View Full Version : Guild Of American Luthier
Scotti Adams
Mar-12-2004, 6:36pm
# # # # # # # #http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3710077896&category=10179 the real Deal?
Dru Lee Parsec
Mar-12-2004, 6:53pm
Yeah, I have their plan set and that one looks right. Mine certainly have the 2 pages with all the photos on the 2nd page. The bold font on the 1st page looks right as well. So yeah, I think that looks like the one I got from GAL.
Spruce
Mar-13-2004, 4:41pm
The first set of GAL plans were quite flawed....
I think the 15th fret cross-piece was even at the 14th fret in the first set of plans, or at least that's what I remember....
Recently, however, the plans were re-vamped and are apparently pretty accurate...
I have a set of the new plans here, but haven't had a chance to really check them out for accuracy...
Will soon, however...
Scotti, the plans shown there are the "old" flawed version of GAL plans with the 14th fret at the crosspiece. From what I've seen, the new version has just the neck position corrected. There are still some other flaws (like the position of terble tone-bar) in the new plans you can find a preview at GAL's webpage.
Dru Lee Parsec
Mar-17-2004, 2:51pm
How new are the "New" plans? I got mine less than 6 months ago.
Michael Lewis
Mar-18-2004, 2:05am
Dru, check the position of the 15th fret and you will know. The Ted Davis plan is the one offered by GAL, is an incomplete plan, the Don McRostie plan (offered by Stew/Mac, LMI.)is much more complete. I can't comment on the new Siminoff plan as I haven't seen it yet, but it is supposed to be good.
Dru Lee Parsec
Mar-18-2004, 11:56am
Thanks Mike. I have all 3 plans (GAL, StewMac, Siminoff) Looks like I should probably use the McRostie plan and put the other in the drawer.
Spruce
Mar-18-2004, 12:12pm
"I have all 3 plans (GAL, StewMac, Siminoff) Looks like I should probably use the McRostie plan and put the other in the drawer. "
I have high hopes that the new Siminoff plans (due out any second now) will be the cheese for replicating a Loar-era F5...
Dru Lee Parsec
Mar-19-2004, 12:05pm
I have high hopes that the new Siminoff plans (due out any second now) will be the cheese for replicating a Loar-era F5...
Although from the photo of the cover of the book I see that he's still using that weird body mold of his with the internal bracing system. #I made one from the plans in the first book and then heard (and saw) that the shape was off. So then I made another of his style but with the correct shape. #It's so awkward to use that internal brace to hold the sides in place. #The brace kept falling out. #The sides ended up twisting as the glue was drying but I noticed it before I glued the "long" side.
So now I just went with a standard external form that's 1 3/8" thick (no side twist there) that looks kind of like this:
http://www.buddyscustoms.com/dudenbostel/dude12.jpg
I'm using a photo of Dude's because I don't have a photo of mine yet. It's essentially the same but mine's made out of ultralight MDF.
J. Wiens
Mar-20-2004, 3:52am
I wouldn't put the GAL Davis plan away. It does have some major flaws , but the body shape and arching , and also the scroll shape (on sheet 2) more closely resemble the Loar F-5s than does the Macrostie plan....Jamie
Michael Lewis
Mar-21-2004, 12:43am
Good point Jamie. All of these plans have short comings, it's just that the McRostie plan has more details shown than the others. If you spend enough time with good examples of these instruments, and enough time with the sets of plans you will have a pretty good reserve to draw from for reference. That way you will have a good idea of what you will need to do when the plans don't show enough for a particular detail. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/coffee.gif http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
crawdad
Mar-21-2004, 2:01am
I started with the mold described in the original Siminoff book. Took me three tries to get a rim that was not bent and warped, but that may have been my own fault. I don't like that internal spreader. I like to use clamps and get each section tight into the mold. Check often as you are clamping and gluing up to keep things straight and parallel. 1 and 3/8ths is a good idea too. My first mold was thinner and not as reliable.
When you make the mold, get it as exact as possible. Sand any imperfections out, so that all the curves are smooth and get the shape you want from the mold. You can't change it afterwards. Have templates for the top and back that match each other and match the mold. Voice of experience talking here. Cut your top and back with a little extra overhang and trim it later.
I would also stress that you not make your rim until the top and back have been carved. If it sits around too long, it will have a tendency to compress and lose its shape. My first one sat for about two months before I was ready to glue the top and back and it was a nightmare. Had I waited, I would not have had that problem. These are some of the things I am observing as I work on #2.
The F5 curves are not completely symmetrical, at least acording to the Siminoff plans in book 1, but getting them right is important to the overall look of the instrument. If things shift, especially with the rim, its a problem. I don't know how the three plans compare, but I'd choose the shape that looks the most pleasing to you and go with that.
Just to stir things up.
The new Siminoff plans (http://www.siminoff.net/Media/roger_dwg_collage.JPG) are not perfect, too. Watch the position of the f-holes. Note the position of the treble one vs. the tailpiece point of the body. Also the position of the tuner shafts is not a position of the normal reverse geared machines.
And the neck angle seems rather extreme on this view (http://www.siminoff.net/Media/roger_dwg_ftbd.JPG).
The GAL Plan (http://www.luth.org/plans/pl26.jpg) is known to have longer corners of the body. Also the treble tone-bar is in wrong position and the two views of the dovetail joint area are different from the heel view. And the peghead angle is different in the two neck side views... The neck angle looks more like 3 degrees then standard 5 degrees. It is visible even in the small sized preview. And the tuner button holes are in the wrong place on the back of the peghead.(see the link)
The Stew-Mac plan's (http://www.stewmac.com/catalog/images_1lg/0859_1lg.jpg) body shape and scroll doesn't look like a Loar, at all. The neck length is off, the centerline doesn't go through the center of the body etc... #
There are more errors in all the plans that I have or others have found. Just look at all the pics at the mandolin archive and you'll see what a Loar looks like.
I found that drawing my own was easier way to get good-enough (for me at least) Loar plans than correcting others' mistakes in the existing plans.