Hi everyone,
Recently I saw my local music store selling a LV-05E and an OM-50E.
When I looked into their soundholes, I found that there is a thin piece of wood lying in the middle of the back, which does not appear on my Larrivees.
Just like the one showing in the third last picture: http://www.laguitarsales.com/pages/3884/Larrivee_P03R.htm
I know nothing about guitar construction :blush: so I am curious about when will Larrivee use this way of construction?
Thank you.
The only other new Larrivee that I've seen with the center stripe down the back like that was in a D-09 at a shop in St. John's.
It could be a new thing for Larrivee to beef up the seam of the back woods.
Quote from: wswl on September 04, 2010, 04:53:03 AM
I know nothing about guitar construction :blush: so I am curious about when will Larrivee use this way of construction?
Thank you.
I'm not sure I get your point. It looks like they already have on that model. Do you think they forgot to add this strip on all their other models? :wink:
I believe it is there when there is an inlay joining the 2 halves of the back wood.
Sorry to be so flippant. cke is right, of course. My 1975 Larrivée has such a strip and inlay down the back seam. None of my others do. The seemingly seemless backs on other models don't require it. So to answer your question? 40 years ago.
Quote from: ducktrapper on September 05, 2010, 09:43:33 AM
Sorry to be so flippant. cke is right, of course. My 1975 Larrivée has such a strip and inlay down the back seam. None of my others do. The seemingly seemless backs on other models don't require it. So to answer your question? 40 years ago.
Seems to me the guitar in the above link from LAguitars has the strip, but no inlay down the back seam.
I just looked at a photo of my P-09 (sold) and it didn't have the center strip. My P-09 was built July 2009.
Jimmy
Quote from: Walkerman on September 05, 2010, 10:06:19 AM
Seems to me the guitar in the above link from LAguitars has the strip, but no inlay down the back seam.
Exception that proves the rule? Inlay patch like black electronics patch? Knuckleheads?
Quote from: Walkerman on September 05, 2010, 10:06:19 AM
Seems to me the guitar in the above link from LAguitars has the strip, but no inlay down the back seam.
True, you speak truth. No back strip apparent.
So I don't know why. Maybe Madi is so stiff it needs the reinforcement at the seam?
Or it's luthier's choice?
Usually that is done when there's an inlay in the center, a herringbone or w/b/w or something like that. I have seen it without an inlay before though, my Martin 000-15s had one with no inlay. I guess sometimes the maker feels it's necessary to stabilize the back on specific pieces of wood.
My FIV has it and my FIII doesn't...curious...
I just checked and none of my Larrivees have this strip. They range in "birth" date from 2008 to 2010.
My 1983 L07 has the strip inside. My 1985 L model 12 string doesn't have it. Yet they are almost identical in every way (rosewood, no centre inlay on the back, and same body dimensions).
Kurt
I doubt if the stripe is used when there is an inlay down the back.
First of all the 05 series does not have inlay down the back. Second, my friend has a 2007 40th anniversary L-09. It has an inlay down the back but it doesn't have that stripe.
Quote from: bluesman67 on September 05, 2010, 12:44:02 PM
I guess sometimes the maker feels it's necessary to stabilize the back on specific pieces of wood.
Bluesman67's guess is my guess as well.
Anyway, I bought the LV-05E and a P-05 with Italian Spruce top!!! They're sooooooo nice!!! :guitar
None of my Larrivees have had that back strip. I've also noticed that none of mine have had similar strips on the interior of the sides either. I believe that most all Martins have these backstrips, and most the side strips too. Maybe the Larrivee bracing design does not require these? Haven't had a problem with any of mine, but itseems to make sense that it might hold off a seam sep better than without it.
I read in one of my guitar books that Gibson started this way back. And then other builders saw the benefits and began to do it.
My F-IV has it while the III does not. I have always marveled at the way Larrivee joins those halves together. My F-III looks like a one piece back because it is matched so well.
Quote from: dependan on September 07, 2010, 02:22:54 PM
I read in one of my guitar books that Gibson started this way back. And then other builders saw the benefits and began to do it.
My F-IV has it while the III does not. I have always marveled at the way Larrivee joins those halves together. My F-III looks like a one piece back because it is matched so well.
I know exactly what you mean. My F-I hogtop's soundboard looks like a 1 piece and you need to study it for 5 minutes just to see that it really isn't...even then...you can't be certain...except to know for fact that it is bookmatched.
Quote from: bluesman67 on September 07, 2010, 03:53:51 PM
I know exactly what you mean. My F-I hogtop's soundboard looks like a 1 piece and you need to study it for 5 minutes just to see that it really isn't...even then...you can't be certain...except to know for fact that it is bookmatched.
Exactly. Even though I knew better or, at least, knew intellectually that my D-05 had a two piece back (no strip), I was almost convinced it was a one piece.
Quote from: dependan on September 07, 2010, 02:22:54 PM
I read in one of my guitar books that Gibson started this way back. And then other builders saw the benefits and began to do it.
:laughin: oh My!
Well actually, it is a joint reinforcement called a back graft and and I'm 99.99999999% sure it was in use way before Orville was born!
(and no, I won't even bet a doughnut on this, I only bet when I'm 100% sure, which is why I don't play poker, but that is yet another story! [ramblingmode=off]) :roll
You will find that the majority of classical guitars have one, it is one of the "traditional" (ahem! I won"t attempt defining that word :whistling:) way of building classical guitars. I guess it's presence is linked to the amount of stress put on the back (such as the amount of curvature), the nature of the wood used and how thick (or thin) the back plates are... Not using it (an even more daring guess) would mean lighter weight, production time cut down a good bit, and maybe a "limber" back. Maybe an accomplished luthier like Jim could tell us more about it???
Good ol' edith says qt 10:16 :
Betcha a donut! here's an example of a 1770's guitar with a back graft. Maybe stems from a tradition / necessity in the violin/cello making community?
(http://mediatheque.cite-musique.fr/simclient/consultation/binaries/image.asp?INSTANCE=MULTIMEDIA&eidmpa=CMIM000022648&HEIGHT=300&WIDTH=300)
ok
Jean's first guitars had the internal back strip as mentioned. I believe he used it somewhere through to about 1983-84. If I remember correctly it stopped when we moved to North Vancouver. At the time the strip did serve to reinforce the back because we had a decorative strip of purfling down the center seem. When that purfling strip was removed from the design, the mahogany re-enforcement was no longer necessary.
Fast forward to 2007 when we made the JCL re-issue guitars... We put the re-enforcement strip on these guitars because we added the purfling strip again. We looked at it and realized we liked the look of it inside the instrument and so we decided to put the strip on all of the glossy guitars in the California shop. The Canadian shop also puts the strips on -05 series and up guitars but does not put them on -03's because of the added cost involved. We do sometimes add the strips to special run -03's that we make in California.
The strip is mostly decorative – It does help somewhat on extremely oily woods, but really the center seam join we do is so strong that it is un-necessary.
Thanks Matthew
Matt not to make trouble but if it serve's no real purpose why do it.I understand that certain woods need it or if your recreating something from the past but if you don't need it?
Oh and thanks for straighting us out. :thumb
:blush: Errr, I didn't mean to step on anyone's toes, if that's how you felt reading my post, dependan...
The irony wasn't in any way pointed at the reader, but the author of the book, who obviously must have taken some loud mouth's story for granted and didn't bother to check it out, or have it proofread by anyone knowledgeable enough to pick it up. (Or totally mistook the guy's meaning)
And what gets to me is that we wind up with all kind of crazy stories about who did what and this influencing the sound of that which makes it even more difficult getting REAL, accurate and useful information.
A perfect example is the infamous Stradivarius "secret varnish ingredient/method" that got people going on and on for centuries. Thank god science finally put a lid on that one. The guy was a genius builder who mastered his trade and made exceptionnally good violins. And today, (like yesterday and the age before) some builders make some instruments that sound just as good, if not better than some of the stradivarii, but they don't match his regularity in quality production apparently, and certainly did not have a communication/financial frenzy launched on their brand.
On the net, I tend to be very cautious about info I get, and funnily (or rather stupidly) enough, not so much with books, I guess because there is (or should be) a process of editing going on. If it weren't for a guitar-making training I'm undergoing, I wouldn't have doubted what that author claimed myself!
Hence the irony... so again, let me apologize if you took it wrongly,
kindly, olchip
:+1: Very interesting Matt, thanks! Two questions, if I may:
-do you only use mahogany for your strips, or do you also go for spruce?
And if the strips are no longer needed to keep the plates together, they still rigidify the back, but to no noticeable difference on sound, correct?
How nice to hear from one of the chief "knuckleheads". And about those 03 baritones? Seriously, Matthew, I can't wait til Christmas! Too bad my darn car just cost me the price of one, now. :thumbsup
Quote from: unclrob on September 09, 2010, 12:09:17 PM
Matt not to make trouble but if it serve's no real purpose why do it.I understand that certain woods need it or if your recreating something from the past but if you don't need it?
Oh and thanks for straighting us out. :thumb
It's just a design thing. Abalone isnt nessesary, but we use it because it looks nice. The volute serves no purpose any more, but people still like it
Quote from: olchip on September 09, 2010, 12:41:42 PM
:+1: Very interesting Matt, thanks! Two questions, if I may:
-do you only use mahogany for your strips, or do you also go for spruce?
And if the strips are no longer needed to keep the plates together, they still rigidify the back, but to no noticeable difference on sound, correct?
Mahogany only, and no noticable difference on tone. Has about the same impact as going from maple to rosewood purflings
Thanks Matt. :donut :coffee :donut :donut :wave
Quote from: olchip on September 09, 2010, 11:14:27 AM
:laughin: oh My!
Well actually, it is a joint reinforcement called a back graft
Another common name is center joint reinforcement strip.
Quote from: olchip on September 09, 2010, 12:41:42 PM
And if the strips are no longer needed to keep the plates together, they still rigidify the back, but to no noticeable difference on sound, correct?
These strips almost always have the grain running perpendicular to the back seam/grain... like all grafts do because it's much easier for the wood to split along the grain. However, this means that along the length of the strip it is very flexible so it doesn't add much stiffness.
yup, agreed... Thanks for pointing that out, because thinking back on it, I realize I was actually wondering about the amount of extra stress to the back joint induced by the curvature to the back. Sorry, I'm having difficulties phrasing this.. lol
Er, if the back is bowed both lengthwise and bout wise, it should add stress to the joint, hence the idea of a back graft. Apparently, that extra load isn't of actual concern for the guitar maker (in this thread we've got examples of guitars w/o the graft that are 20 years+ old and are doing fine and passed the test of time).
Is it because the glues we use today are more efficient than before, or just an "overpreventive" measure implemented by classical luthiers? (which I completely understand considering the width of the plates and gluing surface involved, it's rather scary to leave it as is.... :laughin:)
:thumbsup Matthew for your answers, it's a privilege to get your point of view on this... :donut :donut2 :coffee
The arch in the back doesn't add any stress that we have to be concerned about. It's a gentle arch and it dispersed over the whole back.
And modern glues don't hold any better than HHG. The CJR strip is just preventive in case the glue doesn't adhere as well as planned... like a bad batch of glue, oily wood, or a purfling strip that doesn't hold as well.
:+1: thanks for the answer! Another choice to be included in my next guitar!!! :crying: :laughin:
Thanks Matthew!!! So nice to have you telling us the answer :bgrin:
I prefer not to add that stripe, as I want to see a flat and beautiful lable, just like the one on my D-50E.