Do you like a nice body?

Tannin

There have been a couple of fairly recent threads about the variety of acoustic guitar body types (which I am too lazy to search for and link to tonight). I noticed this article from Stringjoy the other day https://stringjoy.com/acoustic-guitar-body-shapes

It's quite good, and a reasonable starting place.

(Stringjoy send me a newsletter with stuff like this, which I apparently signed up for at some stage. They make, obviously, guitar strings, and the other week, as part of my quest to try out (almost) every guitar string I can buy on three continents, I bought a set of their phosphor bronze 12s, and a set of their coated 12s. Price was reasonable, delivery prompt and efficient. Haven't tried them out yet though.)

bertie

that article could do with a "silhouette"  shape guide at the top, or beginning of each section

DavidR

Informative link Tannin. Thanks. 

Interesting that they don't define parlour by body size. Just as a progression from Antonio de Torres. So 00 then? Probably modern consensus would say a 'parlour' should be a bit smaller than that now but I agree. IMHO a parlour is just 'not big', comfortable to play and melodic. Sweet. Not one of the developments going for volume and base like dreadnoughts, jumbos or resonators. Acoustics got a bit hooked on the sort of American/Woodstock type tone for quite a while. Loud, woody, bassy. And I agree, very nice. Street players and anyone in an orchestra certainly wanted volume in the past but its not the only aspect of acoustic tone. Just an important one. That should be included in the definition of parlour perhaps.

Also interesting section on archtops. I have always wanted to be able to afford a nice non-electric archtop but I don't think I would play it enough to justify the expense. This article emphasises the different tone which it defines as 'biting and zesty'. I have a nice Ibanez which is fun but the tone unamplified is a bit lacking. The luthier end of archtops is expensive and its not surprising given the amount of work involved in the build.

stickyfiddle

bertie said:

that article could do with a "silhouette"  shape guide at the top, or beginning of each section

Agreed, The content is good, but not having a set of side-by-side images to compare is missing a trick

guitarjack66

stickyfiddle said:

bertie said:

that article could do with a "silhouette"  shape guide at the top, or beginning of each section

Agreed, The content is good, but not having a set of side-by-side images to compare is missing a trick

Agree. I am still a bit confused myself to be honest. I have a Grand Auditorium which I bought because I thought it was significantly smaller than a Dreadnought,but it's barely so. I had a guitar which I thought was a 000 and seemed smaller than my GA but the article says a 000 is actually bigger,I think? I havent found an acoustic shape yet that is just about correct for me though.

bertie

guitarjack66 said:

stickyfiddle said:

bertie said:

that article could do with a "silhouette"  shape guide at the top, or beginning of each section

Agreed, The content is good, but not having a set of side-by-side images to compare is missing a trick

Agree. I am still a bit confused myself to be honest. I have a Grand Auditorium which I bought because I thought it was significantly smaller than a Dreadnought,but it's barely so. I had a guitar which I thought was a 000 and seemed smaller than my GA but the article says a 000 is actually bigger,I think? I havent found an acoustic shape yet that is just about correct for me though.

I haven't read the article fully so this may have been discussed - the thing with some of these size names,  is they come from different "makers"  take.   So  a GA is an OM and a GC is a 00 ,  also there are "overlaps" between what defines a true OM or 000,  some makers use the same body size but different scale, or fret join................

On paper an OM isnt that different to a Dread, but actually playing it,  can to some peeps (ie me) make a big difference in comfort............same for neck profiles,  a few mm can make a huge difference.  

https://www.sagemusic.co/how-to-choose-an-acoustic-guitar-by-body-shape/

drofluf

bertie said:

that article could do with a "silhouette"  shape guide at the top, or beginning of each section

Like this?



http://onemanz.com/guitar/reviews/acoustic-guitars/martin/model-designation/

bertie

well after 5 minutes,  it hadn't loaded..................  but that sort of thing (there are loads) but for all the shapes / models not just Martin    

stickyfiddle

drofluf said:

bertie said:

that article could do with a "silhouette"  shape guide at the top, or beginning of each section

Like this?



http://onemanz.com/guitar/reviews/acoustic-guitars/martin/model-designation/

Yeah, that's pretty good, though obviously you need to also add the obvious extras from Taylor (x14, GA, GC at least) and Gibson (LG, J45, Dove/HB, SJ etc)

Tannin

Just so @DavidR - it's a bit geographically limited, but nevertheless, a useful starting point. 

I too love the look of and idea of archtops, but the ones I'm (at least a little bit) familiar with are a very long way away from "biting and zesty", More "dull and thuddy" in my experience. But then, they always seem to have flatwound strings on them, which really can't help. 

I agree with your comments on the "American tone". (Which is pretty much code for "the Martin tone".) Like you, I reckon it is a great sound and I love it, but it is far from being the only great sound. There have been several half-discussions here these last few months groping around trying to more usefully define the various tone families, but without clear result so far. 

@stickyfiddle Taylor GA certainly counts as a body shape - nobody else really made that until Taylor came along. 20 years prior to that, Maton's 808 - still a current shape and more popular than ever - was another take on the same "bigger OM with more body in the sound" theme (essentially, it's an 00 shape with dreadnought depth). The Gibson slope-shoulder dreads seem to be just another type of dreadnought though - no innovation in shape there that I can see, though the original J-45 bracing seems to be responsible for a rather different sound. (More on that in another thread when I get some time to write it up.)

What about the Gibson SJ? Is it simply a jumbo like other jumbos? Or is there something different about it?

stufisher

Bobbins! I thought the thread was going to be about something completely different.

Ach well ... back to Xvid

stickyfiddle

@tannin yeah not disagreeing with any of that - I was only talking relative to that Martin chart, which has no slope dreads or jumbos

guitarjack66

bertie said:

guitarjack66 said:

stickyfiddle said:

bertie said:

that article could do with a "silhouette"  shape guide at the top, or beginning of each section

Agreed, The content is good, but not having a set of side-by-side images to compare is missing a trick

Agree. I am still a bit confused myself to be honest. I have a Grand Auditorium which I bought because I thought it was significantly smaller than a Dreadnought,but it's barely so. I had a guitar which I thought was a 000 and seemed smaller than my GA but the article says a 000 is actually bigger,I think? I havent found an acoustic shape yet that is just about correct for me though.

I haven't read the article fully so this may have been discussed - the thing with some of these size names,  is they come from different "makers"  take.   So  a GA is an OM and a GC is a 00 ,  also there are "overlaps" between what defines a true OM or 000,  some makers use the same body size but different scale, or fret join................

On paper an OM isnt that different to a Dread, but actually playing it,  can to some peeps (ie me) make a big difference in comfort............same for neck profiles,  a few mm can make a huge difference.  

So the wife keeps telling me.

bertie

^^ you might want to check your <blockquote> ' s