Sunken top - 40's Stella

[John Arnold]

It may well be solid wood as John says, but the visible face (ie underside) of that top is definitely a rotary cut birch veneer ...

Like I said, it's thick veneer.
I probably would not have guessed that veneer this thick could have been made into a guitar....except for my experience at a local veneer mill. While digging through their scrap pile one day, I found some sliced birch veneer that was 0.1" thick. I brought it home, and I made an L-00 copy (my main guitar model back in 1980), using the birch for the back and sides. It was part of an experiment to see how fast I could build a guitar. I finished it in five days.

Granted, the Stella's aren't very valuable so no one will grill you, but adding random braces to vintage guitars is sacrilege. The Stella's are over braced as it.

Adding braces is wrong, but rebracing with X-braces is OK??
I see sinking at the soundhole, where there are no braces. At least that area is not overbraced.

[vintageparlors]

Originally Posted by John Arnold

I'll bet it's solid birch. Many of these budget guitars were made of birch that was sliced like thick veneer.

That would also be my recommendation. I see no reason to rebrace it.
I would angle the soundhole braces slightly, fitting them tightly between the cross braces. Then continue in a straight line with similar braces above the UTB. These upper braces should fit tightly between the UTB and the neck block.
The result would be similar to the Martin A-frame bracing.

I like John's approach to this problem. I come across this issue every day. Don't sell this old gal short, the aged solid birch will sound punchy and sassy with a good setup. If you're going to spend some time on it, make sure you can play it when it's done.

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by bnjp

It's gonna be displayed and probably not played, but I'd like it to be as good as is practical.

If it's going to be displayed and not played, then somebody has figured out its most appropriate use. Painted binding, decal rosette, the cheapest of the cheap in every way. Why are you doing anything to a funky wall hanging? This is a discussion about the best way to polish a turd, as Rick Turner would say.

[bnjp]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

If it's going to be displayed and not played, then somebody has figured out its most appropriate use. Painted binding, decal rosette, the cheapest of the cheap in every way. Why are you doing anything to a funky wall hanging? This is a discussion about the best way to polish a turd, as Rick Turner would say.

Thanks Howard Klepper. You're too kind. This guitar belongs to a man in his late 70s who "found his childhood guitar" and it means a lot to him to have it again. He doesn't play anymore but wants it to be stable in case the grandkids decide to strum on it, it won't break further. The family is having it repaired as a surprise for him and I just think it's the right thing to do make it at least playable if I can...rather than taking their money to just squirt a little glue in some cracks. Funky wall hanging or not, it'll be hanging around for a long time.

[Howard Klepper]

They are lucky to have found you, Bryan.

[John Arnold]

Over the last 34 years, I have had maybe 5 similar jobs. Even though I feel like I lost money on every one of them, I don't regret it at all.

[Dan Bombliss]

Originally Posted by John Arnold

Like I said, it's thick veneer.
I probably would not have guessed that veneer this thick could have been made into a guitar....except for my experience at a local veneer mill. While digging through their scrap pile one day, I found some sliced birch veneer that was 0.1" thick. I brought it home, and I made an L-00 copy (my main guitar model back in 1980), using the birch for the back and sides. It was part of an experiment to see how fast I could build a guitar. I finished it in five days.

Adding braces is wrong, but rebracing with X-braces is OK??
I see sinking at the soundhole, where there are no braces. At least that area is not overbraced.

Adding bracing in anyway is sacrilege.It's frowned upon to rebrace any instrument differently. What I'm saying is that a guitar like the stella, which doesn't hold any cash collector value, there's nothing to deface. Rebracing in a pattern that compliments the body size is beneficial and can optimize the tone, where as how adding addition braces to those MONSTER top braces is over kill.

I guarantee that if every one of those braces was pull out and weighed, you could brace it properly for a fraction of the weight in those braces that are there. That is the meaning of over braced. These guitars are notorious for this exact issue, and it's 100% due to the bracing pattern. We'll have to agree to disagree on the whole issue, as there is no point in an argument. To sum up my thought process here, if you're going to alter the bracing, do it a way that compliments the guitar. It's all the same in the "defacing" department.

Take all advice with a grain of salt.

[LouieAtienza]

Originally Posted by Dan Bombliss

Adding bracing in anyway is sacrilege.It's frowned upon to rebrace any instrument differently. What I'm saying is that a guitar like the stella, which doesn't hold any cash collector value, there's nothing to deface. Rebracing in a pattern that compliments the body size is beneficial and can optimize the tone, where as how adding addition braces to those MONSTER top braces is over kill.

I guarantee that if every one of those braces was pull out and weighed, you could brace it properly for a fraction of the weight in those braces that are there. That is the meaning of over braced. These guitars are notorious for this exact issue, and it's 100% due to the bracing pattern. We'll have to agree to disagree on the whole issue, as there is no point in an argument. To sum up my thought process here, if you're going to alter the bracing, do it a way that compliments the guitar. It's all the same in the "defacing" department.

Take all advice with a grain of salt.

Well, I suppose one reason for the largish braces is the rotary cut top, which cannot have much if any lateral stiffness.

Adding the soundhole struts is not a huge crime, and easily reversible. Completely rebracing the top is not. Plus, those soundhole struts will not detract from whatever sound the guitar has to begin with.

Remember, this is a repair job which is going far beyond the intention (and cost) of the repair. To go further as to redo all bracing (which would also involve repairing the lining - unless you are of the over-charitable kind - would be hard to justify. And, these guitars are not valuable now. But who knows 40, 60, 100 years from now? Not likely, but still.

On the reverse of this, I had a friend who had a 00-18 since the 50s, and he was having a hard time playing in his old age (he had passed a while back.) I told him I could lower the action a little and maybe use round core strings or even a gauge down. I thought it sounded and played great afterwards, but he said it didn't feel and sound the same as it did. He'd rather not play than to hear and feel the "difference!" So, luckily, I saved the original saddle and strings and re-set it up the way he had it.

[John Arnold]

IMHO, rebracing a birch top guitar like this is a total waste of time. The only way to make a significant improvement is to retop it with a more suitable wood like spruce.

Well, I suppose one reason for the largish braces is the rotary cut top, which cannot have much if any lateral stiffness

Even spruce top budget guitars from the 1930's through the 1960's tend to be overbraced. This case illustrates a weak point of ladder bracing. Other than the top itself, there is little longitudinal support....and that is the direction of the force from string tension.

[bnjp]

Here's a dry fit of the new braces. Thanks for the idea. This is definitely gonna fix the warped top. I'll carve those braces a little once they are glued in and should be able to put it back together tomorrow! Totally worth spending a little extra time to make it better.