Bruce Sexauer forced into Luthier Conundrum - Page 5

Chazmo · #61 02-11-2012, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamianL

Speaking of such things...I came across this for the first time today...

Better than the last - Video with Bruce Sexauer

Very good to see into some of the process involved....

Very enjoyable, Bruce!!!

I really enjoy your frank conversational tone about your craft!

By the way, all the string basses... did you build those?

Bruce Sexauer · #62 02-11-2012, 12:40 PM

The bridge on my 13 fretter is in so close to the same place on the lower bout that the difference is moot. 90% of my body change is accomplished in the upper bout, much as Martin has done between the traditional 000-12 and the modern 000-14. Because the body is longer, I have put a little bit of the additional length in the lower bout to maintain a visual balance, but mostly it is expanded in the upper bout to include the additional fret, or frets if a 12. The major tonal shift occurs because of the extra body length and internal volume, both of which support the lower frequencies, though for somewhat different reasons.

This particular guitar is quite different from my previous Kerala models as it is a sort of expanded OM rather than being between an OM and a 000. The shoulders are a little squarer, and it is actually 15.5" (OM/00 would be 15 1/16") wide and proportionally larger everywhere, which gave me some of the length I needed without much effort. I see this design as having a much more contemporary appearance, and the earlier efforts as being more traditional (Martin) looking.

Bruce Sexauer · #63 02-11-2012, 12:42 PM

I have never made a string bass, though I have had the materials on hand to do so for some 15 years. Looks like a lot of work to me.

tomgt · #64 02-11-2012, 12:51 PM

This is looking beautiful...bruce has a great idea to use Snakewood
binding and now that I see it I couln't agree more:

eportman · #65 02-11-2012, 01:38 PM

Wow! Love it

Leftyprs · #66 02-12-2012, 01:14 AM

Your work looks impeccable as usual on this one Bruce!

Leftyprs · #67 02-12-2012, 01:35 PM

Bruce, have you built any guitars with sets of Cocobolo similar to the "Churchbell" set in your woodlocker? If so I'd love to see a pic or two if possible, and hear your thoughts on its tonal capabilities. The sets of "Churchbell" I've seen are some of the nicest sets of any wood I've ever seen on a guitar, and I'm not really a Cocobolo guy usually.

Bruce Sexauer · #68 02-12-2012, 04:09 PM

Yes, I have made one.

Leftyprs · #69 02-12-2012, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Sexauer

Yes, I have made one.

Very nice, and it's just the right model for me! Was there any noticable tonal difference to your ears from other Cocobolo?

Bruce Sexauer · #70 02-12-2012, 07:20 PM

No. But this stuff is clear and quartered, as well available locally at a fair price. I have more.

cpabolting · #71 02-13-2012, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Sexauer

Actually, I'd say 150 hours for the basic guitar. The cutaway adds about a full day. My progress may appear particularly quick to some of you because I am building just one guitar at a time. Many pro builders make several at a time, and this makes everything go by more slowly.

One of the bigger reasons I do this is so that I can progress faster in my quest to be the absolute best guitarmaker the world has produced.

150 hours you have estimated if that is in fact, actual production time, that seems like an extraordinary number of hours spent on one guitar. Other luthiers have told me their estimate is substantially less than that (more like half that). What do you attribute that added production time you spend over what I understood the average of other luthiers?

I would suspect that the goal of being the best guitar maker the world ever produced is the lofty goal of most luthiers. I commend you on your striving for such reverance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Sexauer

If you think about it, it's not so much the number of instruments one makes that creates useful feedback, but the number of times one has completed the process and reviewed the results enabling reorganization of the process. So if a luthier builds a batch of 30 instruments, say, they are only going through the process one time. Thus building 1200 guitars 30 at a time is completing the process just 40 times, while building 400 instruments one by one is completing the process 400 times.

I have given a great deal of thought to this statement, considered it in many ways and Bruce, and in my opinion, I respectfully cannot agree with your logic. Your numbers perhaps may gave been just an example, and perhaps by coincidence, but maybe not, but I can honestly only think of one obvious luthier whose numbers parallel those you referenced, and to suggest that there is any less attention to detail by that luthier in the 1200 he has built does not seem to be a reasonable conclusion in my opinion, particularly when I am so intimately familiar with his methods and work itself. I am quite confident that in his building of 30 guitars, the attention to detail of each one is as if each one is the only guitar he is building and in my opinion, he gets credit for 30 incredible guitars built in a batch. But we can agree to disagree very simply. I always do enjoy your builds and this one you are building is no exception.

cpabolting · #72 02-13-2012, 07:52 PM

On the snakewood binding which I have noticed you use frequently, I have heard meny people talk about how brittle it is. Do you find it so and how do you prepare and bend the bindings in order to in fact minimize that breakage? Your snakewood bindings are always spectacular and the dovetail neck joint...I mean seriously how sexy is that? LOL

Bruce Sexauer · #73 02-13-2012, 08:38 PM

Keith; I chose Jim's numbers both because they are known by me (most builder's numbers and methods are not), and because he is an extreme example of a batch builder. I mean absolutely no slight on the quality of him, his approach, or certainly of the work, which speaks for itself.

The rest of it is just what I think, if you think otherwise that's OK with me.

As far as time per build is concerned, I used to do it in under 50 hours, but that was 20 years ago. My current work is incomparably better crafted. With the exception of the dovetail mortise and the binding channels, I don't use routers or their associated fixtures and I go from the band saw to sharp hand tools; my guitars are literally sculptural to an amazing degree. I eschew NitroCellulose Lacquer in favor of Oil Varnish which I willfully choose to hand sand as the results seem superior to me. Lacquer is usually thought of as 5 hours, the other surely averages over 20 hours. I hand cut my logo because I view it as a signature and want each one to be unique. It goes on and on like that, but you probably get the idea. I have no interest in making even slightly less than the absolute best guitar possible, and if you talk with my customers you are bound to notice that they are not merely mouthing the words they use, they mean it.

I think it's working!

cpabolting · #74 02-13-2012, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Sexauer

Keith; I chose Jim's numbers both because they are known by me (most builder's numbers and methods are not), and because he is an extreme example of a batch builder. I mean absolutely no slight on the quality of him, his approach, or certainly of the work, which speaks for itself.

The rest of it is just what I think, if you think otherwise that's OK with me.

As far as time per build is concerned, I used to do it in under 50 hours, but that was 20 years ago. My current work is incomparably better crafted. With the exception of the dovetail mortise and the binding channels, I don't use routers or their associated fixtures and I go from the band saw to sharp hand tools; my guitars are literally sculptural to an amazing degree. I eschew NitroCellulose Lacquer in favor of Oil Varnish which I willfully choose to hand sand as the results seem superior to me. Lacquer is usually thought of as 5 hours, the other surely averages over 20 hours. I hand cut my logo because I view it as a signature and want each one to be unique. It goes on and on like that, but you probably get the idea. I have no interest in making even slightly less than the absolute best guitar possible, and if you talk with my customers you are bound to notice that they are not merely mouthing the words they use, they mean it.

I think it's working!

Well I think it is safe to say that as you have gotten older and probably are not so focused on time expended and prefer to take your time, work at a pace that works for you, and expend your time using somewhat older methods of doing things, I guess that would account for taking 2 or 3 times the normal construction time. You have to do what works for you and even if the not the most efficient way of doing something, if at your point in your career you feel like doing it that way, I guess that is all that matters.

I think most of the luthiers are that way about their work, they don't want to build anything less than the very best. And I think most buyers have their favorite builders feel that way about their builders and I guess at the end of the day, if your customers are happy, that is what matters.

You do build a nice guitar!

Bruce Sexauer · #75 02-13-2012, 09:16 PM

Last time I knew you hadn't held one. Has that changed?