Photo of slope vs. non-slope

[12FanMan]

Can someone direct me to a site or post that includes a side by side photo of a slope vs. non slope guitar?

[egordon99]

https://www.acousticguitarforum.com/...d.php?t=466218

[Howard Emerson]

Originally Posted by 12FanMan

Can someone direct me to a site or post that includes a side by side photo of a slope vs. non slope guitar?

The one on the left is a slope and the one on the right is a square. Ignore the one in the middle.



HE

[12FanMan]

Originally Posted by egordon99

https://www.acousticguitarforum.com/...d.php?t=466218

----------------------------------------------------------
I'm intrigued by the often slight, and definitial
difference between the dread and slope, but the detailed discussion conveyed via that last link helped a lot. It provided a lot of detailed discussion about slope/vs dread. There is nothing like opposing views to bring out truth, or at least hone one's perception thereof. Like the original poster...I'm an old coot...of 70 years...about to be 71.

It's too late for me to make an informed decision based upon those parameters, as I (with great help from this forum) have already made my choice. I settled on the FG-820-12, and love it. However, I do have some shoulder pain reaching over to play it. Maybe it's because the only place I can play it is my fat guy recliner, where it rests on my chest. Nonetheless....I have no regrets (I may in a year or two.) I love the guitar, and will never gig.

[sinistral]

Your thread title—“…slope vs. non-slope”—raises a subtle point that was discussed in the linked thread, but not fully fleshed out.

The term “slope” or “round” shoulder is typically used to describe the more rounded shape of the upper bout (“shoulders”) of Gibson’s J bodies or Martin’s 12-fret Dreadnought shape. However, the term “square-shoulder” is a bit of a misnomer, at least when it comes to Martin’s shapes.

At at event at a local shop with Chris Martin a while back, Chris pointed out something that, once you see it, you can’t help but notice it. That is, when Martin created its 14-fret designs, starting with the OM (000 body size) and extending to other body sizes shortly thereafter, the “shoulders” aren’t actually square. If you look at a 14-fret Martin guitar straight on, you will notice that the curvature of the upper bout traces an arc from one side to the other “behind” the neck, and isn't flat or square. It’s very subtle, visually, but as Chris noted, it’s like entasis employed by Greek architects to make columns appear straight—without a slight bulge in the center, the columns would look concave. The curvature is more noticeable on the 0, 00 and 000 body sizes than on the dreadnought, but it’s still there on the dreadnought.

When manufacturers copy Martin designs but get this detail wrong, they look off. I’m not sure if Gibson deliberately made the shoulders of the Hummingbird and Dove square to differentiate them from Martin’s designs, but if you look at them straight on, the shoulders appear to almost dip inward.

[12FanMan]

Originally Posted by sinistral

Your thread title—“…slope vs. non-slope”—raises a subtle point that was discussed in the linked thread, but not fully fleshed out.

The term “slope” or “round” shoulder is typically used to describe the more rounded shape of the upper bout (“shoulders”) of Gibson’s J bodies or Martin’s 12-fret Dreadnought shape. However, the term “square-shoulder” is a bit of a misnomer, at least when it comes to Martin’s shapes.

At at event at a local shop with Chris Martin a while back, Chris pointed out something that, once you see it, you can’t help but notice it. That is, when Martin created its 14-fret designs, starting with the OM (000 body size) and extending to other body sizes shortly thereafter, the “shoulders” aren’t actually square. If you look at a 14-fret Martin guitar straight on, you will notice that the curvature of the upper bout traces an arc from one side to the other “behind” the neck, and isn't flat or square. It’s very subtle, visually, but as Chris noted, it’s like entasis employed by Greek architects to make columns appear straight—without a slight bulge in the center, the columns would look concave. The curvature is more noticeable on the 0, 00 and 000 body sizes than on the dreadnought, but it’s still there on the dreadnought.

When manufacturers copy Martin designs but get this detail wrong, they look off. I’m not sure if Gibson deliberately made the shoulders of the Hummingbird and Dove square to differentiate them from Martin’s designs, but if you look at them straight on, the shoulders appear to almost dip inward.

------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks...I guess the slope would never be noticed if someone who knows about them didn't point them out to novices like me.

You mention 12 and 14 fret guitars. No need to respond to this question unless you have the time on your hands (I can flesh it out searching the forum.)... but why would someone one want a guitar with fewer frets? My yammie FG-820-12 has a lot more frets than that, though I doubt I'll ever use many of them. The higher ones, of course, are hard to reach w/o a cut away, which I just don't like. I would think a cut away would reduce the number of square inches of top tone wood, thus decreasing the quality of sound. I like the base expression of my yammie, let alone the other strings, which sound great to me. I suppose my less than perfect, highly-amplified ears can't appreciate the finer aspects of sound others assuredly can. On the other hand, those that CAN, can't silence a barking dog or a loud truck at the touch of a button.

[12FanMan]

Originally Posted by sinistral

Your thread title—“…slope vs. non-slope”—raises a subtle point that was discussed in the linked thread, but not fully fleshed out.

The term “slope” or “round” shoulder is typically used to describe the more rounded shape of the upper bout (“shoulders”) of Gibson’s J bodies or Martin’s 12-fret Dreadnought shape. However, the term “square-shoulder” is a bit of a misnomer, at least when it comes to Martin’s shapes.

At at event at a local shop with Chris Martin a while back, Chris pointed out something that, once you see it, you can’t help but notice it. That is, when Martin created its 14-fret designs, starting with the OM (000 body size) and extending to other body sizes shortly thereafter, the “shoulders” aren’t actually square. If you look at a 14-fret Martin guitar straight on, you will notice that the curvature of the upper bout traces an arc from one side to the other “behind” the neck, and isn't flat or square. It’s very subtle, visually, but as Chris noted, it’s like entasis employed by Greek architects to make columns appear straight—without a slight bulge in the center, the columns would look concave. The curvature is more noticeable on the 0, 00 and 000 body sizes than on the dreadnought, but it’s still there on the dreadnought.

When manufacturers copy Martin designs but get this detail wrong, they look off. I’m not sure if Gibson deliberately made the shoulders of the Hummingbird and Dove square to differentiate them from Martin’s designs, but if you look at them straight on, the shoulders appear to almost dip inward.

-------------------------------------------------------------
when I was trying to figure out what "slope" meant, I'd about decided it must be best illustrated by the slope of an Ovation guitar, which slopes away from the top wood, as I couldn't tell the differences between a regular guitar and one a poster was describing as a slope. That's why I asked for a side by side photo, which did in fact show the slight (to me) difference. From what I've read, a concise definition of the concept has become somewhat of a moving target over the years. I would be interested to hear for myself whether there really is much of a difference in the way a slope vs. a "square" sounds, but my hearing is so lousy w/o my hearing aids that I doubt I'd be able to.

[sinistral]

Originally Posted by 12FanMan

------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks...I guess the slope would never be noticed if someone who knows about them didn't point them out to novices like me.

You mention 12 and 14 fret guitars. No need to respond to this question unless you have the time on your hands (I can flesh it out searching the forum.)... but why would someone one want a guitar with fewer frets? My yammie FG-820-12 has a lot more frets than that, though I doubt I'll ever use many of them. The higher ones, of course, are hard to reach w/o a cut away, which I just don't like. I would think a cut away would reduce the number of square inches of top tone wood, thus decreasing the quality of sound. I like the base expression of my yammie, let alone the other strings, which sound great to me. I suppose my less than perfect, highly-amplified ears can't appreciate the finer aspects of sound others assuredly can. On the other hand, those that CAN, can't silence a barking dog or a loud truck at the touch of a button.

There’s a lot to explore in those questions. Prior to 1929, all flat-top acoustic guitars were shaped more or less like classical guitars, with a rounded upper bout, and with only 12 frets “free” of the body (i.e., 12-fret). In 1929, Martin introduced guitars with 14-frets “free” of the body (i.e., 14-fret). They did this by shortening the soundboard at the upper bout to expose two more frets. Gibson created 13- and 14-fret versions of their original 12-fret designs by shifting the bridge, soundhole and neck up by one or two frets, as applicable. In either the 12- or 14- (or 13-)fret configuration, the guitar typically has +/- 20 frets, so it’s more a matter of how many frets are clear of the body.

While cutaways have actually been around for a long time, they are often associated with more modern designs, and there’s strong anti-cutaway sentiment here—to some, cutaways are like the women’s liberation movement in Iran.

Originally Posted by 12FanMan

-------------------------------------------------------------
when I was trying to figure out what "slope" meant, I'd about decided it must be best illustrated by the slope of an Ovation guitar, which slopes away from the top wood, as I couldn't tell the differences between a regular guitar and one a poster was describing as a slope. That's why I asked for a side by side photo, which did in fact show the slight (to me) difference. From what I've read, a concise definition of the concept has become somewhat of a moving target over the years. I would be interested to hear for myself whether there really is much of a difference in the way a slope vs. a "square" sounds, but my hearing is so lousy w/o my hearing aids that I doubt I'd be able to.

The graphic in this post in the linked thread shows the difference between “slope” and “square.” It has nothing to do with the back of the guitar.