J-200/Grand Orchestra acoustic build

[Prostheta]

Hey all. This thread will be a bit of an exploration for myself since I have absolutely zero experience of building acoustics. I'm sure that it'll prove to be a challenge in one way or another, and I'd like to truly break out my thought processes and approach on the project. Hopefully that should be useful to anybody else considering an acoustic project, or maybe just wanting a peek behind the methods/madness.

So, I own two acoustics. Both Washburns. The first is an ES20SDL, which Nina picked up as an ex-demo whilst managing a music store in the UK. The quality of quilt, fit and finish is near exhibition-grade simply because it was selected as one of Washburn's showcase models. It's a great guitar, however the neck is a little slender and the body is small. It's meant for plugged-in work. I'll tell you how I shot it with a nut sometime.

The other is my Washburn D42SCE. That was also picked up by Nina for next to nothing. It is a cheap Washburn to begin with; the binding is a decal, as is the rosette. The inlays are wooden and a bit uneven. I love that bridge though. It's big and after I set her up properly, is really fun to play. I could take or leave the cutaway since I'm a really basic below 12th chord player.

 

So, I'd like to take the best aspects of the instrument that is most inspiring to me and modify the aspects that I enjoy about it. The profile and width of that neck is great for me. I really like that. Sizewise, I'm attracted to that of the Gibson J-200. It's a good known reference point to work from. I feel like I'd like a bit more openness, Whether size is truly what will achieve this, I'm currently 50/50. The D42 is covered in a crappy clear which I'm sure will be choking it more than is preferable. I suspect I'll French polish whatever I build.

I have to say that @Aakoo's acoustic build inspired me to take the plunge on this one. Electrics have a tendency to become a case of accelerating costs when you factor in hardware and electronics. An acoustic would be a great change of pace and very hands-on.

Picking up some practice wood to bend would be a good first step I think. That and spending a little time constructing a go-deck and figuring out a clever way to make a radius dish. I'm sure there'll be writeups amongst that also.

If it isn't taking on too many challenges at once, I may construct a straightforward acoustic and maybe also a multiscale. Parallel builds like that should be an enlightening comparison in the finished products.

Got to cut this opening post short....there'll be plenty of discussion and specification-rattling to be made over the weeks/months leading up to commencement.

<edit: changed title to better reflect changes>

[SIMpleONe89]

Nice! I love seeing acoustic builds and I hope to try it one day. Looking forward to seeing your work! 

[103801061982]

Me too. I'll be very interested in how you deal with making the dishes as this is another thing on my ever growing to do list.

[ScottR]

This will be fun.

SR

[Andyjr1515]

Ooooh!  Looking forward to this mucho, mucho, mucho 

[Andyjr1515]

By the way, your title is J 200 or OM....

That depends what you actually want to play?  

As I categorically proved to myself with my OM build and Dreadnought build - with pretty much everything that was going to matter equal except the size and shape - the conventional wisdom of "OM excellent for finger pick and OK for strum; dreadnought excellent for strum and OK for finger pick" is certainly true.  When I play the two next to each other, that's exactly how it is.    

[Prostheta]

I have decided very very little for this build so far. One idea was to go with an established design and do whatever needs to be done just to get past the finishing post. Collect all the difficulties, errors and mistakes through a build that is simply educational. There are a LOT of new skills for me to take on from bending to tap tuning, so expecting that I can get them all right the first time is simply unrealistic at best.

Like most builds, making jigs is the key to success so making them through the first build allows me to take onboard all of this new information. By the end of that first build, I should have taken enough from the experience to approach a second in a more mature manner.

That isn't to say that I'll be putting my foot to the floor for the first one though....!

As for what I prefer to play, it's strum. I'm not much of a fingerpicker, at least right now. Something on the larger end of the spectrum is what I'm thinking of at this stage. Whether I do something like a "carbon copy of a J-200" simply because there is a quantified existing design to learn around, or make it a bastard hybrid, no idea. I like to talk out my ideas anyway, in case I have some incorrect conceptions or poorly-understood areas of knowledge.

A lot of this will be dictated by price of course; there's only so much going around (I'll discuss the complications of the Brexit thing elsewhere....) so a first build with B-grade is the most likely approach. Whether I do a second "better" in parallel or start it afterwards is still a malleable point.

[Andyjr1515]

2 hours ago, Prostheta said:

As for what I prefer to play, it's strum. I'm not much of a fingerpicker, at least right now. Something on the larger end of the spectrum is what I'm thinking of at this stage. Whether I do something like a "carbon copy of a J-200" simply because there is a quantified existing design to learn around, or make it a bastard hybrid, no idea. I like to talk out my ideas anyway, in case I have some incorrect conceptions or poorly-understood areas of knowledge.

Hi, Carl

In that case yes - definitely go for a jumbo / dreadnought.  They are much better for strumming and yet are still perfectly good for fingerpicking.  If I built myself another one, even though I am a fingerpicker, I would build another dreadnought rather than another OM (even though I am delighted with my OM).

In that case the J 200 is fine, but is - even for a Jumbo / Dreadnought type - a very big beastie indeed.

And there is no reason at all - with enough reading, thinking and asking - why the first one shouldn't be a great instrument...

[Prostheta]

I likely misused "OM" thinking it was a larger size. I truly know little about Martins other than their place within the canon.

[Prostheta]

I guess that the finessing such as tuning the top and everything else is an important stage of the overall project to work in there. I don't know if I'd have fair basis for comparison as to what is "good". The most that I can discern is that the notes that the top returns are more musical in timbre.

It'll be fine however it turns out I guess. There's always something positive you can take from anything.

[Andyjr1515]

18 minutes ago, Prostheta said:

I likely misused "OM" thinking it was a larger size. I truly know little about Martins other than their place within the canon.

Ah..that explains my confusion.

Just for completeness, here is my OM and newly completed 'jumbo' dreadnought side by side:

Not only is the physical size of the dreadnought bigger (the lower bout is around 1" wider) but the body is also around 3/4" deeper.

In Martin Terminology: 

their 000 size is pretty much the same as a standard OM (Orchestra Model)

their D size is basically the same as the generic dreadnought

In Gibson acoustics, their equivalent of the dreadnought is the Jumbo - more like the shape of an OM, but with the physical size of the bouts and body depth are the same or bigger than a dreadnought.

The Jumbos and Dreadnoughts kick out more volume and more bass, but the string definition merges more in the process.  This actually enhances the smoothness of strumming but compromises slightly the string to string definition and balance when fingerpicking.

By the way - look how much the OM has darkened - same wood, same finish.  The dreadnought will eventually go the same way.

 

[Prostheta]

I really dislike the squareness. They are shaped like Desperate Dan's face, aptly. I'm drawn to the more relaxed shapes of the Gibsons. 

[Andyjr1515]

6 minutes ago, Prostheta said:

I really dislike the squareness. They are shaped like Desperate Dan's face, aptly. I'm drawn to the more relaxed shapes of the Gibsons. 

Yes - I tend to agree.

[Prostheta]

Like I mentioned, it might be useful for me simply to follow an existing design. A super jumbo would be a challenge because of the size, however I like the idea. Especially if I start bending the scales...

[103801061982]

If you're going to be building more than a couple I'd definitely look at something like a fox type bender over hand bending. It adds a level of consistency that's simply beyond me when doing it manually, though admittedly depending on how picky you are, it does take a bit of fiddling to get the forms right for your pattern.

[ScottR]

4 hours ago, Andyjr1515 said:

Yes - I tend to agree.

Likewise. It's a little sad that the more fluid shapes produce less sound.....

SR

[Prostheta]

Really? Is this something about internal reflections cancelling? I'd imagine if that were the case, they'd reinforce as much as they cancel, becoming weirder, more comb filtering and maybe woofy?

[Andyjr1515]

5 hours ago, ScottR said:

Likewise. It's a little sad that the more fluid shapes produce less sound.....

SR

I hadn't registered that this would be the case, Scott.  Is that how the conventional wisdom goes?

[Prostheta]

It's an interesting proposition if there is any solid reasoning as to why. I can imagine there being arguments both sides of the fence, so if in fact it IS conventional wisdom in some way I'd genuinely like to take this onboard.

[ScottR]

Well, I was equating more sound to louder, as opposed to tonal range. It is my understanding that a bigger box is louder than a smaller box and the big square no cutaway dreadnought was built that way to that end. Those more pleasing shapes (to my eye) with their narrower waists and rounder bottoms have a lesser volume of air moving and therefore have a lesser volume sound as I understand it. Not less pleasing sound, just less loud sound.

SR

[Aakoo]

This will be interesting to follow. 

I have a jumbo plan somewhere in my drawer, pm me if you're  interested to have a peek on it

i did my jumbo slightly differently than described in the plan. The neck is fixed, the body sides are set to the neck wood, with a spline (is that the right word? A triangle shaped block that tightens the side woods to neck block) and in the plan the neck was set with a dovetail and a bolt, I think. I can try to explain it a bit better later, if you're interested. Maybe i can find some photos of the joint

i am definitely interested to see the progress!

 

[Prostheta]

I think that I know what you mean. I would rather use a glued dovetail, although bolted might be an option. These are possible.

[Aakoo]

Found Old photo of the guitar when the sides were bent. This perhaps explains better how the neck joint is done. 

[103801061982]

bolted works nicely. I was taught this way - two bolts through a neck block with the trussrod extending into the body through a routed channel. Glued in, nice and secure.  I liked this way because you can build the body nearly to completion in a mould, though as you may have noticed, I am a very gittery builder.

[Prostheta]

Thanks Ari! That's what's called a "Spanish heel", and comes from classical Spanish style guitar building methods. I think that it is a very good way to avoid needing to make a mortise and tenon joint. I think that for my own build, I would rather work on the box and the neck separately.

Similarly, I think that a bolted joint such as that would be fine also but I like the challenge of more difficult joinery! 

That's a really sweet looking joint though. Man, that'll close up razor tight.