Sexauer '23 (Chapter 2)

[BlueBowman]

Thanks for the extra photos, Bruce.

I know I'm not the only one who thinks of your carved bracing as a form of guitar "sculpturing," for lack of a better word. Really beautiful, and not only in an aesthetic since. Your episode of Luthier on Luthier is my favorite, mostly because you cut right to the heart of the matter when talking about your build philosophy, and that philosophy resonated deeply with me. Been following your build threads ever since, and my favorite thing is when you drop little gems of that build philosophy on us

I'm not a builder, just a serious guitar player who's trying to figure out how these dang guitars work!

[evtkw]

Thank you for the invitations for questions! I have a few in particular concerning your "open air" construction method shown in these photos, which I'd like to attempt on my next guitar -

I have read elsewhere that you use a 42' radius board, and that you affix the sides to the top plumb to the "ground", if I understood right. How do you make the heel and tail blocks meet the sides at 90 when they are glued on a radius where they would tilt toward eachother?

I saw your method of bending and then planing braces to get a radius - do you bend them to a 42' radius curve, or something else?

How do you profile/prepare the linings and blocks to fit and glue the radiused back on?

Thank you! You have populated this forum with a wealth of guitar building information.

[Bruce Sexauer]

Originally Posted by evtkw

Thank you for the invitations for questions! I have a few in particular concerning your "open air" construction method shown in these photos, which I'd like to attempt on my next guitar -

I have read elsewhere that you use a 42' radius board, and that you affix the sides to the top plumb to the "ground", if I understood right. How do you make the heel and tail blocks meet the sides at 90 when they are glued on a radius where they would tilt toward eachother?

I saw your method of bending and then planing braces to get a radius - do you bend them to a 42' radius curve, or something else?

How do you profile/prepare the linings and blocks to fit and glue the radiused back on?

Thank you! You have populated this forum with a wealth of guitar building information.

In order, I hope: I have increased my top radius some, and am often closer to 50’.

Both blocks are as close to square as possible to their length on the glueing surface, which means they tilt toward each other slightly. This causes them to be very close to perpendicular to the actual centerline of the guitar. In any case, it looks right to me.

Depending on my tonal target, I sometimes introduce tension by over or under curving the braced relative to the dish.

My back radius remains 18’, and I use a 24” dish with sandpaper on it driven by my drill press using a 1 1/2” sanding drum driving the dishes edge to sand the rims to receive the back, which is built in a similar dish.

I have occasionally posted photos of most parts of toy process, but have not kept track of when.

Thanks for asking.

[evtkw]

Thank you! Those were very helpful answers.

I'll have to search the archives for the back-sanding dish; that sounds like a clever solution.

And now I understand a bit better when you mentioned the alighnment with the centerline.

[Bruce Sexauer]

I do mind answering questions about my process. I do believe my method is better suited to the amature builder for its simplicity, and to all builders because of the ease with which one can make major design adjustments w/o spending a lot of time building new fixtures. This allows much faster growth as a builder, which is extremely important to me, and should be to most others, IMO (of course).

This Schoenberg 0 will have slightly fancier trim than a style 18 or my WRX, but is none the less intended to be less expensive than my mainstream builds. So there is only one miter on the entire box, and here it is:

[Treenewt]

And a fine miter it is, sir!

I second all the thanks for sharing your process with us, Bruce. As amateur, I have learned a massive amount.

[mhw48]

Originally Posted by Bruce Sexauer

This Schoenberg 0 will have slightly fancier trim than a style 18 or my WRX, but is none the less intended to be less expensive than my mainstream builds.

Bruce, perhaps you've answered this question before, but I am curious what distinguishes a "Schoenberg" 0 design from a "Sexauer" 0? Is there a difference in the construction?

[Bruce Sexauer]

Originally Posted by mhw48

Bruce, perhaps you've answered this question before, but I am curious what distinguishes a "Schoenberg" 0 design from a "Sexauer" 0? Is there a difference in the construction?

My earliest ES-0’s are closer to Martin than the one I am making at the moment. More conservative material choices and trim packages, but still distinguished from Martin by being “Long Scale” rather than “short scale”, as I believe all Martin 0’s are. FT-0’s have always been less conservative, with more experimentation in materials, bracing, and trim. This 0 is a sort of Hybrid, for the first time using my tone bar variation in any ES, and Myrtle, which has no historical basis in the Martin nomenclature AFAIK.

Otherwise, ES and FT are built using the same construction techniques, HHG, and my self applied oil varnish.

[Bruce Sexauer]

The Amazon RW binding is now complete on the Myrtle ES-0-C, and I am moving on to the neck.

[Bruce Sexauer]

Yesterday I got pretty far on the neck, and expect to complete it today. Here are some end of the day pics.

My "sophisticated" dovetail tenon fixture:



Two shots of the roughly carved neck:

[evtkw]

Originally Posted by Bruce Sexauer

I do mind answering questions about my process.

Hi Bruce - I'm not sure how to interpret this; could you clarify your thoughts?

Also, I like how your pictures seem to have double meaning. On one hand, they just show the precision of your work, but, as in the picture of the neck with the cut binding, you are also showing how you trim the binding by cutting into the are that will be removed later and some insight into how you miter the cutaway part.

[Bruce Sexauer]

Originally Posted by evtkw

Hi Bruce - I'm not sure how to interpret this; could you clarify your thoughts?

Also, I like how your pictures seem to have double meaning. On one hand, they just show the precision of your work, but, as in the picture of the neck with the cut binding, you are also showing how you trim the binding by cutting into the are that will be removed later and some insight into how you miter the cutaway part.

I am having trouble finding where I wrote that, but I assure you is is a typo, it should say "I do not mind . . .etc"

"Cutting into the are"? You're good at typos too!

I imagine that process pictures are in many ways more instructive that impressive finished product pictures. FYI: The binding miter cut was done with a fine toothed back saw and cleaned up with a sharp chisel.

[evtkw]

I thought your answer would be "typo", and I'm very relieved and glad to hear it. I just wanted to make extra sure... It's amazing to have you freely give information that would be very difficult or impossible to otherwise obtain.

I guess I'll pose a few other questions before they are too far separated from your statements that make me extremely curious about the why behind them:

You mentioned that you are using a 50' instead of 42' dish now. I also saw somewhere you mentioned using slightly thicker soundboards. Would you be willing to explain your shift?

I'm also curious about your thoughts on the effect of brace arching. You mentioned that you arch them to the dish or under/over sprung to obtain a tonal target. How does arching relative to the dish effect tone?

thank you again!

[Bruce Sexauer]

Originally Posted by evtkw

I thought your answer would be "typo", and I'm very relieved and glad to hear it. I just wanted to make extra sure... It's amazing to have you freely give information that would be very difficult or impossible to otherwise obtain.

I guess I'll pose a few other questions before they are too far separated from your statements that make me extremely curious about the why behind them:

You mentioned that you are using a 50' instead of 42' dish now. I also saw somewhere you mentioned using slightly thicker soundboards. Would you be willing to explain your shift?

I'm also curious about your thoughts on the effect of brace arching. You mentioned that you arch them to the dish or under/over sprung to obtain a tonal target. How does arching relative to the dish effect tone?

thank you again!

This is opinion, and not necessarily common thought or even correct, but: More depth of chord in the plate radius is stiffer and more constrained, causing the plate to be less responsive and generate a brighter and thinner tonal signature. Less depth of chord decreases stiffness and increases response, but also makes muddiness a potential issue. adding a bit of plate thickness to a shallower top curvature increases authority in the tone, which can be called woodiness.

Over/under arching braces can increase stiffness, and also, depending on which, make a plate less likely to crack in low humidity, should it be projected to be that guitar's future habitat.

[evtkw]

Thank you for your insight! I appreciate it very much...