Slow guitar day (a custom build)

Tannin

WafflesOnHorseback said:

Beautiful. Can't wait to hear it!

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100057679568931 (Sorry for the Facebook link)

That's Paul playing it. It will improve over the next week or two as he does little tweaks and the timbers settle in. 

I'm off to the other island shortly and I'm not going to take it over there with me on the ferry so Paul can hang onto it for a few weeks more. He won't mind that, he likes to have them around for a little while to show to people - partly just for fun and partly because it tends to bring in more commissions. 

If I'd built that beautiful thing, starting from the bare slabs of timber and making every part myself except for strings, tuners, truss rod, bridge pins and fret wire, I'd want to hang on to it too. In fact I'd probably say "Sorry Mr Tannin, you can have your deposit back, I'm keeping it!"

WafflesOnHorseback

Sounds lovely! Many congrats on commissioning such a wonderful thing.

guitarjack66

I am sure it will be a lovely guitar. Can't say I'm a fan of the lighter woods or 'skunk stripe' design on the likes of the Maton or Cole Clark guitars though. They probably play great but for looks I'd not be drawn towards them.

Tannin

Cheers lads. 

Yesterday I popped in to have a look at it on my way over here to the north island, when I am for the next couple of weeks. (I've brought the Messiah with me. Time enough to get to know the new one when I get back.)

It is a lovely thing to look at, of course. But I expected that.

It is also delightful to play. Not at all what I expected - um ... not really sure what I did expect actually; it was a leap in the dark using a King Billy top on such a large guitar. In person, it is very smooth, very deep, with a rich warm tone. In Paul's workshop (acoustically a very different place to the fairly bright environments I generally play in) I was battling a bit to bring out what I thought was enough definition, but revelling in the depth of sound.

Of all things, it rather reminded me of a Lowden. Not the same thing, not by any means, but that sense of hearing six different strings as if they were six different instruments, that sense of wanting to slow down and let the richness of the instrument shine, it was almost familiar.

The shorter neck - it's exactly the same scale length as the Thunderhawk but shorter because it's a 13-fret rather than a 15-fret) make a surprising difference to the left arm. It's just that little bit more relaxed and comfortable. 

The bridge position on the other hand (like a 12-fretter) was a bit odd. It might take me a little while to get used to that. The neck felt wider than the Thunderhawk (it is actually slightly narrower) and a lot fatter (it really is deeper), which is what I asked for. My expectation is that, once I grow used to it, I'll be more accurate and more comfortable and play cleaner with the fatter-feeling neck. 

Tannin

Some silly buggers here encouraged me to post pictures of my new Furch. Now you've bloody done  it!  I took pictures of another couple of new(ish) guitars as well and you are all going to have to look at them read some other thread.





Above: Blackheart Sassafras back and sides, Huon Pine neck, decorative Musk Daisy heel cap.

Below: While I was taking these, one of the locals popped up to have a look at me (in the water, top centre). Click on the picture to enlarge.




Below: King Billy Pine top, Tiger Myrtle fretboard, bridge,:

Tannin

Soupman

Man, that's craftsmanship. It is gorgeous.

guitarjack66

@Tannin Was that a Platypus? I couldnt zoom in but it's size and colour seem to match. They are also native to your part of the world.

Tannin

Yes indeed Jack! You win the prize. Here is is a bit closer up.



Well, this might be the same one. There are several. They divide their time between the dam and the creek in the little valley below and we can't generally tell them apart. 

Tannin

For anyone interested in the timbers, this ABC article may be of interest.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2023-10-27/king-billy-huon-sawmill-last-custodian-of-rare-tasmanian-timbers/103015506

The "Hobart luthier" mentioned in the article is Paul, of course.

Tannin

Playing it is an interesting experience. It is quite taxing physically. I'm not sure why. We started out with the same strings and scale length as the Thunderhawk, and it is (of course) set up to perfection. All else being equal, I'd have expected the guitar with the softer top timber to be easier to play. But the reverse is true. 

Well, actually, come to think of it, the Thunderhaw has got Newtone roundcores on it at present; they are noticeably easier on the fingers than the John Pearse 15-68s. And since I got the new one home I gave it new strings, which happen to be slightly heavier Galli 16-70s.

Anyway, partly for that reason and partly just to see what it sounds like, I've been playing with tuning. The original 730mm scale baritone (i.e., Tacoma Thunderhawk) was actually designed to be tuned to A. That's too low for my taste but I tried the new one tuned down to Bb. It plays well, no buzzing, and it's a mega-deep tone! But too low I think. The lower you tune a baritone, the slower you have to play to give the notes time to grow and swell, and the simpler your harmonies need to be to avoid muddy sounds. Tuned to Bb we are well in to bass guitar territory  That's a bridge too far for me, I like to be able to play chords.

So currently I have it in B (as opposed to the C I always tune the Thunderhawk to) and that's working pretty well. Over the next few months I'll tinker with strings and tunings as I work out what this guitar will be best for.

Already it is clear that it won't be like the Thunderhawk. It lacks the Thunderhawk's bright, percussive piano-like tones (classic spruce and maple sound) and instead provides a very smooth, rounded tone, deep and melodic. This is not really surprising given the materials, in particular the big King Billy Pine top. We are deep into experimental territory using such a soft top timber for such a large baritone!

The combination of the 13-fret design (bridge positioned like a 12-fret guitar) and my peculiar right-hand technique adds to this. I play with bare fingers (flesh and nail, mostly flesh) and almost always well back towards the bridge. Where most players pluck or pick over the soundhole, I usually go between  the soundhole and the bridge. On most guitars, the extra snap and treble from playing nearer the bridge compensates for the loss of snap and treble one gets playing with fingers instead of nails or a pick and the overall sound is about right. 

With this new guitar, the positioning of the bridge is different and tends to push my right hand further along the string, producing a more mellow, gentle sound, which is too much of a good thing! But I'm learning to use a different arm position which results in a more vertical hand position, and thus a more percussive pluck. That's working quite well now and is starting to feel fairly natural. 

(I will probably need to do something similar when my 12-fret Brook arrives next year. I've never had 12-fret guitars before!)

I'll be ordering some custom strings from Newtone. I'm not sure what will work best, I'll probably try a lighter set (for C tuning, possibly even C#) something like 14-64 (still with a wound 2nd), a standard set (15-68, tuned in C or and a heavier set (16-72 tuned in B, Bb or possibly even A), all in phosphor bronze roundcore. 

Lots of interesting experiments to come. I can see now that the two baritones will play quite different roles and be good for different things. 

thomasross20

With the 12 fret Brook, I assume the bridge is getting pushed back (unlike, say, the Martin design where that doesn't happen)?

Tannin

Yes, @thomasross20 - what would be the point of a 12-fret where the bridge stays in the same place as a 14? (I'm making mental note to go and look at some pictures of Martin 12-fretters.) I mean that's the raison d'etre - getting the bridge in the centre of the lower bout.

Actually, my Brook is a 12.5 fret design. I started with an existing short-scale 12-fret model (the Lyn) but asked for a full-length scale without moving the bridge. This pushes the neck out  by 20mm and gives me the tonal and tension benefit of a full-length scale, still keeps the bridge-in-the-middle advantage of a 12-fret, and gives my left hand just a little bit more room at the dusty end, so a win-win-win. Simon and Andy were a little surprised but saw the logic of it. They just hope that people don't see the neck-body join not on an even fret and think they made a mistake!

thomasross20

Tannin said:

Yes, @thomasross20 - what would be the point of a 12-fret where the bridge stays in the same place as a 14? (I'm making mental note to go and look at some pictures of Martin 12-fretters.) I mean that's the raison d'etre - getting the bridge in the centre of the lower bout.

Actually, my Brook is a 12.5 fret design. I started with an existing short-scale 12-fret model (the Lyn) but asked for a full-length scale without moving the bridge. This pushes the neck out  by 20mm and gives me the tonal and tension benefit of a full-length scale, still keeps the bridge-in-the-middle advantage of a 12-fret, and gives my left hand just a little bit more room at the dusty end, so a win-win-win. Simon and Andy were a little surprised but saw the logic of it. They just hope that people don't see the neck-body join not on an even fret and think they made a mistake!

I agree and guess the point is just to have a slightly smaller body and shorter scale length, just without the bridge movement - but the bridge movement is the main thing, for me... else I wouldn't bother. Ah, I remember you saying it was 12.5 frets! Sounds very interesting...