Bindings as bling

[Jackknifegypsy]

Having read that the soundboard that produces the very best overall---and likely the best bass---- is one that first, has a straight, tightly knit grain.

Then passes a tap test, and then is sanded in convex-to-infinity---middle to the very edges-----being as thin as possible and still structurally able to be glued to the kerfed underside, if thin at the edges is best, what purpose does ANY binding serve?

I have not yet tried to put bindings on the practice builds I am doing and have used plain soft pine cut in 3/8 x 1/8 strips from old 2 x 4s, that I have then soaked in hot water and then bent to the curve of whatever body I am working on with very good results, no kerfs necessary.

Doed binding only have an aesthetic appeal or does it contribute to some structural purpose? I can't see any.

[jeff crisp]

Bindings help to stop the end grain from splitting. It's the same reason for having a rosette. They also help protect the guitar from dings.

Jeff.

[Jackknifegypsy]

I can usually seal an end grain.

I have several old Harmonys, where faux bindings are painted on in white or black, a couple no names that are 50 years old and a birch that is even older. None of them have bindings, they haven't split and otherwise seem perfect.

But I understand the ding protection thing.

[gitnoob]

Just ding protection and aesthetics, but it is one of the harder aspects of building a guitar, so it's a good thing to try out on your practice builds.

[WaddyT]

They also help act as a seal to the box. It's really hard to get a perfect seal putting on the back or top. You can get a good seal, but any small break in that seal will have a direct effect on the sound of the instrument. Under manufacturing and highly jigged assembly operations getting that seal is easier. They often use gluing presses the shape of the guitar.

[jeff crisp]

Get the right ding, or wrong depending on how you want to look at it and you can split your end grain.

Jeff.

[redir]

I actually kind of like the looks of a guitar with no bindings but most people think they look cheap. The funny thing is that as WaddyT said the bindings actually hide a lot of potential errors and make the joint look nice. So it's more work to do binding but it's still not easy to do it without binding. I've never done a guitar with no bindings but I have always thought about it. But not because of your bass hypothesis. I just don't buy that at all.

I always taper my tops as you describe but when you think about it the bindings don't really interfere with the acoustics since they are cut into the linings after the top meets it's terminal edge anyway. In fact along those lines one could argue that a wide purfling that goes over the top edge past the linings would make a guitar with superior bass. Kind of like how Taylor makes that groove around the edge. But it's just not that simple. If you want a guitar with a lot of bass build the top thin and don't brace it heavy. A forward X-Brace will also bring out bass.

[Jackknifegypsy]

Tapering the edges to infinity makes it very difficult for me to add bindings, I'm just not good enough wood-worker to get it right.


I just completed the top of one with no bindings and no support of the top at all, except for the cross brace where the bridge is attached, and the harmonics are so crystal clear, I've never heard them so, and the bass is somewhat muted.

Do you think adding a forward cross brace would stifle the harmonics and generally very bright treble, but boost the base? Or have little to no effect on the harmonics?

I have access to the forward top thru the porthole in the upper bout.

[mr. beaumont]

Sort of off topic, but I love it when a builder does wood binding and then finishes over the whole thing, like Jimmy D'Aquisto often did.

Kinda negates binding as a nick protector, but my guess is it would still be easier to do a repair of a badly dinged finished binding than if it was actually part of the top? Or am I off base?

[gitnoob]

Wood binding is usually a hardwood, so it still protects the softer spruce from dings.

Binding just on the top or no binding at all was quite common around the 1900's. I like the look.

Originally Posted by Jackknifegypsy

Do you think adding a forward cross brace would stifle the harmonics and generally very bright treble, but boost the base? Or have little to no effect on the harmonics?

I think it was Einstein who said "bracing should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." Yours is way too simple.

[redir]

Originally Posted by Jackknifegypsy

Tapering the edges to infinity makes it very difficult for me to add bindings, I'm just not good enough wood-worker to get it right.


I just completed the top of one with no bindings and no support of the top at all, except for the cross brace where the bridge is attached, and the harmonics are so crystal clear, I've never heard them so, and the bass is somewhat muted.

Do you think adding a forward cross brace would stifle the harmonics and generally very bright treble, but boost the base? Or have little to no effect on the harmonics?

I have access to the forward top thru the porthole in the upper bout.

I'm having a difficult time understanding what you did. If it's what I think you said, that there is only one brace that runs across the top in the same direction of the bridge (perpendicular to the direction of the strings), then you will not have a guitar that lasts very long. But I probably don't understand what you are saying. Do you have any pics? A guitar with what is called ladder bracing as you seem to describe will tend to be more trebley and mid rangey and lacking bracing. Think, Selmer guitar. They also usually have tail pieces which I presume yours would have a s well.

---

Did D'Aquisto use wood bindings or plastic? In either case they always get finished. The bindings are done and the whole guitar is finished regardless of what material is used.