A clean, no-binding look

[deadedith]

Two instruments that have really impressed me recently had no bindings, and had a very nice and clean look to them. One was 'the Kauri" guitar by Christian on this forum; and one was by NK Forster in one of his vids.

Could either of those gents - or others - give some direction on how to best achieve that smooth, almost seamless look?

[nkforster]

For me it was an idea that presented itself because of circumstances - recession. Recession had struck around '08 and people understandably were not as interested in spending so much money on guitars as they were. It came to me rather quickly that it may be sensible to make a cheaper instrument, less expense for the customer, and quicker to make. If there were to be less orders this may encourage more.

In the past most large guitar companies have made a range of models to suit all of what marketeers term "price points" including budget models, these bottom end instruments often interested me the most — not just because they were affordable to me but it seemed to me that if you wanted to find out what a maker considered to be important, the cheap end of the range was where to look.

Who doesn't have a soft spot for Les Paul Juniors, or the mahogany 0-18 Martin? I'd played a '57 Fender Musicmaster for years and loved it. It was just the bare bones of what a guitar was - two pieces of wood, a few screws, the simplest of electrics, sprayed with what looked like car paint and was just so well designed. Its simplicity appealed to my puritanical streak! Well, maybe not everyone would agree, but enough people would, and appealing to everyone was never my intention. My business requires only 15 or so like minded people a year to find me to get by. So I knew in creating a budget model I couldn't go wrong, as it turned out it's been a very sensible move as it allows customers to upgrade to fancier woods on a budget - they benefit, as do I - orders keep coming and I don't have to spend so much time binding. Win-win!

"stripped down" cocobolo mandolin:


"stripped down" guitar bouzouki:


"stripped down" mandolinetto


So it's about stripping away all that isn't required - it's a fun exercise and I really encourage all of you to try it - we can get carried away with all manner of fancy additions - bevel's, soundports etc but how often do we strip things down to the bare bones and concentrate on what really matters? Do we really know what the bare bones even are?

Have a go - think about each area of construction - how can you simplify it without compromising the result?

Any ideas?

[Allen]

I like the look on some instruments, but you really have to pick what woods you are going to use with the no bindings look.

For me its an absolute no go with Western Red Cedar or any type of Spruce. Those edges are just to delicate to forgo the protection bindings afford. Lucky for me that hard woods are featured a fair bit in ukuleles.

[kiwigeo]

I like the look on some instruments, but you really have to pick what woods you are going to use with the no bindings look.

For me its an absolute no go with Western Red Cedar or any type of Spruce. Those edges are just to delicate to forgo the protection bindings afford. Lucky for me that hard woods are featured a fair bit in ukuleles.

+1

[J.F. Custom]

Dave,

I think Christian does it slightly differently.

From memory, he runs a bevel on the edge around the top and the rims, so that they seat into each other. It's a very clean look with no exposed end grain.

But I'm afraid, I too prefer to bind. I prefer the look and as Allen mentioned, the protection it provides. No doubt it is time consuming and fiddly work. But then, I have a tendency to like time consuming fiddly stuff Just that's not necessarily good from a 'business' point of view...

Jeremy.

[deadedith]

Thanks fellas. Food for thought. The 'minimal' look, in the right luthier's hands, can be a stunner.

[Nick Payne]

In the first guitar making book I ever bought (Classical Guitar: Design and Construction, by Mcleod and Welford, published about 40 years ago), they say at one point that the bindings improve the sound of a guitar. They base the claim on having strung up and played a guitar without bindings, and then routing the binding channel, fitting the bindings, and stringing up and playing again.

I haven't performed the experiment myself to see if I can detect any difference in the sound.

[christian]

Hi,
Thanks for the kind words Dave,
As Jeremy has been said my seemless look is achieved slightly differently.
The end grain is not exposed therefore to me it is no more vulnerable than a bound guitar.
lets face it, if you ding your guitar, you ding your guitar !!! either way you live with it or get it repaired.
As for the claim that bindings make your guitar sound better.....naaah no way.
anyway thats my two cents...

Christian.

[deadedith]

Christian - I think someone said that you used a 'bevel' to achieve the seamless effect. Is it done by very careful hand sanding or do you use a tool of some sort?
Thanks

[Nick]

As for the claim that bindings make your guitar sound better.....naaah no way.

Christian.

+1 on that one Christian, I'm sure the binding was never intentionally added for it's sound enhancing properties. Aesthetics all the way, I've yet to hear anybody pick out a guitar bound with plastic as opposed to wood by sound alone.
Dave, Christian makes the seemless joint look simple but don't be fooled

[kiwigeo]

I haven't performed the experiment myself to see if I can detect any difference in the sound.

Most definitely..but only if the binding channel is 100mm x 100mm

[nkforster]

For me it was a bit of an experiment - to see what I could come up with to respond to the economic situation we were all faced with around late 2008. I make my living building guitars, no repairs, no trading, just making. And in a climate where more and more customers were deciding to build their own instruments rather than buy. Tricky but also interesting. So here is how I thought about it:

A good place to begin looking at budget acoustics is the little all mahogany bodied Martin 0-18 and alike. This is a well designed guitar; the tough top and back need no binding, binding is one of the most time consuming jobs for a luthier, and the more curved the top or back is, (like with my work) the more time and skill it takes. Martin got it right — those all mahogany guitars were nice and cheap and good value but clearly not as nice as the more expensive spruce and rosewood instruments. For me and my little business it seemed to be a mistake to try and perfect making all mahogany guitars if they would forever be perceived as cheap, or inferior to my other work.

So what to do? Well, at the time I when I was designing my "Model S" style was still pretty much smitten with spruce and Indian rosewood, and for good reason - if you can't make a good instrument with those two woods you have to ask yourself where you've gone wrong. Sticking to these also meant not having to invest in more new timber, a sensible plan when faced with the birth of a new recession; the new "budget" model could be built out of my remaining stock. Sticking with spruce and Indian also meant it would be clear statement (to me if no-one else) what came first in my list of qualities not to be compromised: sound.

Rosewood is plenty tough so the joint between back and sides could be left unbound, as Martin had done with it's cheap mahogany guitars. I suspected that in lovely dark Indian rosewood this would look delicious, a smooth transition from one plane to the next. The fragile spruce soundboard was another matter. It would have to be bound to protect it from knocks. Plastic binding would have been the obvious choice but I tried it once and didn't like the smell of the glue! No, I decided to bind with the black fibre board ( a wood product) used for making purflings, it's very tough, it's flexible and looks nice, especially if layers are scrapped through when levelling the binding with the sides - a kind of "grain" appears. So this could be the binding material and it would be kept as shallow as possible to ease fitting, and because I happen to find deep binding a little vulgar.

Getting rid of the back binding and reducing the depth of the top binding had another effect - the size of the interior bindings could be reduced. Also when working with a heavily curved top and back greater pressure than normal is sometimes needed to get bindings in place, this can be aggravated by deep bindings. This can sometimes split the soundboard at the waist if they are being asked to follow too tight a compound curve. Damage can also occur during the binding process itself if too much force is applied during the gluing and taping process, so light, unsubstantial linings are out of the question for a deeply bound or highly decorated body with heavily curved plates. So less binding meant less linings, meant a lighter and possibly more responsive guitar.

[nkforster]

In the first guitar making book I ever bought (Classical Guitar: Design and Construction, by Mcleod and Welford, published about 40 years ago), they say at one point that the bindings improve the sound of a guitar. They base the claim on having strung up and played a guitar without bindings, and then routing the binding channel, fitting the bindings, and stringing up and playing again.

I haven't performed the experiment myself to see if I can detect any difference in the sound.

It could well depend on the design itself: binding may well "tighten things up" a bit, especially on guitars where the top, back or both are close to being flat. My instruments are built with quite a curve to the top and the back, so not binding or binding lightly may not be such a bad thing.