Posted on

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

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

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

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.
Posted on

In Memoriam: Joseph Wallo

In Memoriam: Joseph Wallo

1921 – 2009

by Mike Ashley (With help from Robert England, Richard Bruné, David LaPlante, and Charles Vega)

Originally published in American Lutherie #108, 2011

On Wednesday, May 6, 2009, we lost Joseph F. Wallo, “Internationally known maker of the finest in concert guitars.” Joseph was an eminently practical fellow who loved his work, an entrepreneur by nature, available and artful conversationalist, at least as opinionated as the average luthier, faithful friend and guide.

Joseph was born in 1921 in Michigan and raised on a farm in Virginia where he worked as a lumberjack and in millwork. At an early age he achieved prominence as a restorer of antique furniture. That was before he served in the Army Air Corps during World War II.

After the war, Joseph moved on to Chicago where he spent three years doing violin and guitar repair work, studied guitar, music, and voice at the Chicago Conservatory of Music, and made “a few violins” working under Italian luthier Alfio Battelli. During that time he embarked on his guitar-building enterprise. He took great pride in having made instruments for George Yeatman, Aaron Shearer, and Charlie Byrd who did many of his recordings using a Wallo classic. Joseph didn’t seem to be saddened by the fact that he couldn’t make a living building guitars. To his knowledge, only “factory workers” did that. He was a repairman with more work than he could handle who moonlighted building guitars and selling materials.

From Chicago, he made his way to the Violin House of Weaver in Bethesda, Maryland where he worked until he retired. The three generations of Weavers at the Violin House hold fond memories of Joseph.

Like many luthiers of my generation, in 1968 I spotted Joseph’s How to Make a Classic Guitar in the Vitali catalogue, where, incidentally, it is still listed. It was the first of its kind, published in 1962. My 1965 edition included drawings for both classical and steel-string instruments as well as his catalogue. His “KIT NO. 1” included everything—plans, book, absolutely all materials, sandpaper, strings, sealer, pore filler, varnish, brush, rubbing compounds and polish—for $146.75 with the 10% discount. This was no ordinary “kit.” In fact, it was a kit in name only. Nothing was bent, thicknessed, or joined. It was, though, his finest Brazilian rosewood back and ribs and European spruce soundboard, Honduras mahogany neck, handsome rosette, ivory nut and saddle, and black plastic binding.

Photo courtesy of R.E. Bruné

A few years later, I told Joseph I had foregone the plastic and was making my own wood purflings and bindings. He paused for a moment and said he had once done bindings in wood, but couldn’t understand why any builder would do it a second time. Why, after all, would anybody go to all that extra work — drudgery as far as he was concerned—for something that didn’t make the instrument a whit better? He insisted that the black plastic, properly finished, looked just like ebony. I should wise up. I didn’t argue.

Joseph was generous with his time, knowledge, and frank observations. Richard Bruné tells of setting out on his guitar making career with Joseph’s book in hand. By 1968, as Richard says, he was “finally getting some grip on the art.” He visited Joseph in Washington, D.C., proudly opened the case holding his fifth guitar, and presented the instrument to Joseph for his inspection. As Richard says “Joe looked over his glasses at me and asked if I wanted praise or criticism.” Praise he could get from his mom, so after an 800 mile drive, he opted for criticism. The list of “obvious” problems was so exhaustive that even this promising young luthier was tempted to doubt his calling. It was quite a surprise, arriving home, to learn that Joseph had lined up a customer in Virginia who ordered his own Bruné. I expect Joseph was confident that his advice had made all the difference.

A talk with Joseph was always fun. One of his favorite stories had to do with marketing. A classical guitarist came into his shop and sampled his instruments. He played at some length and really liked the feel and sound of a Wallo guitar. He asked the price, and Joseph—this was many years ago—said $1500. The potential customer was disappointed. He left the shop saying he was actually interested in a $3000 instrument. So, as Joseph put it, from then on he had a shop full of $3000 instruments.

His mail-order business kept him busy. He had ongoing irritation with his wood suppliers. Occasionally, in an order from him I’d find a warped or cracked fingerboard or bridge blank on which Joseph had scrawled a note. “Can you believe the stuff they send me?” or “Maybe you can find a use for this. I can’t.” His “S&W Italian Guitar Varnish” was another story. He had sold it for years. I’ve used it and in fact still have a few cans of the stuff. It’s wonderful. When his supplier died, Joseph asked his wife if she knew his source or the formula for the product. She didn’t, but said if Joseph stopped by maybe he could figure it out. What Joseph found was a stash of the half-pint cans and labels, a funnel, and a gallon or two of a Sherwin Williams oil varnish. It was S&W all right, minus the Italian. Joseph and so many other luthiers had been so happily had by this scam. So, Joseph sadly changed the label.

In his later years, Joseph lost the love of his life, his wife Cecile. He then suffered a serious bout of shingles. He was one of the victims for whom the pain becomes chronic and virtually untreatable. Knowing I was a pharmacist, we had frequent conversations about possible drug interventions and any other treatments that might show promise. Life was hard. Through it all, he remained the same guy. Many of us miss that guy.