all the precautions described this can and does happen even with AAA aesthetically graded sets.
  
• In my view, unless this specific aesthetic aspect is discussed prospectively by a client and a luthier, I would not expect a luthier to re-top the guitar. All builders will run into a surprising top if they build enough guitars. I expect a builder to attempt to minimize the likelihood of visual runout through best practices of top selection and joining.

I think it relates to what that luthier is known for and markets himself as and prices himself for. If he represents himself as making slightly rough and homespun looking guitars with obvious defects in his fit and finish and pitched at a low price and markets himself as selling journeyman instruments for the working musician designed to sound good and used and abused robustly, then a two tone top is par for the course.and the customer orobably wouldn't object as he didn't expect much for the low price.

However for most solo luthiers whose work are featured on this forum, they do not market themselves this way and they ask for prices which also do not reflect this kind of market. On the contrary almost all luthiers in this category are known from good fit and finish and through their websites and the beautiful guitsrs they exhibit in shows, they market themselves as such. Therefore part of the package of ordering from them is that the customer rightly expects a cosmetically beautiful and well made guitar. Just as they would not dream of exhibiting a guitar with obvious run out for Woodstock to be seen by potential customers as being representative of their work, i would not think that most customers of such luthiers who receives a guitar like that on a custom order will be happy at all and is likely to return the guitar for a refund.

Putting the onus on the customer to discuss this with the luthier before the build starts presupposes that the customer is even aware of such a possibility. He may more likely be of the expectation that the lutheir would not have such low standards as to dream of building him a guitar that looks like that.

Furthermore to put the onus on the customer for such a thing would mean that the customer would be similarly expected to give a long list of other no-no's to the luthier before he starts building. Since there is no way the customer can think of everything and since the customer is not likely to have such a deep level of knowledge- after all that's why he is asking the luthier to build it for him as the supposed expert - it seems to me to be unfair to put such an onus on the customer.

As far as costs for etc I can see that the luthier may only discover the runout after the finish is applied and at that point a lot of work and time has gone into making the guitar. But as far as the customer is concerned, that's really not his problem and shouldn't be made his problem.

[stringjunky]

Originally Posted by gitarro

.

I think it relates to what that luthier is known for and markets himself as and prices himself for. If he represents himself as making slightly rough and homespun looking guitars with obvious defects in his fit and finish and pitched at a low price and markets himself as selling journeyman instruments for the working musician designed to sound good and used and abused robustly, then a two tone top is par for the course.and the customer orobably wouldn't object as he didn't expect much for the low price.

However for most solo luthiers whose work are featured on this forum, they do not market themselves this way and they ask for prices which also do not reflect this kind of market. On the contrary almost all luthiers in this category are known from good fit and finish and through their websites and the beautiful guitsrs they exhibit in shows, they market themselves as such. Therefore part of the package of ordering from them is that the customer rightly expects a cosmetically beautiful and well made guitar. Just as they would not dream of exhibiting a guitar with obvious run out for Woodstock to be seen by potential customers as being representative of their work, i would not think that most customers of such luthiers who receives a guitar like that on a custom order will be happy at all and is likely to return the guitar for a refund.

Putting the onus on the customer to discuss this with the luthier before the build starts presupposes that the customer is even aware of such a possibility. He may more likely be of the expectation that the lutheir would not have such low standards as to dream of building him a guitar that looks like that.

Furthermore to put the onus on the customer for such a thing would mean that the customer would be similarly expected to give a long list of other no-no's to the luthier before he starts building. Since there is no way the customer can think of everything and since the customer is not likely to have such a deep level of knowledge- after all that's why he is asking the luthier to build it for him as the supposed expert - it seems to me to be unfair to put such an onus on the customer.

As far as costs for etc I can see that the luthier may only discover the runout after the finish is applied and at that point a lot of work and time has gone into making the guitar. But as far as the customer is concerned, that's really not his problem and shouldn't be made his problem.

It's not the norm to expect zero runout, so the customer needs to specify it. One can reasonably expect that the degree of runout is not to the extent that it compromises the structural integrity of the top, which any luthier worth their salt would check anyway. What we are talking about here is a cosmetic subject and that's up to the customer in the final evaluation along with other aspects... if it's even an issue to them. Like I said earlier: if you ask for a top with zero runout that's what you'll get. If you've elucidated to the luthier that the cosmetics are the priority then they will work to that objective.

[gitarro]

Originally Posted by stringjunky2

It's not the norm to expect zero runout, so the customer needs to specify it. One can reasonably expect that the degree of runout is not to the extent that it compromises the structural integrity of the top, which any luthier worth their salt would check anyway. What we are talking about here is a cosmetic subject and that's up to the customer in the final evaluation along with other aspects... if it's even an issue to them. Like I said earlier: if you ask for a top with zero runout that's what you'll get. If you've elucidated to the luthier that the cosmetics are the priority then they will work to that objective.

Runout that's not visually apparent to the degree it's not noticed by the customer wouldn't be relevant. It is the runout on the order of the photographs shown earlier in this thread that creates the problem because the obvious assymetry of tone shading between the two sides of two top is an eyesore.

As I said above, I don't think the customer has to specify that he expects a guitsr without apparent cosmetic defect at all. All the photos on any luthier's website usually shows tops with no perceptible runout. When someone custom orders he is entitled to expect a guitar that is up the standard of what is promised in the website. If the luthier wants to specify that he's not responsible for runout then he is the one with the onus to specify that in his fine print.

Also I do not understand why should there be a dichotomy made between cosmetic beauty and tone as if the customer is only wanting the latter by custom ordering. I would have thought that unless the customer says he is only interested in the latter, the proper assumption to make is that the customer expects both. Otherwise he may as well just go hunting in the shops for a tonally excellent used guitar. After all isn't the whole point of the custom ordering experience is that the luthier is supposed to be able to build a better guitar for you than what you can find in pre-made form?

[The Bard Rocks]

Since runout only affect cosmetics, I see no problem with it if a builder tells the buyer that is what he is going to get and the buyer OKs this. IF the buyer is not informed ahead of time, that's a different story.

[iim7V7IM7]

This particular cosmetic preference (not quality) subject as been adjudicated on this and other forums in many (many, many...) prior threads.

http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/f...d.php?t=461591

People seem to have both strong and divergent opinions on it. I think that we have again successfully beaten this particular subject to death...

Since these posts live on in perpetuity, I decided to post not to contradict those who have expressed any presence of visual runout as anathema. They of course have a right to their aesthetic preferences. I simply wanted to add to the conversation that it is not considered a quality defect among most professional luthiers, does not reflect substandard work and how some try to move the runout towards the outer edges of the top away from the center seam (also for structural reasons). Since this thread is about reflecting upon "lessons" if it is important to YOU, state your preference to your luthier upfront. I believe that was the lesson that the subject was introduced in this thread.

[JoeCharter]

I don't think any builder uses two-tone tops on purpose -- but for the most part two-tone tops have not been a "concern" until recently so a lot of builders don't really pay attention. Some even get pretty defensive about this -- "if you care about aesthetics, that's because you don't care enough about sound." That is a completely absurd and stupid argument.

Originally Posted by stringjunky2

It's not the norm to expect zero runout, so the customer needs to specify it. One can reasonably expect that the degree of runout is not to the extent that it compromises the structural integrity of the top, which any luthier worth their salt would check anyway. What we are talking about here is a cosmetic subject and that's up to the customer in the final evaluation along with other aspects... if it's even an issue to them. Like I said earlier: if you ask for a top with zero runout that's what you'll get. If you've elucidated to the luthier that the cosmetics are the priority then they will work to that objective.

I agree with your entire post -- except for the "priority" part. There are tops that look good and sound good. If a luthier charges top dollars, it is his artistic and commercial duty to find the best tops. It's not a dilemma. Plenty of great guitars with one-tone tops out there.

Originally Posted by The Bard Rocks

Since runout only affect cosmetics, I see no problem with it if a builder tells the buyer that is what he is going to get and the buyer OKs this. IF the buyer is not informed ahead of time, that's a different story.

Buyers aren't going to be told ahead of time that they're getting a two-tone top. Builders will simply go ahead and use whatever top they have and hope the buyer won't notice/complain.

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7

This particular cosmetic preference (not quality) subject as been adjudicated on this and other forums in many (many, many...) prior threads.

http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/f...d.php?t=461591

People seem to have both strong and divergent opinions on it. I think that we have again successfully beaten this particular subject to death...

Since these posts live on in perpetuity, I decided to post not to contradict those who have expressed any presence of visual runout as anathema. They of course have a right to their aesthetic preferences. I simply wanted to add to the conversation that it is not considered a quality defect among most professional luthiers, does not reflect substandard work and how some try to move the runout towards the outer edges of the top away from the center seam (also for structural reasons). Since this thread is about reflecting upon "lessons" if it is important to YOU, state your preference to your luthier upfront. I believe that was the lesson that the subject was introduced in this thread.

Good post, Bob.

I have been pretty vocal about this issue. It's a taboo topic (no luthier will ask their customer, "hey so would you prefer a two-tone top or a one-tone top?") so to some newbies this could be a costly/disappointing adventure.

If luthiers were open about this (which they probably never will be), I'd say cool, let people decide what they want.

I'm not here to discuss people's preferences. If you don't mind a two-tone top on your guitar, that's none of my business.

For the rest of us who spend serious dollars on a friggin' guitar thinking that expensive luthiers will use nothing but the finest woods, it is a real concern.

In a world where builders charge thousands for inlays, "The Tree" back and sides, etc., suggesting that people should accept two-tone tops is completely illogical.

People spend $500 expecting a guitar with no obvious flaws, no structural issues, etc. When they spend $20,000, they are entitled to way more.

[coopman]

I've had 3 custom builds and they were all great experiences, resulting in wonderful instruments - each with a satisfying degree of uniqueness.

While many people 'buy with their eyes', I personally value sound and play-ability over cosmetics. Sure I love a beautiful set of wood as much as the next person, but 'perfection' is an elusive goal. Sound ... no comment except ... you've played his instruments and have a general sense that you like it. Still no guarantees, but tell him the key aspects that spoke to you.

Now something that you can be a bit more precise in is describing the neck profile and fret size that you prefer ... and these attributes can make a world of difference to the play-ability. For the neck profile you could make some templates from a favorite guitar - perhaps carefully replicating the contour at the first and tenth frets and thickness (not including the fret). Or lacking that skill tell him you really like Bourgeois neck profiles or Taylor ... fill-in-the-blank. Finally, something very few people pay attention to is the fret wire size -- there are at least 6 different relatively standard sizes -- and they can have a major impact on the feel and ease of play. I once purchased a fine used guitar but it had skinny narrow frets and it was very hard to play cleanly for me. I find that my right hand is not as strong as it once was and that I prefer a slightly wider and higher fret wire. It is so much easier to play for me and made a world of difference. Of course action and string are major factors too, but those can be more readily adjusted. See if you can play some instruments with varying fret size ... and ask your builder about it. Could be an important design choice to consider.

Have fun with your pursuit.

ps - I also agree with Teleplucker that there are many, many great guitars out there already built. Depends what you are after ... but back when you could buy and sell used instruments for about the same money I went through many used instruments to help figure out what I really liked. Beware that is a slippery slope too: you might discover that you are not a "one guitar" person ... and start to like them all. Like an artist has an array of brushes for different purposes ... so we "paint sound" with a variety of instruments

[gitarro]

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7

This particular cosmetic preference (not quality) subject as been adjudicated on this and other forums in many (many, many...) prior threads.

http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/f...d.php?t=461591

People seem to have both strong and divergent opinions on it. I think that we have again successfully beaten this particular subject to death...

Since these posts live on in perpetuity, I decided to post not to contradict those who have expressed any presence of visual runout as anathema. They of course have a right to their aesthetic preferences. I simply wanted to add to the conversation that it is not considered a quality defect among most professional luthiers, does not reflect substandard work and how some try to move the runout towards the outer edges of the top away from the center seam (also for structural reasons). Since this thread is about reflecting upon "lessons" if it is important to YOU, state your preference to your luthier upfront. I believe that was the lesson that the subject was introduced in this thread.

To me this is not a dead horse at all because this is a clear case of consumer protection. Your position essentially puts the burden on buyers to state from the outset that they dont want a two tone top. If they dont, then to you, then to you, the luthier is justified in giving him.a top like that and the customer has no recourse. So your position essentially favors the luthier despite the fact that there is a massive knowledge disparity in the luthier's favor.

That makes no sense to me in a industry that operates on visual appeal and where almost all luthiers advertise their guitars with well photographed glossy shots of their guitars looking perfect.

It is far more just to put the onus on the luthier to state ahead of time at the outset to the customer that there is a small possibility of a two tone top and what that may look like, and would the customer mind that happening in his guitar? Or that he won't be responsible for retopping the guitar in that eventuality.

[tadol]

Consumer protection!?! We are not in any way at all talking about “consumer” items - nor are we talking about “protection”. What we ARE talking about is the natural tendency for spruce trees to grow with a slight rotation, creating a condition where there is slight difference in the refraction of light that becomes much more apparent when a finish is applied. It is a natural and common occurence, and when in the minor amounts sometimes found in high quality tonewood spruce, is not in any way a detriment to the instruments abilty to create incredible tone.

Clearly, this is a personal issue you’ve had, and a personal criteria you’ve established as to how you evaluate a guitar. Anyone commissioning a custom spec’d guitar would be reasonably expected to have a pretty good idea of what the builder normally builds, and what parameters are the most important to them personally in accepting the finished product. That is why they are not simply buying “off the rack”, right? It is the responsibilty of the buyer to make that clear -

I would suggest that one option someone could present to a builder would be to have pre-construction approval of all materials, including the application of a sealer coat if required to determine the true color and grain of the pieces. Ive seen it done - doesnt add too much time and could possibly eliminate these problems.

But ultimately, I think an objective evalution of a builders skill and the quality of their instruments should not be reduced solely to a dislike for the way light reflects off a soundboard -

Of course, this is all strictly my own opinion, and does not reflect the opinions of others -

[gitarro]

As a buyer of custom guitars, you are a consumer thereof.

The buyers are still entitled to the same rights of anyone who purchases a good which is to receive a good of the same condition and standard that was represented to him both expressly and impliedly.

If you are OK with receiving a custom ordered guitar with runout, that does not mean that other buyers should not be entitled to object should they receive such a guitar.

And no, I am not commenting because I have received a custom guitar with runout before. I am putting this point down as a matter of principle because I do not want to see anyone use this thread to argue that he has no duty to make good to the buyer such a guitar.

Originally Posted by tadol

Consumer protection!?! We are not in any way at all talking about “consumer” items - nor are we talking about “protection”. What we ARE talking about is the natural tendency for spruce trees to grow with a slight rotation, creating a condition where there is slight difference in the refraction of light that becomes much more apparent when a finish is applied. It is a natural and common occurence, and when in the minor amounts sometimes found in high quality tonewood spruce, is not in any way a detriment to the instruments abilty to create incredible tone.

Clearly, this is a personal issue you’ve had, and a personal criteria you’ve established as to how you evaluate a guitar. Anyone commissioning a custom spec’d guitar would be reasonably expected to have a pretty good idea of what the builder normally builds, and what parameters are the most important to them personally in accepting the finished product. That is why they are not simply buying “off the rack”, right? It is the responsibilty of the buyer to make that clear -

I would suggest that one option someone could present to a builder would be to have pre-construction approval of all materials, including the application of a sealer coat if required to determine the true color and grain of the pieces. Ive seen it done - doesnt add too much time and could possibly eliminate these problems.

But ultimately, I think an objective evalution of a builders skill and the quality of their instruments should not be reduced solely to a dislike for the way light reflects off a soundboard -

Of course, this is all strictly my own opinion, and does not reflect the opinions of others -

[gitarro]

Originally Posted by The Bard Rocks

Since runout only affect cosmetics, I see no problem with it if a builder tells the buyer that is what he is going to get and the buyer OKs this. IF the buyer is not informed ahead of time, that's a different story.

I agree - if there is prior agreement, there is no problem if it happens but it is for the luthier to broach this with the buyer. What i object to (whixh you are not saying of ourse) is the idea that it's the buyer's duty to tell the luthier he wants a beautiful guitar otherwise the luthier I has no duty to make runout right.