$10,000+ Greenfield guitars have laminated sides

[steelvibe]

Ok I'm admittedly ignorant of this topic.

As it happens, my question has been answered to my satisfaction, but if anything is sending this thread to a locked status it should be due to snarky comments not because pricing is being discussed. That relationship, the one between laminate sides and the pricing of reputable luthiers, is exactly why I was interested in the first place, and it is not as if those luthiers who are using such techniques are hiding behind the details anyway.

[drive-south]

Kazuo Yairi used this method to build his guitars for many years. If you've ever had the chance to play a Yairi you know his guitars are excellant.

[frankmcr]

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7

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

Wow, great pictures, thanks.

[gitarro]

The idea to laminate the sides originally came from the classical guitar world. It was popularised by ervin somogyi in the steel string guitar community.

It is inaccurate to describe this technique as contrasting with using "solid" sides. Double sides are solid - they r in no way like plywood which is made of wood veneer layers glued together.

At the present time, the number of solo steel string luthiers who build in the more contemporary style and who laminate the sides may actually outnumber those who build with single layer sides! In fact the double sides technique is now a de riguer mainstream technique in the luthier community.

The biggest reason why martin and Taylor aren't doing it is not just the added time and materials cost but because they simply don't have to. Taylor and collings build for a clientele who are happy with their trademark sound and want more of it. Why mess with what ain't broken? Furthermore martin is in the unique position of being the flag bearer of steel string tradition where instead of innovating, their cliryee wants them to build more and more faithful replicas of guitars they built in the 1930s. Adding double sides changes the tonal and marketing dynamic to an unacceptable degree for them.

The benefits to add stiffness and to enable more energy to go to the top and back so as to increase volume and power make it a worthwhile thing to do however for solo luthiers who build according to their own ideal tone in their head.


In fact even Kim walker who builds more traditional sounding guitars though with a modern twist, has incorporated a tone ring to his guitars whereby the rim of the top is stiffened - whixh seems to me like a partial adoption of the double sides technique. By all accounts this was a successful experiment tonally.

This idea has been further developed by other luthiers- i believe Rory dowling is building even triple sided gutars with nomex honeycomb between the layers in his guitars while n k forster has gone to the logical end point of actually fabricating an entirely synthetic and inert and super stiff sides and building via guitar around it.

Meanwhile in australia trevor gore has argued that the tonal benefits are being imparted not as much by the stiffness but by increasing weight and so he strategically weighs his sides for maximising volume and projection.

May this intellectual ferment continue and progress to better guitars in the future!

[TokyoNeko]

Okay, I'll bite. What I'm about to ask is are genuine questions, not rhetorical or condescending ones, as I am interested in gathering real information.

If the desired effects of double/laminate sides are 1) structural rigidity and 2) the "drum effect," does a double side of valuable tonewood(s) have inherent advantages over one using filler materials and veneers as in low-end manufactured guitars?

If there are no advantages one way or another, or somehow the "cheap" materials provide better stiffness and vibrational isolation between the top and the back, wouldn't it make sense for even the independent luthiers use such materials to help offset some (or most) of the costs of extra labor needed to build non-solid sides? (And perhaps double sides could be offered as aesthetic value adds for extra costs?) Obviously this question would be moot if the answer to the first queation is a "yes."

[ataylor]

A number of the "banner" J-45s Gibson made during the early 1940s had laminated maple back and sides. Yes, that was a war-time constraint and not really an intentional design choice, but from everything I've read and heard, the maple J-45s are considered among the better guitars from that era and appear to command the same respect -- and price tags -- as their all-solid siblings.

[Halcyon/Tinker]

Meanwhile in australia trevor gore has argued that the tonal benefits are being imparted not as much by the stiffness but by increasing weight and so he strategically weighs his sides for maximising volume and projection.

I believe he argues that the benefit is from the added mass (not weight) at the perimeter of the top, which pushes the node of the main top monopole closer to the edge of the guitar, thus reducing the anti-phase activity of that mode and increasing the in phase motion. The reason he adds weight to the sides is to reduce the frequency of the main top monopole mode into a range he targets. If I'm understanding correctly.

[Alex6strings]

Quote from Michael Greenfield on Laminate b&s.

“As soon as you glue two pieces of wood together,” he explains, “they can’t move. Under tension and compression, they won’t slide against each other. That means my rim sets are much, much more stiff. Essentially, the guitar is a drum.”

“In a drum, you want to take the sides out of the equation,” he explains. “You don’t want them to influence the modal vibrations of the top and the back membranes. That’s why I’m laminating the sides of my guitars—and it’s a lot more work, a lot more expense, and takes a lot more time.”

[rogthefrog]

Originally Posted by gitarro

At the present time, the number of solo steel string luthiers who build in the more contemporary style and who laminate the sides may actually outnumber those who build with single layer sides! In fact the double sides technique is now a de riguer mainstream technique in the luthier community.

Common, yes. More than half of today's builders? That seems like a stretch.

The biggest reason why martin and Taylor aren't doing it is not just the added time and materials cost but because they simply don't have to. Taylor and collings build for a clientele who are happy with their trademark sound and want more of it. Why mess with what ain't broken?

Yes Taylor took great pains over the last few years to revoice most if not all of their guitars...

martin is in the unique position of being the flag bearer of steel string tradition where instead of innovating, their cliryee wants them to build more and more faithful replicas of guitars they built in the 1930s. Adding double sides changes the tonal and marketing dynamic to an unacceptable degree for them.

No doubt.

[dantin]

Jason Kostal explains his use of double sides in this post in pages 4 to 5. I found it very well thought through and may help answer some of what is being discussed in this thread.

http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/f...+kostal&page=4

[Tico]

Originally Posted by matthewpartrick

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

Greenfield guitars publishes this price on their website.

http://www.greenfieldguitars.com/pricing-contact/

I'm the OP, and I am not 'calling them out', or making any judgmental comment regarding their prices.
Thanks to this thread I've corrected my incorrect belief that laminates were used only on lower-priced guitars.
This was an understandable assumption considering that is the case with big reputable makers including Yamaha, Taylor, and Martin.

I'll bet I'm not the only one to get better-informed as a result of this thread.
IOW, it's a helpful thread, not a harmful or negative one.

But then, you didn't state who was "calling them out".
Perhaps you're addressing another poster.

[CoolerKing]

Well, this stuff just tends to be a slippery slope from objective discussion of pricing to ad hominem attacks. As long as it's civil which it seems to be then I'm ok.

Thx
Matthew

[iim7V7IM7]

A couple thoughts on this:

• There are a number of different philosophies underpinning how builders believe guitars function, hence there are different approaches to creating rims, just as there are for dishing of the top/back, bracing, linings, neck joints, neck reinforcement, etc.. Guitar builders can range from traditionalists who target reproducing the great guitars of the past, evolved traditionalists whose goals are similar but introduce features that deviate and modernists who utilize many differing approaches that deviate from the vintage steel string flat top reference.
  
• Tradition in steel string guitars (not classical) is heavily influenced by the shadow off the Martin factory in the 1930s. It is a very strong force in the steel string flat top market to some. They are considered to be the high water mark by some players and builders and any deviation from this building paradigm can be viewed as a perceived negative by some consumers (certainly, not all). I think that this may be at the root of the question that started this thread.
  
• Some ideas in guitar construction are about affecting tone, some are about improving structure and others may relate to ergonomics (some may have multiple goals). The use of Laminated sides (and solid linings as well) is a tradition in luthier classical guitar making arena that has been adopted by some to stiffen the sides and reduce the likelihood of cracking. In many cases, the inner layer is chosen for it's stability and good stiffness to weight ratio.
  
• Obviously, in examples of builders like Michael Greenfield, Ervin Somogyi, his disciples and others; they are handcrafting their instruments with seasoned, high quality hardwoods and using labor/skill intensive methods to create their laminated sides. It is an inherent part of their thinking about a guitar as an acoustic system.

My $.02

[ericcsong]

When I asked Jason Kostal about double sides when he was building me my guitar, this was his reply:

"My belief in how the guitar works is much like a snare drum. The top and the back vibrate and create the sound that we know and love. The sides, like the rim of a drum, should be stiff and transfer as close to 100% of the energy from the top and back as possible. If the rim is flexible, and bends in or out, it absorbs some of the energy, and you have less driving the top and the back.

Many people think of laminated sides as cheap, and while many companies use .020 veneers on both sides of a piece of plywood, I would argue that most high end builders do not. To laminate means to glue two pieces of wood together, and nothing more. While many assume that veneers are made, but is not a true assumption. I, myself, use two sets of sides, each of which are almost the full thickness of a single side. i.e., an average builder thickness sands his sides to about .080" or so. Each of my sides is .065', and when glued together, produce a side that is .130" thick, which is almost twice the thickness of a normal side. The result is an extremely stiff rim that transfers most of the energy between the top and the back.

Additionally, because there is a glue joint between the two pieces, there is no way for the sides to crack like a single side would. A crack that starts along the grain line, cannot follow the grain line as the glue joint will stop it. This is reality is what most builders try to accomplish with vertical braces along the sides. In my case, the sides themselves are already reinforced, and do not need these braces. This isn't to say that the sides will never crack, but if they do, the crack will not travel like it does on a single side."

[jkostal]

Hello everyone,

I thought that I would add my 2 cents for what it is worth. I don't normally get involved in these discussions but the OP seems truly interested in learning about why some of us use double sides, and as I have read through the thread, it would appear that many others are unaware of this process as well, so without trying to paint a target on my back, here are some of my thoughts. Eric Song contacted me this morning and asked to post a previous email that I had sent him years ago, so some of this is redundant, but I will try to share my thoughts.

The idea of double sides, or laminating two pieces of wood together to create a stronger rim, originates from the classical guitar world. I don't know the exact reasons behind it (I would imagine improved stiffness of the rim or use of thinner materials would be the driving force, but I just don't know), and you can find examples of well made, and incredibly well regarded guitars using this process dating back 150 years or so. The use of laminated sides in the steel string world is far more recent. My former mentor, Ervin Somogyi, likes to take credit for starting this revolution, and while it drives me crazy anytime someone says "I started that", I cannot find an example of a steel string builder using double sides prior to Ervin beginning that process. Ervin's use of double sides came more out of necessity than anything else. In the early 90s his shop burned to the ground, taking with it everything that he owned. He reached out to the lutherie community asking for help and material donations to get back on his feet. Many luthiers sent great backs, but many of the sides that they sent him were the sides that they had thickness sanded too thin. The industry standard at the time, and for the most part today, was between .080-.085" for a side. Many of the sides that he was receiving were .070" and in some cases thinner. Ervin has spent his life studying the history of guitars, and knew about double sides in the classical world, and so he started to take two sides and glue them together. The end result was a side of normal thickness, and in some cases thicker, but with an increased stiffness. When I was at Ervin's, we continued to build rims where the outer laminate (side) was about .050" and the inner side was .060". The result was a slightly oversized side once glued, and the stiffness of the two sides glued together was noticeably stronger.

In my shop, I have a traditional style rim built with single sides thicknessed to .085", kerfed, with verticle braces glued in place. I have a separate rim made in my current construction method consisting of two sides, each about .065" thick, glued together, with a neck and tail block and kerfing. The first rim flexes, and moves in and out, and can be rotated slightly as well. The second rim feels as if you could stand on it and it would support your weight. The difference is that profound. While I like what we were doing at Ervin's, when I left, I made the decision to go thicker on my sides, and create more stiffness in the rim itself. This does come at a compromise, in that many people will tell you that my guitars feel heavier. This is a result of more material, and a huge glue joint being present that is not present in a normal guitar. Since most of my clients play sitting down, the added weight actually helps balance the guitar on the lap better, so I view this as a positive, but not everyone would agree. It is a choice I made, and I accept the pros and cons. As mentioned in my email to Eric above, an added benefit is that, in addition to stiffness, which contributes to how I believe the guitar creates sound, it also helps with crack mitigation. As RogertheFrog pointed out, this IS at a significant cost increase...usually about 1/3 more per set. The reason being is that most of us, as luthiers, do not have the ability to resaw wood to .060" or less without damaging it, so we buy our wood from all of the usual sources, and the sides come thickness sanded to .125" or thicker. Regardless of whether that side is being used as a single side or a double side, that is what we start out with, and then we thickness sand it down to our desired thickness and use it. So, if you are buying a set of wood for $800, it makes sense that roughly half of that cost is for the sides, and half for the back, so now, if I want to add an additional set of sides to the equation, I am going to pay about $400 for those sides, making the set cost $1200. You can imagine where people like Michael Greenfield and I end up when using $3000+ sets of Brazilian Rosewood and using BRW for both the inner and outer sides. Now add the fact that side bending is not super easy, and occasionally we crack a piece, and can't go back to the client and ask for more money because of our mistake, so we eat that as well. It is definitely NOT cost effective to do double sides in material cost alone, but then we have the time cost as well.

When I was building standard rims, I could build an entire rim in a day. I bent the sides in the morning, put them in the mold to cool, make a neck block and tail block, and glued everything up by the end of the day. Factories such as Martin and Taylor can do this process in about 9 minutes. Building a double sided rim takes me about 4 days. I bend the sides in the morning, and let them cool most of the day, and then bend the inner sides and let then cool. I spray both sets with sanding sealer on the non-glue side and let that dry. I then add the glue and laminate one set of sides, and allow it to cure for 24 hours. I then do the next side. After the gluing process, I spend about half a day cleaning the glue squeeze out off and sanding the sides, then do the same for the cutaway, make the neck block, tail block, and cutaway block, fit and glue, and then kerf the rim. In the four days it takes me to make this rim, Martin and Taylor and other factory guitars have done this literally hundreds of times.

So, to answer some of the original questions about why big companies don't do what we small shops do, there are a lot of reasons behind it. The first is cost. There are greater material costs, as well as time costs associated with it. Martin and Taylor together made well over a million guitars last year. While they have CNCs and more employees, the truth is that they have gotten their process down to completing a guitar every 20 minutes or so. This does not detract from quality, but it does mean that they can't spend hours on the same things that we, as luthiers can, and still make it worth their while. While there are some incredibly high end Martins, Taylors, etc, the vast majority of them are not, and that is because they have a process that works, and it keeps costs down, which makes the end user very happy. A Greenfield costs what it does partly because of the experience and knowledge of the builder, partly due to reputation and quality of materials, and partly because it takes him 400+ hours to build a guitar that Martin builds in minutes. This does not include the Custom shop builds, etc, but rather the main production line guitars.

The second reason that you don't see double sides in factory guitars is because their philosophy on how the guitar works, and what it needs to make a good sound is very different than what a lot of luthiers believe. This doesn't make one of us right and one of us wrong, but we all have our own ideas, philosophies and techniques, which is why each of us builds a guitar that sounds different. This isn't a bad thing, it provides variety, and it is the reason one person may like my guitar and another likes a Taylor. That is a wonderful thing, and we should be happy we all view the end product differently. Martin has been building guitars since 1833 and what they do works for 90% of the players out there. It isn't wrong, or better or worse, it's just different in the same way that Enzo Ferrari chose to view the engine a little differently than Ford. Different applications, different uses, different construction methods and different costs.

Do I think that laminated sides makes for a better guitar...YES, in my guitars, it does. Do I think that guitars without laminated sides are bad or poorly made? Not at all. A lot of thought has gone into how we, as luthiers, build guitars. I promise we put more thought into every single day than the average company does in a decade, but in the end, we are all just building the best guitar that we can, using the tools that we have at our disposal and the understanding we have of the instrument. Be happy with what you have, but know that "laminated" sides does not always equate to a poor construction technique or cheaper materials... in most luthier-built instruments, it is the exact opposite, and the results are quite staggering.