Ok, first off, to be honest I'm a total Olson-a-holic; I have old Olson tools, jigs, fixtures and Brazilian Rosewood. But, I also know that everything I'm trying to do in my own building is the result of my influences. See my site and the FBJ #4 article. So my back braces are the 3 cores of Jim’s neck, but in brace form.
My thinking is this. Laminates are stiffer as a result of the glue. The spruce braces on their own are great but are thumpy, (drop a carved brace on a metal surface/tablesaw/bandsaw table, and it clinks but doesn't chime.) I drop my laminate braces on the metal surface and it pings. I have no idea if it makes a difference, but I know for sure it's not a detractent. Plus I can make my braces thinner, removing weight from the reflecting/vibrating back, and also get a better sound transfer because the brace is that much stiffer.
I have no idea if I'm right but it's what I see happening in my head when I think back to the musical acoustics physics class I took in college, and when I try to justify it to myself.
But first and foremost it's a tribute to my hero. It takes 3 seconds of work and it looks cool, and no-one else does it. In I'm in a market where I'm already making an Olson Sj, like everyone else is so what can I do different. My choice is to say thanks with every guitar I make, thus the 3 piece. It's Adirondack, Indian Rosewood, and Adirondack.
The Marriage strip is the result of trying to make the strip match the braces. So I sandwich glue the whole thing with super glue and sand it with the thickness sander and I get a fancy looking marriage strip for 5 minutes of work.
Dennis: Get your subscription in soon. My next article on Brazilian Rosewood comes out in the next #11 Fall 2008 Edition. It includes Jeff Traugott, Paul Smith and Joe Knaggs from PRS, and Dick Boak from Martin Guitars. Should be cool. (Plug, Plug)
As to my bevel, thanks Dennis, my thinking (in my quest to be different, but worthy of change) is the current bevel designs all take away from the bass side of the top. The Laskin bevel get's routed in and Kevin Ryan’s' does too, but flows from point to point.
My thinking is that Bass Vibrations need a long and flexible surface area to sound at it's most efficient. So the more surface space the more potential you have for longer (lower) wave travel/tones. By cutting into the top (the normal Laskin/Ryan methods) you take away from the surface area of the bass side. To my thinking, stiffening up the bass side of the guitar, making it brighter which could be a + or - depending on what you like. Now Kevin compensates for bass loss by building a bigger shape (air/sound chamber) and builds a deeper guitar, and changes the bracing a little to correct the change. Crazy smart, right?
I thought, "why change the top when all you have to do is extend the back." The bevel is hidden to the player anyway. Meaning that when it's done right you don't even feel it, it feels like natural playing posture. At least it should to those who played guitar for 6-8 hours a day in college like I did. I play Olson shaped guitars, fairly well I think, and loosing that 5/8" weirded me out. Like going from a guitar with a 1 5/8" nut to a 1 3/4" nut. So my answer is rather than change my posture, I'll build out the back and change the guitar.
So my design is an Olson Sj with the bass side built out. Yes I'm building my sound chamber bigger on the bass side, which is the flaw in my idea, so I have to tighten up my top just a bit on the bass side to compensate. And no, I have no idea how to that correctly. But what I am doing is super subtle. I'm just moving a brace slightly closer to another brace to tighten the surface area hoping that it makes the correction I need.
To be honest I scared myself to death thinking that I had to do it "as good as"/and "just like" the old guys. But what I've finally realized is that to me and my building it doesn't matter. And my building is sooooooo much better for it, in my opinion anyway.
Hope that helps in understanding/justifying some of my choices.
I'm off to take more photo's.
