Stephen Faulk

Just how long are the spikes on your Manolos?

Are you for hire?

I agree, but the boot through the top makes more money. I even contemplated paying girlfriends of guitarists to throw tantrums and wreck house.

It's important to learn the exact year if possible because we have records of who worked in the Ramirez shop in different eras. It's a moot point now as the top was sanded and a lower tier guitar could have been bought from a factory in Valencia- In the case of a guitar they took more time with the date is very important because each of the workers in the Ramirez shop had a stamp which they stamped on the root of the neck inside the guitar, The year and stamp is information valuable to historians and collectors. And I don't know anyone who wants a blob of glue on a label. One reason it's important is because many of the important makers got a start by working at Ramirez, and then opened up shops of their own later. Some collectors like to know which of the modern masters made their Ramirez before going out on their own. Or it could be a guitar that Jose II or Jose III made them selves. Then that tells a lot about what they were thinking in terms of where the Ramirez design went through the years. So date vitally important to study. The decade in the 1940's. That is significant in itself That means in Spain there were shortages of materials and explains why the frets are copper and not nickel silver, and also why the fret board is wenge and not ebony or high quality rosewood. And the quality of the tuners is low, all indicative of a post civil war guitar and significant that some of these attributes are still intact. It's not really a valuable guitar market wise, but it's a nice document which supports the trade practice right after the civil war in the Years of Hunger Anos de Hambre in Spain. So getting that date at least to a decade - 194_ and not 195_ was pretty significant. There is a lot to be learned even from these lower tier models and having a date helps to compare it with other guitars from the same era.

The authorship of a guitar is determined by who made the top, even a studio model from the Ramirez shop should be respected and kept intact. For me getting the top off is not difficult, just a couple hours of coaxing. You take the fingerboard off first and then remove the binding and slip a hot knife in the seams between top and glue blocks. It's certainly hide glue, they only used hide glue in that time. Changing a top is not a way yo want t go on vintage guitars. I've retopped modern factory guitars, quite a lucrative repair and not unknown. Usually called for when a guitarist gets in a fight with his girlfriend or wife and she puts her boot through the top. I've done two of those in my career. It's not bad money, and if it's a factory brand I don't particularly like it makes the guitar much better. But those are glorious tales. A repairman friend of mine fixed a Ramirez 1A from the 1970's after the players wife threw it down a staircase, the top was ripped in half. He just carefully glued it all back together and it sounded fine as ever. So with a high end guitar you'll almost never replace the top, unless you are a first builder and someone brings it back to you. Otherwise most makers will replace a factory guitar top, but not have the hubris to overwork a hand made guitar. Stories.

So for you violin makers the part I'm dreading is taking the top off the glue blocks around the rim. The sanding goes all the way to the edges and reduced the height of the binding, so the binding looks too low. The structural problem is that if I do an interior graft, without taking it all the way to the edges of the top there is a band of thinned wood around the rim and that creates a stress point if the main area of the belly on the inside has a nice thin over all patch. Where the patch ends would butt up against the glue blocks, then that transition becomes weak. A violin top literally pops off, by comparison, so you can do the job of grafting new edges all around, but a guitar is mainly meant to be worked on by pulling the back, then you fuss around and then put the back on again. Done. Here's the problem with a sanded top, the edge thickness is compromised so reinforcing the center of the top towards the edges puts stress on that artificially thinned area around the glue blocks. In this case the binding is lousy and almost not worth saving so I have to make a call to ruin the authenticity of the binding in order to remove the top, or saw through the binding and then knife the top off the glue bocks and keep all that mess consolidated while putting a belly patch in. The guitar is not worth it. So there's the problem. If I call to eat the binding I can make this guitar last a hundred years longer until it needs work, but it will not be original in binding and purfling or the belly patch. The sanded top will be saved, but at the price of losing the other parts. That's why a sanded top is so very F-ed up. Had the top been left full thickness this would not be a trade of compromises.

This job is just such a shit sandwich...uuggh. Anyway, I used a scalpel to remove the upper half of the glue drop to see if the ink had bonded with it. yep. I saved the 4 and the right hand side is still undetermined. It's anyones guess, it is a 3, and 8 or who knows, I'm just glad we have a solid decade. Now onto the removal of all those stupid cleats. I might rebuild the back first, it's not as shredded. I'll probably restore it and then put it in a box in a drawer to keep safe until it goes back on. I couple things were mentioned -Re: guitarmakers, my teacher Eugene Clark passed away last year. He was fairly well known in the Spanish guitar fixing world for his museum quality restorations of flamenco guitars. He had good hands. This particular instrument is not a national treasure, and it was horribly abused, probably left in a hot garage for twenty summers, it's in terrible condition. In addition to all the cracks and bad repair work, the ribs have a horrendous binding -purfling repair that needs to be pulled out, someone sanded the top to refinish it. I can see vestigial marks and scrapes under the current finish that were sanded out, but still were so deep they could not remove all evidence. I estimate the top lost a half mm of wood, maybe more- that's like the Grand Canyon for one of these old tops that were thinned to 2.5 or less originally. So I'm not a good mood about that. Had I been able to inspect this guitar before my collector client bought it I would have backed him off this one. But it's a done deal and I have to get it playing. Because the top lost so much wood on the exterior and given that it's not signed it is really not valuable to other collectors, sanding the top is the worst thing you can do to any guitar, yet idiots do it all the time. In the bigger picture of the restoration, I may resort to grafting a half mm of wood to the inside of the belly. In that case the grain of the patch would be shifted to overlap the top grain at a slight angle to keep stress cracking from happening, or we may just call it a day and fix it cosmetically. But under my fingers I can tell the top has been compromised, it's way too mushy across the grain to be right. If the top had not been sanded I would be a lot more excited because I could restore it to its gloria, as it is I;ll at best be making a guess as to how thick the top was and altering it significantly just to bolster the structure enough to play it. In the end it will be my conception of what this instrument was and that not only makes me unhappy for the collector, but probably reduces the collector value for everyone else. I;t not important who I am, but in order for it to sing I have to intrude on the structure to fix another persons first intrusion. I wish I was putting it back together hear its original voice, but that was lost when they skinned the poor thing. This job is just such a shit sandwich...uuggh. Anyway, I used scalpel and removed the to half of the glue drop to see if the ink had bonded with it. yep. I saved the 4 and the right hand side is still undetermined. It's anyones guess, it is a 3, and 8 or who knows, I'm just glad we have a solid decade. Now onto the removal of all those stupid cleats. I might rebuild the back first, it's not as shredded. I'll probably restore it an then put it in a box in a drawer to keep safe until it goes back on. I couple things were mentioned -Re: guitarmakers, my teacher Eugene Clark passed away last year. He was fairly well known in the Spanish guitar fixing world for his museum quality restorations of flamenco guitars. He had good hands. This particular instrument is not a national treasure, and it was horribly abused, probably left in a hot garage for twenty summers, it's in terrible condition. In addition to all the cracks and bad repair work, the ribs have a horrendous binding -purfling repair that needs to be pulled out, someone sanded the top to refinish it. I can see vestigial marks and scrapes under the current finish that were sanded out, but still were so deep they could not remove all evidence. I estimate the top lost a half mm of wood, maybe more- that's like the Grand Canyon for one of these old tops that were thinned to 2.5 or less originally. So I'm not a good mood about that. Had I been able to inspect this guitar before my collector client bought it I would have backed him off this one. But it's a done deal and I have to get it playing. Because the top lost so much wood on the exterior and given that it's not signed it is really not valuable to other collectors, sanding the top is the worst thing you can do to any guitar, yet idiots do it all the time. In the bigger picture of the restoration, I may resort to grafting a half mm of wood to the inside of the belly. In that case the grain of the patch would be shifted to overlap the top grain at a slight angle to keep stress cracking from happening, or we may just call it a day and fix it cosmetically. But under my fingers I can tell the top has been compromised, it's way too mushy across the grain to be right. If the top had not been sanded I would be a lot more excited because I could restore it to its gloria, as it is I;ll at best be making a guess as to how thick the top was and altering it significantly just to bolster the structure enough to play it. In the end it will be my conception of what this instrument was and that not only makes me unhappy for the collector, but probably reduces the collector value for everyone else. I;t not important who I am, but in order for it to sing I have to intrude on the structure to fix another persons first intrusion. I wish I was putting it back together hear its original voice, but that was lost when they skinned the poor thing.

If you're curious here is the rest if the condition the guitar is in. A war of cleats that are done by a pro and some by a total idiot. I'm probably removing them all and possibly the braces too. The main problem besides a lot of cracks, the top was sanded around the bridge on the outside at some point. I estimate a half mm of spruce was sanded off around the bridge and other areas of the top. I have not decided what or how to treat it with yet, but one likely possible direction is an interior belly patch half a mil thick. Or a wide lateral patch from side to side under the bridge. This is all thinking for now, the cracks need to be closed first. That's why I called it a near death resurrection rather than a restoration. It might need structural work to beef it up so it does to fold up on itself under string tension.

What really sucks about this is that the drop of glue landed on the exact spot where the shop foreman wrote in the year date on the label. 5-6mm in any direction and I could read the date. I think it's a 19- 4 and then probably a 5 or 6. So we're working with the idea that it's 1945-46 - If I could get a little dirt off the right hand side of the blob of glue I might be able to make out the ending number. The details of the guitar are correct for a 1940's Ramirez that is a shop model. It's not signed by Jose II who owned the shop at the time, but the guitar has the other attributes of a post Spanish civil war second tier studio model.

I'm working on a guitar, mid 20th century, restoration, or really a save from certain death- The label was hit with a drop of white glue, I think, when some amateur repair work was done probably in the 1960's. Normally I would use a drop of of oxalic acid and water to remove white glue, or try a piece of damp sponge applied topically to a blob of white glue. In this case I think the label is too fragile for saturating it with water, I think the label would be damaged before the glue is solved. There's a picture of the back taken off the instrument and a close up of the label. There's also a repair label from a shop in Lima Peru dated 1961. I suspect the repair work I see on the interior was carried out in several stages and the more professional looking work was done in the Lima shop. Anyway I'll post some pictures of the entire job so youca check it out, but I wanted to ask about the label on MN specifically to see if anyone has an idea I have not thought about yet.

That guy is a freak. My only question is where did he dig the pit that he keeps girls in and tosses down skin cream to? It rubs lotion on itself. That dude is fucking weird.

I have not used Icho, but I have a few pieces that I carved an paned to see how it feels udder plane and chisel and it feels pretty much like 'buttah' . It's also strong and light enough to make a good instrument, I'm going to buy more soon.

Oh, yeah, I drew those for the kids. Maybe. But I like more frog in my cellos.

This is the rib stock, lot;s of ribs for celli and guitar. I also stopped at another lumber yard that has slabs of Cherry and Icho wood. Icho is Ginko, it's pretty much the same as Poplar. A cello back of Icho is about $150.00 - so there's always that. I'm glad to know there are acceptable cello woods in my backyard. Tops and necks are the things to order unless I make a cherry scroll and graft it....

This is the back I saved, it's Hinoki. I'm contemplating whether to join it with more flat grain in the center, more interesting looking, or join with vertical grain in the center. I made it to my Hinoki lumber yard the other day and bought more guitar wood and had them resaw it. Among the boards was one they gave me that is Hinoki with really close grain and the guy said it came from a high altitude. It will make six or eight guitar tops, three violas or one cello. Hmm?

This is great stuff.

700 meters away from my old shop.Time I got a yard, a sea view, and an out building to do the power tool rough work in.

No, there's not.

Hmm, it's to soft for fence posts and too nice for violas.

I've got t go oout today, but I'll show more about Hinoki tomorrow. I have written about it an compared it to Lawson Cypress. I've built 15 guitars with Port Orford/Lawson and six guitars with Hinoki- I agree they tend to favor to lower end frequencies. However in guitar making, more bracing in th e right places raises the envelope on that response. Thanks. I have to go teach a school class, the city council tapped me to teach English part time...but today I get to play the cello with the music teacher at a middle school. That should horrify you, me teaching English. It's rather simple. I have a long cord with a copy of Strunk & White tied to it , and I hurl it at kids.

Either something like Port Orford, or a red cedar. There are numerous mills in my area that have slabs of old cedar and some is stiff and light. I have a back and sides for a cello in Hinoki ready to go, thinking of a red cedar top. Someone mentioned last few weeks they had made a few basses, I also have plenty of hinoki for tops available. Could be one of those instruments like the Testore cello I saw with a really crude soft wood back and a coarse spruce top. Except the Hinoki is very fine grade. Seems odd to have a back a top made of the same wood, but some evidence that Italians did not rule that out.

The rosette has a moth motif. The pegs are set with a bit of silver wire in the end of the peg. I thought this was a nice thing and I'll continue it. It's getting too dicey to send shell through the international mail, I used to inlay ivory of abalone in the peg tips, but not now it it it going overseas. The body is Hinoki and the top is cedar. Surprising, it has not sold yet. Here's sound sample, it's the first guitar. I built all three guitars in this video.

More cowbells! I wanted to get back here sooner, but I moved to a new shop and there was lots of remodeling and trash hauling that kept me from building for 6 - 8 weeks. Still more trash to hall, but waiting for spring. This is the last guitar I finished before moving, I thought bowed instrument makers might like the pegs.

A few days ago I was lurking, ( and smerking), I read about someone who had used cedar for bass tops- I'm temped to use cedar for a cello top. Which of you folks have actually done it? I'm wantin' to pick your brains a bit.

just moved my shop and tossed a bunch of cedar scraps. Too bad I could have mailed them to you. Cedar should made a loud instrument, you can get a lot of volume out of cedar but it's touchy because the point of no return is really easy to reach. Then the instrument gets tinny. If you thin it go easy.