How Does A Build Go Bad?

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by DaveKell

a luthier of about 30 years now who is building me an OM to go with the bearclaw spruce/HOG dread build of his I recently acquired.

He doesn't really take custom orders, preferring instead to build whatever he wants to,

[bold added]

And how are these two reconciled, while we are at it?

[Kent Chasson]

I have to agree with the other builders who responded. As long as I stay within reasonable parameters, I have a pretty good idea of what each one will sound like before I ever string them up. Even with new body shapes and scale lengths, I've not been surprised in a long time.

I did build an experimental lattice braced top recently that won't see the light of day. But sooner or later, I'll re-top it with something familiar and finish it.

[geordie]

"How can a build go bad ?"

if it starts out like this and continues

[ZekeM]

Originally Posted by geordie

"How can a build go bad ?"

if it starts out like this and continues

Took a second to realize what was going on there. I think that guitar may have been designed by MC Escher

[Godfather]

Originally Posted by geordie

"How can a build go bad ?"

if it starts out like this and continues

Is that a "LEFTY"? DOH!

[ACraig]

As a generality, I can't tell whether a guitar is any good till I play it either. However, the guitars I build don't follow this general rule, and I've not been at it all that long. Like others, I have an idea what the outcome will be after material selection and work throughout the build to stay on track. I've pushed the limits of structural integrity before. While no fun, a re-top and new finish equates to a marketable guitar with much less effort than burning the guitar and starting over (though that thought has crossed my mind more than once).

Howard points out valid inconsistencies in the story. My guess is this gent's comments about trashing guitars are off-the-cuff theoretical remarks (e.g., If I ever do build a truly despicable excuse for a guitar, I'll toss it) and don't reflect reality. Then again, I highly question the sanity of a 30-year vet building a guitar for $800 (even using cheap/decent wood, tuners, and appointments, he is barely breaking even just on materials at the current market rate).

[DaveKell]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

[bold added]

And how are these two reconciled, while we are at it?

Howard... Sorry, but I don't get it. My first guitar from him is a dreadnought and the next one I get will be an OM. Those ARE two different guitars are they not? As far as how he reconciles your first question concerning not building bad guitars vs. doesn't know if it's good until he plays it, I have gathered from countless emails with him now he is an obsessive perfectionist. He's also 71 years old and a little scattered in his explanations sometimes. Here's an excerpt from an email this morning to illustrate: "A lot of the uncertainty about guitar building comes from not being able to conduct comparison tests. Suppose I had enough wood for five good tops. Suppose I jointed the wood, prepped it, put in rosettes, and thicknessed each top to some point of flexibility which I could somehow measure or verbally characterize reliably and repeatably. Then suppose I had five identical back+side+neck assemblies. Then suppose I braced the five tops the same. And then made five guitars. And then used focus groups to rank them. Then maybe I could build with some confidence that the result would be good. Now all can be sure of is that the result will be a playable guitar and sound OK. And even if I could do the comparison test, would I be able to produce sound of a certain desired quality? Nope. So you develop prejudices based on nothing." end quote. I have to admit that leaves me scratching my head. It is possible the astounding dread I have from him is/was a fluke in his build career. I know it is not an anomaly in my perception of it as three other guitarists infinitely better than me have played/appraised it so far and I was asked by one if I would take a new Taylor in trade for it and by the other two what would I take for it.

[DaveKell]

Sorry Howard, I misread your question. In answer to that last one, he has decided to specialize in OM's and parlors. He alternates between the two. He is currently building a parlor for a guy I hooked up with him and then he is building an OM he has promised to me.

[Bruce Sexauer]

In plain English: if he hasn't built a bad guitar in years then he ought to be pretty confident in the next one. Of course it as never about whether it was good or not, the nature of a guitars quality goes much deeper than that.

On the second dichotomy, the issue is that if he is building you an OM because you asked him for it, he is building a "Custom order".

Well, that's how I read it.

[DaveKell]

Originally Posted by ACraig

As a generality, I can't tell whether a guitar is any good till I play it either. However, the guitars I build don't follow this general rule, and I've not been at it all that long. Like others, I have an idea what the outcome will be after material selection and work throughout the build to stay on track. I've pushed the limits of structural integrity before. While no fun, a re-top and new finish equates to a marketable guitar with much less effort than burning the guitar and starting over (though that thought has crossed my mind more than once).

Howard points out valid inconsistencies in the story. My guess is this gent's comments about trashing guitars are off-the-cuff theoretical remarks (e.g., If I ever do build a truly despicable excuse for a guitar, I'll toss it) and don't reflect reality. Then again, I highly question the sanity of a 30-year vet building a guitar for $800 (even using cheap/decent wood, tuners, and appointments, he is barely breaking even just on materials at the current market rate).

I spent my entire life self employed in the sign business. We constantly fought battles with what we called lowballer with respect to pricing. I have considered that I possibly made a mistake ever putting any information about this guy on this forum for those same reasons. However, in getting to know him pretty well now I'd say I know he has never considered himself to be in the guitar making business. He is retired from being a college language professor who built guitars in his spare time. I recently arranged the sale of an OM for him to another college professor incidentally. He sold it for $800 with HSC. I encouraged him to ask at least $2,000 for it! Since he despises selling/negotiating so vehemently I have asked him to let me begin marketing/selling his guitars once he finishes them. I have ten percent coming from the sale of the OM and a parlor he is finishing up now. If every guitar he is building these days turns out like my dread, I guarantee ya I'll be getting closer to two grand apiece for them!

[DaveKell]

Originally Posted by Rasmus

From my own experience, yes, some guitars come out below my standars and yes, I don't sell them. I don't trash them though.

I plan on increasing my success rate by designing 2 or 3 models and sticking to them. It's much easier to build a certain model than an entierly custom one each time.

This guy recently decided to concentrate solely on parlors and OM's too.

[MikeB1]

Originally Posted by Tim McKnight

Its never happened to me though I can't speak for others. I have a very good idea what the guitar will sound like by the end of my voicing process. Some of my earliest guitars were less than pleasing [to me] as far as fit and finish but I have never been disappointed in the tone and responsiveness that I have been able to predictably achieve.

I have heard luthiers mention this before. Can someone explain exactly what this process .is?

Thank you!

Mike b

[JohnM]

Originally Posted by smah

Well that seems a pure waste of a lot of things. Coulda donated them to a music program, knock his maker signature off and get it into the hands of a kid that would play it. You hear about woods being scarcer and scarcer and then the last thing we need is them being scrapped for less than 'perfect' tone.

Far from a waste actually. What I learned from each one was invaluable. While the end product was the goal it wasn't the purpose.

And I wasn't using really nice stuff. It was mainly good wood, but poor visually. And I reused one of the necks like 7 times too. I don't really have to justify myself on this one anyway, but what RioRider said though is astonishingly accurate. I built a guitar one time that was really rough and meant to be used a guitar that was amplified well, but I didn't care what it looked like. The neck didn't even get a proper finish. I did not put my logo on it. I never took pictures of it. It was/is not a guitar I would ever want to show as my work. It sounded fine, played OK, but looked like hell. Yet it was sold by the first owner (even though I asked him not to when I first got it to him) as one of my guitars. The second owner posted pictures of it online as one of my guitars. If someone came along and played it and was told it was one of my guitars then that impression is made. There is no taking it back, and many players out there play one instrument and assume that all of your guitars must sound/look/feel this way. Plain and simple it is, and will never be worth it to me. It's a few hundred bucks of materials and some of my time which I wasn't expecting to get paid on anyway. That is worth FAR, FAR less than poor impressions, and perceptions.

So wither you think it's a waste or not is well within your right to have that opinion, but if given the chance to do it again I would have smashed, cut up, burned, ect them all again. Without hesitation or regret. It's my name, it's my business, it's my time and my money.

As to the Original question...

Unless you're trying something vastly different as I was in my prototypes then you usually know if it's going to be decent long before it's stung. You may not know all the little details and how it responds to this or that, but you know....you just know

[SteveS]

Originally Posted by MikeB1

I have heard luthiers mention this before. Can someone explain exactly what this process .is?

Thank you!

Mike b

Mike - Some call it voodoo, others call it vital. One of the authors of the best selling book on guitar building does not believe there is any benefit to voicing. I believe that voicing is no benefit to him. For most builders, voicing is a vital process of carving the braces so the top sounds like the want it to when tapped. Some tune to a pitch, others tune to Chladni patterns.
That's about as exact as I can describe it. It is a learned process that requires a good ear and knowing what to listen for. Some call it a musical quality, others are looking for a certain music thud, sustain, etc.
After 30 years this process should be well developed. Essentially, it is what you do so you know your guitar will sound good. If this builder still throws guitars away, either he knows not what he is doing or he is extremely particular. I am hoping he is that particular.
How's that?

[DaveKell]

Originally Posted by geordie

"How can a build go bad ?"

if it starts out like this and continues

I'm throwing in the towel and admitting I don't get this picture. What am I not seeing here? I mean besides the obvious thing that looks like the assembly of some sort of monster neck.