Flat top tail piece

[DarwinStrings]

I have been playing quite a lot on a old tail piece flat top lately, some of you will remember the "Concertone" parlour that I put a sound clip of in the Gallery(L & N don't stop here). I quite like this thing even though volume or tone is not great if you play it right it can sound pretty pleasant.

I have noticed that this type of guitar nowadays seems to be the rocking horse manure of guitar styles being made today, there is a few out there but not many.

I am interested in any opinions, guesses or facts as to why this style of guitar is not made much or why people might not choose to play this style of guitar?

Jim

Life is good when you are amongst the wood.

[P Bill]

I don't know a thing about that style but I am curious about the bracing. Like an X archtop or something else?

[DarwinStrings]

G'day Bill, nothing exciting happening on the inside of the one I am playing(nice lazy build there). This guitar is as light as a feather so I reckon there is plenty of room for improvement.

Jim

[Taffy Evans]

Hi Jim, I have also been playing a small guitar like you describe, and I love it also. The tone is dry, loud for the size of the guitar, and to me is reminiscent of the old Delta blues tone. Last year I remember mentioning to Alan [ozziebluesman], that I planned a parlor guitar with a tailpiece. Well this year soon after Christmas I got started on two parlors, one with a tailpiece, I got the sides bent the top and back cut out and then got two commission builds, bugger .So now I'll have to fit the parlors in at a later date.

[DarwinStrings]

G'day Taffy, same here, no problem dragging out some of those old blues sounds from this one I am playing either. As a side question, what type of bracing have you got planned for the tail piece parlour?

Jim

[Dennis Leahy]

Hi Jim,

I'm a wannabee luthier, so will only offer ideas you may want to explore, but not the experience to back it up.

A flattop guitar with a tailpiece is a combination of two styles of guitar that sorta flies in the face of engineering theory.

A regular steelstring flattop has a strong break angle over the saddle which (I believe) givers the characteristic 'bite ' and 'punch' of a steelstring flattop. Bracing must resist both the pull of the strings and the twist of the bridge.

An archtop guitar has a much more gentle break angle over the saddle, for a much softer sound with less 'bite' or punch. The bracing does not have to resist pull or twist on the bridge, but the downward pressure of the strings under tension - so the bracing (usually 2 longitudinal braces), plus the top's arch, are designed to handle the downward pressure.

The Selmer/Maccafereri guitars seem to use the bent soundboard to increase the break angle over the saddle. (Someone correct me if that is wrong.)

Just putting a tailpiece on a flattop guitar without changing the bracing means you're not engineering for the downward force, and the X-brace (primarily to prevent twist) is overkill. Ladder bracing makes more sense to me than an X in this case. If the flattop steelstring with tailpiece is to be played amplified, or with a slide, it might have a cool sound of its own that you might love. (I have lost the notion that there is a "perfect" guitar, and now believe there are lots of perfect guitars that you just need to figure out what is the perfect music to play on 'em.)

The one I'm building now is a flattop steelstring with a tailpiece - but the difference is the bridge and bracing. Imagine creating a "pinless" bridge, but the strings then continue out the back of the bridge to the tailpiece. That will give the same break angle over the saddle as a regular flattop, the same twist of the bridge, but no pull on the bridge. The bracing still has to address the issue of the bridge trying to twist, but you should be able to brace the rest of the top more lightly.

If you want to go crazy, the higher up off the top that the strings exit at the back of the bridge (up to the equilibrium point of the strings coming into the saddle from the neck end) the less torque/twist on the bridge.

Have fun with the project, and please post results (or maybe even an entire build thread!)

Dennis

[kiwigeo]

I don't know a thing about that style but I am curious about the bracing. Like an X archtop or something else?

Bracing appears to lean more towards classical bracing..minus the lower bout fan braces.

[DarwinStrings]

G'day Dennis, long time no see. I know that bridge set up you are talking about as Batson Guitars use it and have considered it but doubt I will go there as I like the look of the more old school style bridge and the sound of my old $5.45 parlour. Batson uses all sorts of different bracing systems for his tail piece jobs including composite lattices and I have had a bit of a look at them. Would be happy to see what you are up to though. I guess as a answer to my question from your answer that you maybe thinking that that missing "bite" maybe why this style is rocking horse manure.

Yep Martin that old thing is a bit like that but I guess the description would still be Ladder braced. You might call that main brace, for want of a more Aussie word a "Popsicle" brace.

Jim

[DarwinStrings]

I had another look a the Batson site and have to correct myself Dennis, the lattices he looks to be using are not composite but just spruce.

Jim

[charangohabsburg]

I don't know a thing about that style but I am curious about the bracing. Like an X archtop or something else?

According to the book Stauffer & Co. - The Viennese Guitar of the 19th Century , E.P. Hofmann, P. Moughin, S. Hackl, 2011, this bracing pattern is typical for the Stauffer guitars from 1815 onwards.

To my understanding, this bracing pattern (and some variations) was then used for virtually for every viennese (or wannabe-viennese) guitar of the 19th century, or at least all the nowadays still known viennese builders used it, and even the early C.F Martin who at some point worked in the Stauffer shop (no records left he would have apprenticed there though) was no exception.

Although, I have to say that the viennese luthiers normally used a pin bridge (Stauffer and others used it without bridge patch), and the lowest transverse brace was a normal brace, not a flat brace as the one in the picture above.

[Nick]

An archtop guitar has a much more gentle break angle over the saddle, for a much softer sound with less 'bite' or punch. The bracing does not have to resist pull or twist on the bridge, but the downward pressure of the strings under tension - so the bracing (usually 2 longitudinal braces), plus the top's arch, are designed to handle the downward pressure.

The Selmer/Maccafereri guitars seem to use the bent soundboard to increase the break angle over the saddle. (Someone correct me if that is wrong.)

An Archtop typically has a greater neck angle Dennis (4 degrees) thereby giving more string height at the bridge, a typical bridge height is 3/4". Theoretically if you've worked everything right then break angle over the bridge should be 14 degrees similar to what most headstocks are pitched at.
Again, on my Selmers I pitch the neck back more than specified (I think 1.5- 2 degrees is the standard called for) to give me a slightly higher bridge thereby increasing downforce at this point and 'enhancing' the bridge to soundboard coupling to my way of thinking. The pliage (bend in the soundboard) was a throwback to what Maccaferri learnt as an apprentice with an Italian Mandolin maker and he just carried what he knew over into his guitars, I think was put in there to A) Mimic the benefits of a carved mando shaped top (I'm not sure which style came first ) but without needing thicker, more expensive material & B) to add strength to a thin (2mm) top. I also 'overbend' the pliage slightly to preload the top under string tension & make it top more responsive to string vibration.

Just putting a tailpiece on a flattop guitar without changing the bracing means you're not engineering for the downward force, and the X-brace (primarily to prevent twist) is overkill. Ladder bracing makes more sense to me than an X in this case.

I'm with you there, an X brace on a floating bridge would absolutely kill it


To give some thoughts to your question Jim, I think the tailpiece/ floating bridge style guitar isn't as popular to the fixed bridge because it doesn't generate that full, more rounded sound that people like these days, although a properly made Petite Bouche will have more projection & cut (due to their more mid/high tones)through backing instruments than it's fixed bridge cousin, sometimes more bass can be lost in the crowd. People do tend to pigeonhole instruments into music styles, hollow and semi hollows into Jazz, tele's and strats into rock/country, Les Pauls into rock and Tailpiece into gypsy jazz/early blues. No reason too of course because several "non traditional" guitars have done the crossover thing (Mike Stern for starters).
Also because the bridge is a floater, I'm guessing it can be more intimidating to players from a restringing perspective and thereby more of a perceived hassle, they're used to (and maybe taught that way too) replacing all the strings at once instead of one at a time.
Just my thoughts anyway.

[Mike Thomas]

Here's an original Selmer petite bouche sold recently by Michael Horowitz at Django Books. The video is worth watching.

http://shoppingcart.djangobooks.com/Item/selmer-872

It confirms much of what Nick said.

[Dennis Leahy]

Thanks, Nick for the clarifications!

I also realize I said "ladder" bracing in my post and meant "parallel" bracing (with the two longitudinal braces doing the work.) Even if I'm wrong, that's what I meant to type.

Mike, thanks for that link that gave the look at that 1950s Selmer-Maccaferri beauty and the video shows the "little mouth" can speak.

Dennis

[ozziebluesman]

Enjoying the discussion in this thread as I would like to build a parlour guitar with a tailpiece to use for slide playing. I do love that dry tone that seems to be achievable with ladder braced guitar. Waiting for my friend Taffy to giv e us his thoughts. I have had the opportunity to listen to Taffy's slide guitar and it has the mojo alright!

Cheers

Alan

[DarwinStrings]

Cheers all for the input so far

Again, on my Selmers I pitch the neck back more than specified (I think 1.5- 2 degrees is the standard called for) to give me a slightly higher bridge thereby increasing downforce at this point and 'enhancing' the bridge to soundboard coupling to my way of thinking.

Thanks Nick I was thinking more along the lines of trying to get that "downforce" or weight I guess to a minimum, where the strings just manage to stay on the saddle.

Also because the bridge is a floater, I'm guessing it can be more intimidating to players from a restringing perspective and thereby more of a perceived hassle, they're used to (and maybe taught that way too) replacing all the strings at once instead of one at a time.
Just my thoughts anyway.

I had not thought of that and I certainly would not have wanted to try to tackle re-setting intonation with a loose bridge when I first started playing.

Jim

[Nick]

Thanks Nick I was thinking more along the lines of trying to get that "downforce" or weight I guess to a minimum, where the strings just manage to stay on the saddle.

Jim

Just wonder how the sound will work out and this is just my thinking and observations, nothing else!, I'll be interested to hear how your build goes and the results you get. To me a little 'preloading' makes the top more responsive and give a good volume ( less string energy required to get the top moving), I liken it to a ballon . If you have a semi blown up ballon and rub a finger over it to get the surface vibrating you may get a dull sort of rumble(takes more energy to get it moving), blow it up fully and it doesn't take as much pressure with your finger to get the surface making a sound which is a little more higher pitched and louder. Bracing these tops looks simple, a few braces running across the top but it's a real balancing act, Selmers are easier because of the three dimensional shape of the tops acts as a brace in itself.
Just how my weird thought processes work Jim, there's no scientific evidence or numbers to back up my theory's just an old pair of ears.

[DarwinStrings]

I appreciate your "weird thought processes" and find them valuable Nick, you have me thinking and I reckon I will try to set up some sort of mock up to have a look with my ears at the break angle thing. Balancing act it will be I am sure, the thought of building something and then having the top collapse ain't a pretty thought but I also don't want to build a banjo(this time). The few Mandolins I have made were flat top jobs with quite a large break angle and they have not collapsed years later but certainly could be over built viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1187&p=15320&hilit=mandolin#p15320

I have recently read the volumes from the Shed, you know, those ones with all the squiggly things in between the writing (Thanks Trevor they arrived safe, sound and fast) and even thought they do not look at this sort of set up I am sure they will have a huge influence on what I build from now on.

Jim

[DarwinStrings]

I measured the angle of the strings over the saddle on the Mandolin and get 167 degrees and then the old parlour and that is 175 degrees, almost straight. What sort of angle do you have on your Maccaferri styled instruments Nick?

Jim