Classical guitars with angled edge under forearm?

[greg]

Hi. Was just wondering if anyone builds classical guitars with an angled/chamfered edge in the area where the fore arm rests on the guitar body? I have seen what appears to be add on material/wood with a shape the softens the edge, but always on a flat sound board. Would love to know the facts about this sort of design/construction. Thanks.

[DarwinStrings]

Hmmmm Chris has this tute on viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3200 veneering one but he may have one somewhere else on fitting one.

Jim

[JJ model]

I've done one with bevels and scoop.

[WaddyT]

It's probably the stuffy attitude of the classical guitar buying public that keeps them along more traditional lines. I just got back from the Guitar Foundation's Annual Convention and International Competition. You do not see many "non standard" designs. The main exceptions being the Smallman and the Millennium style raised finger board. I don't believe I saw any other variations on design at the Vendor Fair. I had three guitars on display there. It was a good week for classical guitar lovers! This was my table. Lousy picture. I took two. The other one was worse. The guy standing behind neck of the left guitar is Greg Byers. He had two guitars at the show. Really nice guitars!

if you are interested in hearing some of the entrys, here are a couple of You Tube vids of the morning session of the Luthier Showcase. Fortunately one of my guitars is in this batch. Videos done by Perfecto deCastro. The afternoon session had an equal number of guitars. Each vendor could submit one guitar. You'll see, but each player played a segment of a piece. One traditional and one modern.

youtu.be/

youtu.be/

[greg]

I've done one with bevels and scoop.

Hi JJ model. Very nice. So the scoop was in place of a cutaway? With the bevel, was it a 45deg? I can't quite see from your picture.

Why did you add the bevel, and did it achieve what you intended?

Greg.

[greg]

Hmmmm Chris has this tute on viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3200 veneering one but he may have one somewhere else on fitting one.

Jim

Hi Jim. Thanks for that. Not quite where I am headed. I am wanting to soften the edge between the top and side of the guitar where the underside of my forearm rests on the guitar body... perhaps something like a 25-30deg angle change on the top resulting in a flat about 40-45mm wide. The would accommodate the approx angle of my arm when playing as it touches the guitar. Hope this description makes sense. Wondering if someone has done this already?

[J.F. Custom]

You mean like this ?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1633

No, not on classical guitars here true, but the construction will be more or less the same.

Hope it helps.

Jeremy.

[greg]

You mean like this ?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1633

No, not on classical guitars here true, but the construction will be more or less the same.

Hope it helps.

Jeremy.

Thank you. Very informative. There were three different builders in that thread with this feature and all had the angle change in the side rather than the top. Any idea why its done this way?

[J.F. Custom]

Hi Greg.

I think you'll find the "angle/bevel" intrudes on both the side and top - a facet roughly equal on both faces.

As to why - you want to limit the intrusion into the soundboard as this area of the lower bout is prime in sound generation.

If you want more support under the arm, over the soundboard that does not dampen the the guitars sound, you can always do a "floating" arm bevel instead. A bit more like this -

jfcustom_classic.jpg (37.98 KiB) Viewed 19222 times

This one is attached at the side and top only over the point of the internal linings. Otherwise the bulk of it floats about 2mm over the soundboard.

That's if I have understood your question properly...

Jeremy.

[Dave Higham]

Or did you mean like this? Couldn't find out much about them except that I think they're cheap and Chinese. It looks like a good idea but....
The only one I've seen didn't have any bindings and the little girl who had it didn't know where her daddy got it from (perhaps it came from Father Christmas's workshop).

ergonoguitar.jpg (220.05 KiB) Viewed 19180 times

[greg]

Hi Dave. ^^ that is basically what I was envisioning (except the bevel on the back). The angle on the front/side looks too steep for what I had in mind. However, interesting that someone has gone to this extent with a production guitar. Thanks for the info.

[kiwigeo]

Or did you mean like this? Couldn't find out much about them except that I think they're cheap and Chinese. It looks like a good idea but....
The only one I've seen didn't have any bindings and the little girl who had it didn't know where her daddy got it from (perhaps it came from Father Christmas's workshop).

ergonoguitar.jpg

I can live with an arm rest bevel on the top of the lower bout to improve playability but can somebody furnish me with a valid and logical reason to have a bevel on the butt end of the guitar??

[J.F. Custom]

I can live with an arm rest bevel on the top of the lower bout to improve playability but can somebody furnish me with a valid and logical reason to have a bevel on the butt end of the guitar??

Hmmm... For comfort playing in the more upright position?? That'd be my guess but I didn't say it was a good idea.

Personally I'm not too fond of the amount of incursion into the soundboard either. That's really cutting into valuable space, even if it does provide extra comfort.

Jeremy.

[charangohabsburg]

[...] but can somebody furnish me with a valid and logical reason to have a bevel on the butt end of the guitar??

This is exactly the place where guitars first make contact to the floor when they get dropped.
As this part would get destroyed anyway they simply did avoid to build it at all.
At least, the not built part can not get destroyed when these guitars hit the floor.

[kiwigeo]

[...] but can somebody furnish me with a valid and logical reason to have a bevel on the butt end of the guitar??

This is exactly the place where guitars first make contact to the floor when they get dropped.
As this part would get destroyed anyway they simply did avoid to build it at all.
At least, the not built part can not get destroyed when these guitars hit the floor.

Swiss logic??

[charangohabsburg]

Can't follow, Martin?
Yes I admit, not building the guitar at all would prevent destruction of any part of it...

Background of my theory:
Most instrument repairs I have done in the last 10 years were charangos that got dropped to the floor because their owners stopped holding them at the neck while talking to somebody or spilling their beer over someone else's cloths. These broken charango butts are difficult repairs and I learned a lot with them. But sometimes I wish those mistreated charangos (or their owners) would not exist at all. As you see there are several solutions to the problem of dropping instruments to the floor...

Maybe it's Bolivian logic.

[charangohabsburg]

Background of my theory:
[...]

Background N°2 (or the real reason I see behind the bevel on the back) :
I see no real reason for that bevel on the back (yes, that must be the real reason). Most probably it's a design thing (which is not a reason) or a very bad copy of those "bevels" you see on the back of electric guitars - although these are on a slightly different place... (which would be a bad reason).

[Dave Higham]

I think these guitars were perhaps designed with young players in mind.
When a small person with a full size guitar holds it in the approved classical position, where does it dig in?
Under the right forearm and inside the right thigh.
So that's where they made the bevels.

[pavliku]

I think it would also cause less discomfort too when playing while standing.
Think of all those poor Mariachi guitaristas.