Classical builders & Steel string builders

[Wendell123]

I have a friend who has , over the past 40 years, become one of the primer classical guitar builders in the country.. A few years into his career he made a few steel string guitars , for friends. Those instruments , although nicely made where very unremarkable, sound wise,,, just average steel string guitars.
He remained building classical and flamencos and they are phenominal (and outragiously expensive)
Dejeong family in Canada makes steel and nylon string,, but i dont care for the sound they get out of their classicals,
The point is, although many luthiers here have posted pics of their crossover builds,(beautiful looking , all) I have not heard them, and my guess is, for the most part, you will be better at one discipline than another,,
"Classical builders are classical builders and steel string builders are steel string builders,,,and few can "crossover" sucessfully, of course the point of this tread is there are probably exceptions to this, that i am unaware of,

W

[Mark Hatcher]

Perhaps the title of your post could read "Classical builders & Steel string builders & Crossover builders" If you want your guitar to sound and be just like a classic guitar then I'd suggest you get a classic guitar from a classical builder.
I don't consider a crossover a classic guitar. The Penelope Crossover model that I make has been a very popular guitar for me since it has come out but, I'm a steel string builder making a nylon string guitar that will be comfortable for a steel string player to play and hopefully love the sound he/she can get from it.
I suppose if I were a classical guitar builder making a crossover it might be a good sounding classical guitar that the builder hopes a steel string player will be comfortable playing.
I suppose a builder that only makes crossovers could be best but, while Penelope sells well, I don't get enough orders to go that route. In fact, I don't think anyone is ready to hang there business hat on only crossovers.
All said, I do get a touch of pride when one of my crossover customers tells me they sold their classical guitars.

Mark

[justonwo]

Well, the styles of construction, sonic goals, bracing patterns, and build philosophies tend to be quite different. Not being a classic player, I can't really judge luthiers' abilities to make both great steel string and classical guitars. There are a few who have solid reputations in both areas, but to my knowledge they are fairly uncommon.

[Bruce Sexauer]

Ervin Somogyi makes a decent Nylon Strung guitar IMO, and I like to think mine is OK as well. My Mentor, Michael Dunn, has also made a number of good ones, especially early in his career. All of us are best known for our steel strings, but that certainly doesn't mean we are limited to them! I, for instance (and because I don't know so much about the others), also have made Mandolins, Psalteries, Ukuleles, Harps, Tiples, Guitarones, and am currently just finishing up my 6th violin. "Luthier" means stringed instrument builder!

Classical makers tend to be preoccupied with getting volume and power out of the trebles, whereas the issue with steel string makers is more often getting clarity and projection from the bass. IMO not many SS makers are as interested in balance as most Classical makers (or violin makers) are.

[Bluemonk]

Originally Posted by Wendell123

I have a friend who has , over the past 40 years, become one of the primer classical guitar builders in the country.. A few years into his career he made a few steel string guitars , for friends. Those instruments , although nicely made where very unremarkable, sound wise,,, just average steel string guitars.
He remained building classical and flamencos and they are phenominal (and outragiously expensive)

Until the red highlighted comment, I thought you may have been referring to Jeff Elliott out of Portland, Oregon.

Originally Posted by Wendell123

"Classical builders are classical builders and steel string builders are steel string builders,,,and few can "crossover" sucessfully, of course the point of this tread is there are probably exceptions to this, that i am unaware of,W

Jeff Elliott is one very notable exception, IMHO (although his forte is definitely classical guitar).

[Alan Carruth]

Bruce Sexauer wrote:
"Classical makers tend to be preoccupied with getting volume and power out of the trebles, whereas the issue with steel string makers is more often getting clarity and projection from the bass."

There's a good reason for that: nylon strings have a lot less energy in the high frequency range than steel, due to their much higher damping. The central problem in making a good steel string seems to be to get enough bass to balance out all the treble. On Classicals, you have to try to get as much out of the little treble that you have as you possibly can. Most of the differences between them seem to get back to that.

I build about as many steel string as Classical guitars these days, and have happy customers in both camps. Maybe I'd do better to stick to one or the other: it's hard to say. I have a former student who's first guitar was a steel string, and has built Classicals and Flamencos since, and he gets more for his instruments than I do.

[ChuckS]

Originally Posted by Wendell123

......[snip].....
The point is, although many luthiers here have posted pics of their crossover builds,(beautiful looking , all) I have not heard them, and my guess is, for the most part, you will be better at one discipline than another,,
"Classical builders are classical builders and steel string builders are steel string builders,,,and few can "crossover" sucessfully, of course the point of this tread is there are probably exceptions to this, that i am unaware of,

W

I play steel string, but lately have had thoughts of a classical guitar pass through my mind. I don't have the time, or budget, at this time to learn to play a classical guitar correctly. However, if I was ready I would have no hesitation in having Alan Carruth build one for me (he delivered my steel string about a year ago). I think there are at least some builders fully qualified to build both.

[Haans]

Good grief, it's a different instrument!
Might as well compare a Strad to a steel string...
I have, in my life, been able to get a handle on mandolins, mandolas, parlor steel strings, grand concert 6 strings and the old Stella/Holzapfel 12 strings. I will try an archtop guitar before I croak, but guess what?
It takes a dang long time to "get" an instrument.
You don't just make a few of anything...

[ewh2]

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

I build about as many steel string as Classical guitars these days, and have happy customers in both camps. Maybe I'd do better to stick to one or the other: it's hard to say. I have a former student who's first guitar was a steel string, and has built Classicals and Flamencos since, and he gets more for his instruments than I do.

Aaron Green's flamencos are amazing. I wouldn't be surprised if in time his reputation is equal to Lester De Voe.

Playing a steel string and playing a nylon strung guitar are very different things, and building them is no different.

[cogito]

Somogyi does indeed build fine classicals and flamencos. Kathy Wingert also offers a classical model, which I haven't heard but I have no doubt is quite good.
But given that the base prices for their guitars are $30,000 and $12,500 respectively, it is difficult for me to see how it would be rational for someone looking for a classical guitar to commission one from them. While I can see why those luthiers would ask those prices - since their time is in great demand and there is no reason for them to incur an opportunity cost in building a classical rather than a steel string -- one can get a classical from some of the very best classical luthiers in the world (e.g., Ruck, Bernabe, Tacci, Byers, to name just a few) for 12 - 15k. These are people who have spent their lives perfecting the craft of building classical guitars. In principle, it's possible for someone whose primary focus is building steel strings to build a classical that equals or excels the work of the luthiers mentioned. But it seems highly improbable.

[Bruce Sexauer]

I'll bet neither of them charges as much for a true Classical, I know I don't charge the same rate as my steel string. A classical is much simpler, not that there isn't as much room to get carried away, but when I say "classical", I mean "classic" classical. I fully expect the top builders in that genre to be better at "classicals" than the top builders in "our" genre, on average. It's what they do! I made my first nylon strung guitar in the early 70's, so it's not really like most luthiers have a head start on me (among others, such as those I named), just more practice.

[cogito]

Somogyi explicitly lists his classical and flamenco prices as the same as his steel strings, and Wingert doesn't make any distinctions. Perhaps one could negotiate a discount on a classical, though I suspect that even then one would still be in a price range that made it a better choice to go with an accomplished classical builder.

Bruce: I'm curious about your comment that "a classical is much simpler" to build than a steel string. I know of a number of distinguished classical builders who are able to produce no more than about 12 - 15 instruments a year, working full time (or no doubt more than full time, as most of you do). That's comparable to the rate of steel string builders who are very detail oriented. I'm not knowledgeable enough to make any pronouncements about the relative difficulty of building steel strings and classicals, but on it's face the comparable production rates would seem to me to suggest that building a classical is not "much simpler" for many of the best builders. I'd be interested in further illumination on this.

[LouieAtienza]

Originally Posted by cogito

Somogyi explicitly lists his classical and flamenco prices as the same as his steel strings, and Wingert doesn't make any distinctions. Perhaps one could negotiate a discount on a classical, though I suspect that even then one would still be in a price range that made it a better choice to go with an accomplished classical builder.

Bruce: I'm curious about your comment that "a classical is much simpler" to build than a steel string. I know of a number of distinguished classical builders who are able to produce no more than about 12 - 15 instruments a year, working full time (or no doubt more than full time, as most of you do). That's comparable to the rate of steel string builders who are very detail oriented. I'm not knowledgeable enough to make any pronouncements about the relative difficulty of building steel strings and classicals, but on it's face the comparable production rates would seem to me to suggest that building a classical is not "much simpler" for many of the best builders. I'd be interested in further illumination on this.

If I recall correctly, Somogyi started out playing flamenco, and his first guitars were indeed classicals and flamencos, though he is most known for his steel strings....

[Wendell123]

Originally Posted by Mark Hatcher

Perhaps the title of your post could read "Classical builders & Steel string builders & Crossover builders" If you want your guitar to sound and be just like a classic guitar then I'd suggest you get a classic guitar from a classical builder.
I don't consider a crossover a classic guitar. The Penelope Crossover model that I make has been a very popular guitar for me since it has come out but, I'm a steel string builder making a nylon string guitar that will be comfortable for a steel string player to play and hopefully love the sound he/she can get from it.
I suppose if I were a classical guitar builder making a crossover it might be a good sounding classical guitar that the builder hopes a steel string player will be comfortable playing.


Mark

Mark, i saw pictures of your penelope guitar, and it looked wonderful,, did not get to hear it,, but if it sounds as good as it looks, its a great one for sure,
Now, to be comfortable to a steel string player, you mean a narrower nut width, a radiused fingerboard, and a lower neck profile,, maybe on some that have electronics, you might build a little thicker, to suppress unwanted feedback or symathetic tones .... other than that, it would seem to me that
the sound goals , between a classical and a crossover would be the same,
if not,, what could be the difference? I would want a crossover guitar to sound like a great classical, only with a different neck feel,,

W.

[Bruce Sexauer]

Originally Posted by cogito

Bruce: I'm curious about your comment that "a classical is much simpler" to build than a steel string. I know of a number of distinguished classical builders who are able to produce no more than about 12 - 15 instruments a year, working full time (or no doubt more than full time, as most of you do). That's comparable to the rate of steel string builders who are very detail oriented. I'm not knowledgeable enough to make any pronouncements about the relative difficulty of building steel strings and classicals, but on it's face the comparable production rates would seem to me to suggest that building a classical is not "much simpler" for many of the best builders. I'd be interested in further illumination on this.

Bunch of stuff comes to mind. They are 00 sized, so the wood costs less and time is minimal compared to larger guitars. There is no cutaway or bevel. There is no inlay. No electronics. The finish standards are lower cosmetically (honest!). On the other side of the coin; they typically have a mosaic rosette, there is a slothead, and they take 2 or 3 more inches of fret wire. Of course this is just what I think as well as my experience, and there will be those who will argue.

I should not have spoken for them, and I am very surprised to hear that other builders would charge the same for a classical as for a contemporary Steel String. I charge less for single 0's and classicals than I do for 00s and OMs, and more for Jumbos and archtops. This make sense to me, but there are many way to approach business.