$10,000+ Greenfield guitars have laminated sides

[TomB'sox]

I don't think anyone is trying to be mean to anyone here...some questionable posts have been edited. I think there is just some misunderstanding with terminology etc. There have been many thoughtful opinions expressed.

However, let us remember rule number 1.

I think the problem is that when we think laminated sides, the first thought is "plywood", when by definition, any pieces glued together is technically laminating. When done by the custom builder it has very little in common (if anything other than glue) with what we think of with lamination on a cheaper guitar. As someone says, making the stiffer sides is a positive not a negative. Other reasons include material with a lot of figure that wants to break when bent. These are thinned to allow bending and then another tonewood is added for more strength...

Double sides are a positive, not a negative in those situations.

[Larry Pattis]

Originally Posted by Tico

<<snip>>

Not sure AGF is the place for a thinking person like me.
More and more it seems to be a circle-the-wagons and scru anyone who won't get with our program kinda place.

Most small shop (one person shop) builders produce 10-20 guitars per year. I know some produce more, and Jason Kostal has become a guru of sorts in this regard (in a great way...from his personal accident/tragedy sprang great life-enhancing ideas!).

The question now being asked appears to be, "if it's so much better, why aren't double-sided guitars used at the top end of manufactured guitars?"

Well, "better" for some might not be better for others...but let's try to ignore the qualitative/subjective, and just look at the quantitative facts:

The preparation and labor processes for dealing with the kind of laminated sides these top-builders use (not including materials) might add a couple of hours to a build...including the steps to prepare & assemble, but not including drying-time in a jig, etc.

Taylor & Martin build what, 100,000 guitars a year each? I know that Taylor looks for time-savings of minutes (even seconds) for each guitar on their assembly line, as this is multiplied-out for cost savings over that large number built per year. If we consider an average wage of somewhere between $15-25/hour, times 2 hours, times 100,000, well, I think you see where this is going.

Just looking at the addition of a couple of hours *per guitar* of bench-time makes this kind of attention to detail completely out of the question for a large manufacturer.

...and again, this is not considering the materials cost, the costs of jigs/fixtures, and the need/cost for more square footage in their shop for the fixtures, the drying time when the fixtures cannot be used for the *next* guitar, etc., etc., etc.

So as a "thinking person", if you entertain some of these basic facts of life in manufacturing, perhaps you'll see why a large production guitar manufacturer wouldn't consider this type of process as feasible for their business.

BTW, my "estimate" for the 2 hours is more of a "guesstimate", and the real number might be twice that. I have been in enough shops to know that it wouldn't be less than that, however...

[rogthefrog]

Originally Posted by Tico

Thanks for clarifying.

But, unless the two pieces are twice the thickness (which you have not claimed) two layers is not twice the cost ... for material ... though yes there is additional cost for the prep and gluing process.
If fine tone wood is super-expensive then gluing two pieces together couldn't cost as much as using two pieces of half that thickness.

Not sure AGF is the place for a thinking person like me.
More and more it seems to be a circle-the-wagons and scru anyone who won't get with our program kinda place.

Afaik each side is roughly the full thickness of a normal single side. Each is bent separately, then glued onto another.

My understanding is that back and side stock is usually sold in near-final thicknesses, somewhere around .100 to .125 inches thick, whether you use it for single or double sides. That's too thin to resaw into half-thickness sides for lamination, so you wind up using standard sides and there's no savings to be had. And in any case, a fair bit of the expensive, fine tonewood in a guitar winds up in a dust collector or on the floor More easily obtainable woods like maple, walnut, myrtlewood etc may be sold in billets and it's likely someone could saw thinner sides for laminating, but there wouldn't be much of a point in gluing two .040" thick sides to obtain a .080" thick double side over just using a standard .080" thick single side. You wouldn't gain any rigidity. The point of laminating sides is that you have a thicker, and hence stiffer, side.

I'm working on my very first build and decided to try double sides, because I had a set of practice sides (with no back) that bent well on my first attempt. Because they weren't destroyed as I had feared, I figured I should use them and learn how to laminate. From that experience I can confirm double sides are much, much stiffer than single sides. At least mine are

[Larry Pattis]

Originally Posted by rogthefrog

Afaik each side is roughly the full thickness of a normal single side. Each is bent separately, then glued onto another.

<<snip>>

Regardless, there wouldn't be much of a point in gluing two .040" thick sides to obtain a .080" thick double side over just using a standard .080" thick single side. You wouldn't gain any rigidity. The point of laminating sides is that you have a thicker, and hence stiffer, side.

Some of this is actually not correct.

The individual side-pieces used for the high-quality laminate would generally be thinner than the final thickness on a standard-made guitar.

Also, you *do* get an enhancement of rigidity compared to the same final thickness of a single-side by gluing two thinner sides together. I am talking about an extreme benefit to the rigidity.

[Goodallboy]

Originally Posted by Ed-in-Ohio

The videos of Brooke Miller playing various Greenfield Guitars are all jaw dropping...Jaw dropping!

Glad I happened by and got in on this thread.

That Greenfield in this video is the.....wow!

Ms. Miller is incredible on it.....I'll be checking her out right away! Thanks!

Go laminates!!

[rogthefrog]

Originally Posted by Larry Pattis

Some of this is actually not correct.

The individual side-pieces used for the high-quality laminate would generally be thinner than the final thickness on a standard-made guitar.

Also, you *do* get an enhancement of rigidity compared to the same final thickness of a single-side by gluing two thinner sides together. I am talking about an extreme benefit to the rigidity.

I believe you, though I'd like to see some numbers (specifically how much thinner they are, and how much more rigidity you get, assuming you're not glueing them cross-grain to each other).

[sdelsolray]

Originally Posted by Tico

Cool, thanks.

So, why do you think the builders Martin and Taylor exclusively use solid sides on their most expensive guitars?
Purely buyer ignorance?
Or might there be something else?
I don't know, just asking.

I'm not arguing what's right or wrong, better or worse.
I just can't figure out this glaring discrepancy when big bucks are at stake.

Perhaps the result of this thread will be the big builders being more open to the improvements offered by laminate sides.

I don't know, other than to surmise that there are many ways to build an excellent guitar. Some builders will use solid sides and some use laminated sides. Hopefully, whatever strengths or weakness either presents is understood by the luthier and the reminder of the design takes that into account.

All my current guitars have solid sides. They're great. I've had a few high end guitars with laminated sides. They were great too. Either is a design element, for sonic, behavioral and/or production cost reasons.

[Ed-in-Ohio]

This thread got me revisiting the wonderful Brooke Miller videos, and I just realized that (all?) the Greenfield guitars have pinless bridges. They also appear to have asymmetrical bridges (wider on the bass side) like my beloved Gibson MK-35!

[ljguitar]

Hi all

I own a 2005 Baskin with doubled sides.

The differences between double sides which are laminated together, and laminated sides made from plywood, is plywood is multi-layered stacks of wood with the grain running 90° out of rotation with the layers above and below it.

A hand built, doubled side guitar has two thin pieces of solid tone wood with the grain of each piece aligned in the same direction (at least that's true of all of the luthiers I've asked about their process) which is cut, bent, glued, clamped and cured. Plywood is stacked glued, dried, bent and last cut to size.

Doing doubled sides is twice the work, and at least double the time. Cutting, bending, gluing up two identical sides, and waiting to be sure the adhesive is cured before continuing to build are all time consuming, not time or cost saving.

The way that Michael Bashkin explained it to me while he was building my guitar (and I think I've got the basic straight) was the side of a guitar which is more rigid, can isolate the vibrations from the top and keep them from traveling through the sides to the back (which dissipates energy) so more energy from the top bounces/reflects off the back of the guitar. The back of a well built guitar also radiates sound/tone since it's made of tone wood. So he builds doubled sides with the idea that it's going to affect the tone and volume of the guitar as well.

I've played both two layer and single layer versions of his guitars, but never side-by-side or one of each the same size, so I can not judge how the single side versions project. I can say I've played well over 30 of his double side guitars and they sound three dimensional (people standing to the side and/or behind hear his guitars better than conventionally built guitars). I'm comparing Michael's guitars to my 24 yr old Olson Dreadnought, and my 14 yr old Kronbauer mini-jumbo.

I just wanted to jump in because the method of laminating the identical pieces of pre-cut/sized sides (with the grain aligned after separately bending them) is totally different process than alternately aligning, & gluing layers of wood into plywood, and then forming/bending it and cutting it.

Hope this adds to the discussion.

[Larry Pattis]

Originally Posted by rogthefrog

I believe you, though I'd like to see some numbers (specifically how much thinner they are, and how much more rigidity you get, assuming you're not glueing them cross-grain to each other).

You're in the Bay Area, yes?

Call Ervin or anyone around (or even far from you) that uses this process, since you seem to be not really believing me...!



It's huge, I promise. Believe me.

[The Bard Rocks]

Larry, I agree. The two that I have had were the normal thickness, each piece half what it would otherwise be, so the total thickness is no greater than normal. And the grain is aligned on both pieces rather than at right angles as it would be in plywood.

HOWEVER, it is my understanding that the idea of the stiffer sides is that it transmits energy to the back more efficiently and allows the back to vibrate more freely, which is opposite of your claim. Perhaps a luthier who regularly does this will set us straight.

I have not been able to notice any tonal or volume differences - but then I haven't played 2 otherwise identical guitars to compare. I do know that I was quite happy with the sound of both - as I am with the ones I have which are solid, one piece.

[rogthefrog]

Originally Posted by Larry Pattis

You're in the Bay Area, yes?

Call Ervin or anyone around (or even far from you) that uses this process, since you seem to be not really believing me...!



It's huge, I promise. Believe me.

I do believe you I'm interested in the numbers for my own edification as I learn how to make guitar-shaped objects. I'll ask the NCAL folks.

[iim7V7IM7]

Others have explained the rationale underpinning this construction method. Here is an example of a hand made guitar using laminated sides:

After both sides are cut to size, thicknessed and bent they are read for lamination. As Larry described two thin sides (about 0.040" thick each) with their grain parallel to each other. In this case, black cherry (outer) and port orford cedar (inner).



They are laminated in a special mold/fixture.



Here are some black cherry outer layer laminated to port orford cedar inner layer. The port orford cedar needs to be planed to size.



Here you can see the laminated rims assembled to the braced back with solid poplar linings.

[CoolerKing]

I would just say that calling out a reputable builder on prices is counter-intuitive to the AGF. Let's wrap this up.

[islandguitar]

Tom Doerr used this process on my Legacy and he attended Ervin's week long workshop back a few years ago. Not sure if he did this approach prior to attending the workshop.
At any rate, the inner layer on my guitar is Wenge, outer layer is Cocobolo. I don't have much to compare it to with having played a lot of luthier built guitars, but the Legacy certainly shines for me!