Early Guitars and Vihuela

A network for historic guitars and vihuelas

I often get asked by clients, for a look at the inner workings of their guitars as I build. I've just uploaded a few photos to my photo page for those that might be interested.

 

The guitar is a replica of a J. A. Stauffer ca. 1835 "Legnani" Model. The back and sides are 50 year old Quilted Maple, top is Englemann Spruce and the neck will be ebony veneered Poplar with Rogers reproduction tuners and ebony fingerboard.

 

Of all the replica models I build the Stauffers are the most satisfying for me. I love their shape and the intricate joinery in the  various parts, especially the "floating" fingerboard.

 

If there is an interest and for your entertainment I can/will periodically upload a few more phots as the instrument progresses to completion.

Views: 589

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Great photos, Scot. Unfortunately I've just been hit with a much larger than expected tax bill (thanks to my previous employer getting the admin wrong) so my acquisition of a Stauffer copy has just been put back six months or so. But I'm determined to get one. Your photos are just making the wait more agonising!

Thanks Rob.

 

That tax thing really sucks! Especially so when it cuts into ones instrument buying budget.

 

So to lessen your pain and anguish I'll only post the blurry photos and not very often at that. But have heart, your Stauffer will be in your hands sooner than it seems at the moment.

Thanks for your kind words Hans.

 

More photos of the Stauffer will be coming soon.

 

First we have to remember that when we are talking about "sustain" in a 19th century instrument it's not going to be the equivalent to what one would find in a modern instrument. So relative to other early 19th century designs the Aubry-Maire as very good sustain.

 

Briefly and generally speaking sustain, volume and tone are related to how efficently the guitar body processes the energy put into it from the plucked string. So that would involve string length, body size, materials (wood types, weights, density), neck design and so on.

 

In the case of the Aubry-Maire the body is a little larger than many of it's better known contemporaries, like Lacote for example, and the general marrage of dimensions including string length, body width/depth and bracing all contribute to this efficent use of the energy from the vibrating string.

 

I know that many 19th century players as well as present day players and luthiers embrace the instruments of Rene Lacote as the best representative of the French school of guitar builders but I believe that Aubry-Maire, even though he is largely unknown today,  actually built better sounding instruments and as a player I prefer his design. But each has it's own unique qualities which suit the players chosing them. That's what makes it very interesting, for me as a luthier, to build many different models.

 

 

I don't know the answer to why a less deep guitar was generally prefered. My quess is that the nature of the music required a quicker attack and a quicker decay to the note so as not to confuse the sound from one note to another. That is one thing I find with modern instruments used to play music by many of the early 19th century composers (Giuliani). There is too much sound/sustain and the sound gets muddled, in my opinion.

 

Bear in mind not all makers/players prefered a thinner guitar. Panormo for example, maintained a body depth of ca. 10 cm as did many of the Spanish and some Italian builders. To my ear those instruments are best suited to composers with a richer harmonic language like Fernando Sor for example than say a more virtuostic composer like Legnani, Giuliani or Regondi.

The upper partials (harmonics) of the notes produced by the smaller 19th century guitar is also what gives the sound good carrying power. Often the smaller instrument will be heard at the back of a descent sized hall where a larger modern instrument may be harder to hear because of an abundance of lower partials.

 

I first experienced this phenomena as a university student in  the late 1970's, early 80's. I was attending a David Starobin concert where he played his Southwell Stauffer copy. The concert was in a 300+ seat hall, nearly full and I was sitting at the very back. I was astounded to hear every note clearly from such a small instrument , a large hall and full audience. That was the beginning of my journey to discover the 19th century guitar.

 

I'm not very knowledgable on the history of the Hammerklavier. It is my understanding that it (or the Fortepiano) was developed in the early 1700's by Christofori because they were looking for an instrument that would have the sustain of a clavichord and the volume of the harpsichord. Christofori invented the ingenious hammer mechanics that lead to the development of the instrument and eventually the pianoforte or piano that we know today.

 

However, I'm not so sure that the development of the thinner body guitar was an attempt to imitate the keyboard instrument. The problem of volume and sustain in the guitar has always been an issue for luthiers and players alike. They came up with many inventions in an attempt to correct this shortcoming. Re: Aguados tripod and numerous other attempts at seperating the instrument from the damping effects of the players body such as double backed instruments like those of Scherzer and others.

 

Woods also effect the volume, tone and sustain of an instrument. Harder woods like Brazilian Rosewood was available to and used by luthiers from the discovery of the Americas onward. These woods give more volume, more sustain and a darker tone but many players of the time were not fond of instruments made from it. They prefered the brighter, less volume and less sustaining maple and clearly stated so. Sor said that rosewood is not what he hoped it would be and that he prefered maple, Aguado openly prefered maple (including suggesting it for the top wood) and many other references to the superiority of maple can be found in various sources.

 

So, this leads me to question what exactly the ideal sound they were after would have been. They devised ways to try to increase the volume of their instruments (tripod, double backs) but decried the use of the woods that would give them some of that volume they seemed to want and made thinner bodied instruments...??

 

Oh Ok, I understand what you mean.

 

Yes, I add a very thin bridge patch just under the bridge. One of the most common repairs to 19th century original guitar that I have delt with is the bridge pulling off. This comes about by the pull of the knot on the end of the string working through the soft spruce and then pulls directly on the bridge. Eventually this pulls the bridge off. I make a concession to longivity by adding this little piece of hardwood to counter this damage.

 

You are correct in that this bridge plate seems to be virtually nonexistant in many the early romantic guitars. Later in the 19th century they start showing up as original additions. Too many bridge repairs prompted luthiers to find a solution to the problem, I suppose.

Here's a photo of a Grobert that I worked on many years back. You can see where the strings pulled relatively large pieces out of the top at the peg holes. The bridge was removed by the strings and needed to be put back with repairs to the top amongst many other repairs. There is a very faint outline of what may have been an original bridge patch which is barely visible in the photo. It also may have been put on later as there appeared to be very little glue used to hold it on place. Considering the general high quality of Groberts work I doubt he would have been so lax when gluing the patch on to have only used a couple dabs of glue. It evidently had fallen off at some point and was discarded.

 

I have seen another Grobert guitar with a bridge patch and like you, have seen some from the beginning of the 19th century which had them. It's often difficult to tell if they are original or placed later as repairs. I do suspect some were original but I don't believe it to be the norm.

 

There is some thought amongst some modern builders that bridge patches do effect the sound of an instrument but without highly sensitive electronic listening equipment I seriously doubt the human ear can hear the difference. In any case I think the reduction in damage to the instrument is worth the infinitesimal loss or change in sound to the instrument.

 

I should point out that the block of mahogany near the neck joint was a repair done, well before I got the instrument, to correct the flush fingerboard caving in at that point.

Attachments:

If I understand you correctly, the hole would be in the pin and that would put all the string pull on the pin which would be pulled out of the hole. So no, I don't believe it would work without some big modifications to the way the bridge is designed.

 

The pin is just to hold the string in the hole and keep the string pull on the soundboard of the instrument. If the pull goes on the pin, which sometimes happen if the knot isn't seated properly against the soundboard, then the pin can shoot across the room...a major annoyance as they always are hard to find under the couch or behind the bookshelve.

 

I've seen people use wooden beads that go on the end of the string which are supposed to hold the string in better and damoage the top less but I've not tried them. Just another thing to get lost  IMO.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Jelma van Amersfoort.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service