Posted on July 7, 2024July 9, 2024 by Dale Phillips Questions: Douglas Fir Stradivari Questions: Douglas Fir Stradivari by R.E. Bruné Originally published in American Lutherie #102, 2010 James Condino of Ashville, North Carolina asks: I used to have an article from a guitar magazine in the ’80s about one of the Stradivari guitars. The article claimed that the top was made of Douglas fir. How likely is that? R.E. Bruné of Evanston, Illinois answers: In reference to Stradivari using Douglas fir, this is a virtual impossibility. The wood is not native to Europe, and was not in commercial circulation in Europe in Stradivari’s day. Perhaps the confusion arises from the nomenclature of wood in which Americans tend to call most conifer soundboards of European origin “spruce” and the British use “pine” to refer to the same materials. In actuality, most are of the genus Abies or true fir, of which there are many varieties native to Europe such as Abies pectinata and Abies alba. (Google these and other species for more information.) Douglas fir is not a true fir, being of the genus Pseudotsuga. Picea is the Latin name for true spruces which are also used for instrument soundboards, of which there are also many varieties. All of these are difficult to positively identify once they are on a completed instrument, especially one that has aged for several centuries. ◆
Posted on July 1, 2024July 9, 2024 by Dale Phillips Questions: Instrument Plan #33 Questions: Instrument Plan #33 by R.E. Bruné Originally published in American Lutherie #101, 2010 Joe Franklin of Whitesburg, Tennessee asks: Regarding GAL Instrument Plan #33 (1937 Hauser by R.E. Bruné): Are the depth dimensions as annotated on the back view the inside or outside dimensions? Plan author R.E. Bruné of Evanston, Illinois answers: The side measurements given around the circumference of the instrument are the measurements I took of the total outside dimensions at those points, so one would have to subtract the specific top and back thicknesses at those points to arrive at the actual side dimensions prior to cutting the purfling/banding channels. For those making replicas, getting this correct within ±1MM would suffice in my opinion, but I know the favorite pastime of luthiers is splitting hairs and arguing over which is the bigger half. Actually, I suspect the original dimensions may have been slightly bigger by about .25MM to .5MM but have retracted due to shrinkage. There is nothing in the side assembly that would prevent the sides from shrinking from dryness, and they are just about crack-free because of this. It seemed to me that the instrument was originally built under fairly high humidity conditions, or at least part of it. The back has no arch left in it, probably because of shrinkage; this is also a question I have been frequently asked. I drew the instrument as is, where is, with no attempt to “correct” what I thought might have been the original state. I leave this to other scholars.
Posted on March 7, 2024March 7, 2024 by Dale Phillips The Business of Lutherie, 1980 The Business of Lutherie, 1980 by Richard Bruné, George Gruhn, Steve Klein, Max Krimmel, and Robert Lundberg Originally published in Guild of American Luthiers Quarterly, Volume 9, #4, 1981 and Big Red Book of American Lutherie Volume One, 2000 See also, The Business of Lutherie, 1984 by Ted Davis, Steve Grimes, Bob Meltz, and Matt Umanov Where Are They Now? by Tim Olsen We luthiers who are part of the late-’60s, early-’70s lutherie boom are now witnessing a remarkable event. A generation of instrument makers is coming of age. We have heard much of late about the steadily improving quality and sophistication of our instruments, and we have seen a number of major talents emerge from the pack to achieve wide recognition and respect. As this maturation of skill develops, business ability becomes the deciding factor between failure and success. While the discussion of business skills and theories is, in fact, the subject of this article, thoughtful readers will note that a mature attitude toward our craft is beginning to prevail. The naïve thralldom to the instrument is being replaced by a realistic understanding of our limits and abilities, and an unwillingness to suffer simply because of our love of lutherie. Become A Member to Continue Reading This Article This article is part of our premium web content offered to Guild members. To view this and other web articles, join the Guild of American Luthiers. Members also receive 4 annual issues of American Lutherie and get discounts on products. For details, visit the membership page. If you are already a member, login for access or contact us to setup your account.
Posted on August 1, 2022March 5, 2024 by Dale Phillips On Becoming a Successful Luthier On Becoming a Successful Luthier by R.E. Bruné Originally published in Guild of American Luthiers Newsletter Volume 2 #6, 1974 A question I am often asked by visitors to my shop and other luthiers, is, “are you making it?” as if to say “anyone who looks like he’s having such a good time doesn’t deserve to make money too.” Well, I am happy to report that yes, I’m “making” it. To be judged a successful luthier, I think it is really necessary to examine exactly what “Success” is, especially in terms of today’s somewhat unstable economic climate. Unfortunately, for many of this country’s working people, the only tangible measure of success is the monthly bank statement. The balance of the account has become the end in itself, and the product be damned. Become A Member to Continue Reading This Article This article is part of our premium web content offered to Guild members. To view this and other web articles, join the Guild of American Luthiers. Members also receive 4 annual issues of American Lutherie and get discounts on products. For details, visit the membership page. If you are already a member, login for access or contact us to setup your account.
Posted on May 6, 2021March 6, 2024 by Dale Phillips Lutherie: Art or Science? Lutherie: Art or Science? by R.E. Bruné Originally published in American Lutherie #1, 1985 Aside from the eternal “How do you bent the sides” question asked by non-makers, the most frequent point of curiosity seems to be that of other makers: “What do you think of the Kasha guitar?” I am somewhat surprised at this. Firstly, it doesn’t really matter what I think of the Kasha model. I don’t build it, and I would think this fact says enough. The second point is that the Kasha model and theories have been around for enough years (nearly twenty if I’m correct) that, were there merit in the model, it would have been almost universally adopted by makers and players by now. It took less than twenty years for the conservative makers of Spain to adopt the design ideas of Torres, for by the time of his death just before the turn of this century, nearly every Spanish maker with the exception of José Ramírez I was using his model. The reason for this nearly overnight conversion is obvious; the models of Torres were clearly superior to anything else available, and the musicians quickly accepted them. In fact, the makers who didn’t adopt his patterns went out of business. In contrast, one does not see musicians today playing the Kasha model. I know of no professional classical guitarists playing them, and in the nearly twenty years I have been involved in the guitar world, I have never been to a concert where a Kasha model guitar was played. Yet it seems there has hardly been an issue of the G.A.L. Quarterly without some article or reference to the Kasha model as if it were definitive, and desirable. Become A Member to Continue Reading This Article This article is part of our premium web content offered to Guild members. To view this and other web articles, join the Guild of American Luthiers. Members also receive 4 annual issues of American Lutherie and get discounts on products. For details, visit the membership page. If you are already a member, login for access or contact us to setup your account.
