J-200/Grand Orchestra acoustic build

[103801061982]

I've done three like this and they've closed up quite nicely as the two bolts let you crank things up nice and tight. You're right though, not much woodworking finesse there. For me its enough of a challenge not to round over the binding under the fingerboard, adding joinery in there as well would definitely be a deal breaker . Kept number 3 but haven't attempted to learn how to play it yet. Cue the potatoey picture.

Edited July 11, 2016 by 103801061982

[Andyjr1515]

11 hours ago, 103801061982 said:

I've done three like this and they've closed up quite nicely as the two bolts let you crank things up nice and tight. You're right though, not much woodworking finesse there. For me its enough of a challenge not to round over the binding under the fingerboard, adding joinery in there as well would definitely be a deal breaker . Kept number 3 but haven't attempted to learn how to play it yet. Cue the potatoey picture.

Neat job @103801061982 

Having said that, I can see why you are thinking dovetail @Prostheta. My OM was also bolt on mortise and tenon but to me the challenge in my head was always breaking through the fear factor of a 'one chance to get it right' dovetail.  I'm pleased I did.  It took me a lot of reading and thinking and sketching and definitely a requirement for a decent template jig design, but it worked...and the next one will be even better

[SIMpleONe89]

You know with bolt ons, do people not use glue? I thought even with bolt ons you need glue below the fretboad but I've seen some of the lower end Taylors where you can remove the entire neck! 

[Prostheta]

Either or. My take on this is that the neck needs to be stable enough in the joint so that it doesn't encourage losses within the system. The rest is just voodoo and nonsense. I like the idea of a bolt-on neck, however as @Andyjr1515 pointed out it depends on the person. For my own part, I feel that if I don't challenge myself with the dovetail I've not really overcome any fundamental obstacles. It's all about that positive reinforcement!

[Prostheta]

Time as always helps to focus ideas and develop a more practical approach. I mistakenly stated "OM" in the original thread title which was totally off the map. Big is where I'm heading with this one.

Comparing the Gibson J-200 to the Taylor Grand Orchestra shape, I definitely feel that the Taylor outline would be an easier proposition, if only because of the tight waist of the Gibson. The size isn't a million miles away from my Washburn D42 either. The Taylor weighs in at 20-5/8" x 16-3/4" x 5" whilst the Washburn is a fairly similar 20" x 15-1/2" x 4-3/4". It's a significant increase in box size of course (especially with no cutaway) but that's fine. I can work with that.

[Prostheta]

The CAD work will end up being quite complex for this one. Still, everything has its basic underlying geometry. I always bake that in first.

25,5" scale length with a 14th fret joint. String spacing taken from my D42SCE; 44mm width nut, 59,5mm fingerboard width at 21st fret, 55.5mm string spread at the nut.

 

I decided to maintain a certain design aspect that I like from Taylors; that the heel fits into a recess on the body. I like that, and it's not too difficult to manage. A challenge certainly, however just one that requires a measured approach. I'll document this one in specific detail. Whilst I don't think I can match the pivoting/shimmed neck angle approach, I'm sure that I can work around the way of making a razor-fit seam.

[Andyjr1515]

2 hours ago, Prostheta said:

I decided to maintain a certain design aspect that I like from Taylors; that the heel fits into a recess on the body. I like that, and it's not too difficult to manage. A challenge certainly, however just one that requires a measured approach. I'll document this one in specific detail. Whilst I don't think I can match the pivoting/shimmed neck angle approach, I'm sure that I can work around the way of making a razor-fit seam.

I assume therefore two-way bolt on like on this cross-section?  I can huge difficulties and very few advantages of trying to do that with a dovetail... 

[Prostheta]

I'm not aiming to produce an adjustable bolt-on neck. I mean, given the time and inclination I am sure that I could produce something along those lines but it simply isn't a requirement here. The "normal" method of butting a heel against the body benefits from a flat spot existing at the front of the rim. By cutting a recess, the difficulties in producing a consistent light-tight seam around the heel are eliminated. The only thing that is important in my mind is excellent coupling between the neck and the block. The rest is simply cosmetic.

I do like the idea of recessing the fingerboard over the block also. That might figure into my final plan depending on whether I think it's beneficial at this level of work. Again, this is not to make a pivoting neck, but to give myself options in how the neck mates with the body on a cosmetic level. This is my first acoustic after all. On one hand I don't want to be overcomplicating things beyond my capabilities, resources or time but on the other, I don't particularly want to be boxing myself into one traditional mode of thinking. After all, many design aspects of instruments are borne from the pressures of production....peeling back the reasoning for certain approaches helps improve my personal understanding of why certain things are how they are. Manufacturing being part of that equation is often pretty revealing. I like Taylor because they don't see quality/quantity as an inversely-proportional relationship. They seem happy to rip up the processes in order to achieve both, rather than stolidly maintain obsolete techniques which are too mired in tradition to kill off.