guitar top thickness (acoustic steel string)

Jeff, Dawn Anna Martens-Koop

unread,

Jan 25, 2002, 12:23:51 PM1/25/02

to

whats the absolute minimum thickness you guys use for sitka spruce
soundboards? The reason I ask, is I've got a top here that when I get
the bandsaw marks off, I'm pretty sure will be between .080 and .090 but
certainly not above .090 (inches)

firewood? useable?

thanks... I really need some input here before I go any further!!!

Hank Mauel

unread,

Jan 25, 2002, 12:58:04 PM1/25/02

to

--
"Jeff, Dawn Anna Martens-Koop" <har...@quadrant.net> wrote in message
news:3C519685...@quadrant.net...

Jeff, Dawn Anna Martens-Koop
It's TOAST....
Most sitka tops will end up in the .115 to .130" thickness range...depending
on the stiffness of any particular piece.
Even the stiffest of the spruces, usually red spruce, won't get down to
.100".
At .090", you're in the range that backs and sides end up...and they are
considerably stronger types of woods and they don't have the direct pull of
170lbs.+ of string tension on them. Use your piece of sitka for the back
joint seam reinforcement and get a new top that has room to work
with...start in the .180" and up thickness and reduce to the above
dimensions.
Further questions feel free to email off line.

Hank

Hank Mauel
Mauel Guitars
http://www.mauelguitars.com

>

Kim Strickland

unread,

Jan 25, 2002, 7:39:36 PM1/25/02

to

It might work for a classical.

Kim Strickland

In article <V%g48.1040$fH7.70...@news.inreach.com>, "Hank Mauel"
<whm...@neworld.net> wrote:

--
Kim

Hank Mauel

unread,

Jan 25, 2002, 7:50:21 PM1/25/02

to

--
"Kim Strickland" <kest...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:kestrick-250...@dialup-64.157.58.229.dial1.washington1.level3
.net...

> It might work for a classical.
>
> Kim Strickland
>

Yeah...maybe. I 'presumed' steel string was what was being built. Excuse
my steel string bias.
A 2.5cm thick classical top would be in the .0938 (3/32") range. Really
will depend on how stiff that piece of sitka turns out to be when
approaching those dimensions.

Jonathan R. Larsson

unread,

Jan 25, 2002, 10:02:12 PM1/25/02

to

Hank,

You were not just assuming - re-read the subject line of the post. He DID
specify steel string. Whether he has any interest in classical guitars or
not....we could assume (maybe) that he doesn't. Or not.

Jon Larsson

"Hank Mauel" <whm...@neworld.net> wrote in message
news:o2n48.1050$Xd.708...@news.inreach.com...

Al Carruth

unread,

Jan 27, 2002, 2:17:43 PM1/27/02

to

You might be able to get away with that top on a really small 'parlor' steel;
size 1 or 0. Even then I'd use two tone bars, and two finger braces on each
side. Don't even think of using it on a 000 or larger with steel strings.

Alan Carruth / Luthier
http://www.alcarruthluthier.com

Jeff, Dawn Anna Martens-Koop

unread,

Jan 27, 2002, 4:25:46 PM1/27/02

to

actually, I love classicals, and will probably be building one after this
project... so I might just put this piece away for now and bring it out when
I'm ready for my next project...

is a flamenco generally thinner? or is sitka generally not a good choice for
flamenco (it seems to me, it would be pretty decent considering it is so light,
which I would think you would be going for if you want that percussive attack
that you see in flamenco...)

I'm starting to think that the piece I have will certainly NOT be thicker than
.093 or so (its at .100 to .103 right now, and I have to get the 80 grit
scratches out... I'm estimating a loss of ten thousandths to loose the 80
grit...) does this estimate come close?

also, what about using this wood (.090) to make a very stiffly braced O sized
guitar? (although, I still have my heart set on a jumbo size...)

thanks for all the input so far...
JMK

Jeff, Dawn Anna Martens-Koop

unread,

Jan 27, 2002, 4:29:03 PM1/27/02

to

I sent my last post in before seeing Al Carruths message.. Al: when you refer
to a
parlour steel, size 0 or 1, are you reffering to what I understand to be an 0 or

00? or is this an entirely different set of sizes that I've never heard of??

thanks!
Jeff M-K

Al Carruth

unread,

Jan 28, 2002, 3:19:41 PM1/28/02

to

Martin's original 'standard' size guitar was the "1". It's pretty much similar
to the Lacotes and Panormos of the same time period. Size "2" was smaller, and
used standard tuning, size "3" was a 'terz' guitar; even smaller and tuned a
third higher than 'standard'. Size "5" was a 'quint', and their smallest
guitar.

When people started wanting bigger guitars they couldn't use higher numbers
for them, so they had to go lower, to the size "0". Then came the "00" and
"000", each progressively larger. The way to keep it straight is to remember
the higher tuning of the smaller 'terz' and 'quint' guitars.

Alan Carruth / Luthier