no power tools

[alohachris]

Aloha Friends,

I used no power tools for any task on my first two guitars in the mid-70's.

I couldn't afford a new guitar or power tools, couldn't find a factory-made instrument that would fit my huge hands, & ultimately, I wanted to become connected at some level to all the pre-power luthiers through-out the millennia who'd created all those wonderful musical instruments - without the benefits of today's power, technology or specialized tools.

Of course, I'm not saying that "powerless" process is better than the tools of today. Not at all. But going "powerless" really helped me understand that luthierie takes a bit more time in my relationship with wood than just cranking through the many tasks & making guitars fast. It was a truly valuable lesson for me, even as the results were not as good in terms of joinery.

I remember even blowing on a varnish finish from a cup- Ha! Truth! And man did my triceps hurt from dragging that old purfling cutter across those blocks (of course there were gaps there).

Interestingly, I still gig with that first, 00-sized all-Hawaiian acacia Koa guitar I made in '72 - w/o any power tools. Tonally, it has really blossomed in over 40 years of regular gigging. With my huge hands, I also still love its 2-1/8" wide nut, 2-3/8" spacing @ the bridge & deeper 4-1/2" sides for more bass response.

But I truly believe that building a guitar w/o power tools could provide great value & insight to all guitar aficionados & would-be luthiers. Certainly, getting deeper into something you love like the acoustic guitar & slowing down further with handtools to listen to what the would is trying to say is worthwhile, huh?

To players - Try Building Your Own Acoustic Guitar Hand-Built to You Specs. Very satisfying!

And That's All's I Knows.

alohachris

[LouieAtienza]

I'd never say that I'm against any automated process in guitarmaking; though I do feel that many of the finer processes of guitar building can only be done by hand - the final shaping of braces, bridge and headstock and heel shaping, finish sanding, fretwork, setup work, intonation adjustment - the stuff where judgment and experience can take an ordinary instrument and make it extraordinary.

I think it would be fruitless to rout, say, a humbucker cavity entirely by hand as there is no sonic or artistic value to doing so. Does a bridge slot hewn by hand make a guitar sound better? Not necessarily so. I can see where one deft wiith a gramil and chisel can make accurate and quick work of binding ledges. Hand work is only beneficial if it can be done as well or better than by machine, and even then only if the ends justify the means. The vintage pre-war guitars we treasure employed machine use at one point or another.

I would give exception to the many talented artists here that showcase their extraordinary inlay work, without the aid of automation.

[Howard Klepper]

The significant distinction regarding "hand" work is not about the source of power that drives the tool. It is about how the tool is controlled and whether the system that controls it makes the outcome of the tool process predetermined. "Hand" and factory builders part company over which processes it is desirable to make highly determinate. For factories, the answer is: as many as possible within economic reason. For hand builders at the other end, the answer is: only those in which the builder will not care to vary design.

For example, it is desirable for both factory and hand builders to have a process for cutting fret slots uniformly and to precise locations, once given the scale. For a factory it is desirable to cut each headstock uniformly. But the hand builder may wish vary the headstock from one guitar to the next; for this builder a process that ensures uniformity removes control over design and is not desirable.

Most hand builders choose to use processes that ensure uniformity and repeatability of some aspects that, having once been designed, are then fixed. This moves them in the direction of the factory for those aspects. Familiar examples are molds for body shape, or templates for headstocks, bridges, etc. Builders closer to the "hand" ideal leave more design aspects for freehand processes that are subject to variation at the builder's choice.

Hand work is not valuable only if it can be done as well or better than "machine" work. It is valuable for the creative freedom it gives. Because it is often less well regulated than "machine' work, it can create a certain amount of observable randomness that many people find charming and of value because it signifies the free control of the tool that was employed. Other people find value in knowing an object was made by freely controlled processes even if it is indistinguishable from one made by determinate processes. Many others care not at all, or even would prefer that an an object was made by determinate processes, since they like the assurance that it is exactly like all the others of its kind.

About once a year I refer people to David Pye's wonderful book, The Nature and Art of Workmanship, and its companion volume, The Nature and Aesthetics of Design. So far I've never seen an indication that anyone has taken my advice, except Bruce, who didn't need to.

[iim7V7IM7]

Well said counselor...Having a background in design, I own both of those books (they are classics).

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

The significant distinction regarding "hand" work is not about the source of power that drives the tool. It is about how the tool is controlled and whether the system that controls it makes the outcome of the tool process predetermined. "Hand" and factory builders part company over which processes it is desirable to make highly determinate. For factories, the answer is: as many as possible within economic reason. For hand builders at the other end, the answer is: only those in which the builder will not care to vary design.

For example, it is desirable for both factory and hand builders to have a process for cutting fret slots uniformly and to precise locations, once given the scale. For a factory it is desirable to cut each headstock uniformly. But the hand builder may wish vary the headstock from one guitar to the next; for this builder a process that ensures uniformity removes control over design and is not desirable.

Most hand builders chose to use processes that ensure uniformity and repeatability of some aspects that, having once been designed, are then fixed. This moves them in the direction of the factory for those aspects. Familiar examples are molds for body shape, or templates for headstocks, bridges, etc. Builders closer to the "hand" ideal leave more design aspects for freehand processes that are subject to variation at the builder's choice.

Hand work is not valuable only if it can be done as well or better than "machine" work. It is valuable for the creative freedom it gives. Because it is often less well regulated than "machine' work, it can create a certain amount of observable randomness that many people find charming and of value because it signifies the free control of the tool that was employed. Other people find value in knowing an object was made by freely controlled processes even if it is indistinguishable from one made by determinate processes. Many others care not at all, or even would prefer that an an object was made by determinate processes, since they like the assurance that it is exactly like all the others of its kind.

About once a year I refer people to David Pye's wonderful book, The Nature and Art of Workmanship, and its companion volume, The Nature and Aesthetics of Design. So far I've never seen an indication that anyone has taken my advice, except Bruce, who didn't need to.

[charles Tauber]

Wonderful responses by both Howard and Alan.

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

About once a year I refer people to David Pye's wonderful book, The Nature and Art of Workmanship, and its companion volume, The Nature and Aesthetics of Design. So far I've never seen an indication that anyone has taken my advice, except Bruce, who didn't need to.

I was introduced to Pye's work some time ago by Rob Cosman, with whom I studied and learned a great deal. I highly recommend both Pye's work and Cosman who is a gifted teacher.

I had a great philosophy professor who, at the beginning of every class, repeated, "Each of you should bring to class a dictionary. Unfortunately, those of you who most need one will never bring one and those of you who least need one will always bring one." I think he knew how you feel.


When I started making guitars, I had, literally, a handful of hand tools and a router. It was what I could afford. Later, I added machinery, starting with a band saw, a drill press and a 6" jointer. Much later, I added a thickness sander and all of the usual woodworking machines. A while ago, I decided to revisit what I thought I knew about hand tools and working with them and took some classes with Rob Cosman during which we made furniture from rough sawn lumber to finished pieces using only hand tools - not even sandpaper or scrapers were used. It is very labor intensive, but also very instructional. For example, I learned that it is a very rare piece of wood that can't be hand planed to a perfect surface texture with the right plane, sharpened the right way.

More recently, I purchased a small CNC machine. It is an entirely different way to work. It, too, is a fascinating exercise. Using modern "parametric" CAD tools, I'm able to change a design in as little as a few keyboard strokes, allowing a certain freedom and flexibility in design, much as Howard mentions in hand tool work. But, it is a very different process. That flexibility allows the freedom to do some things I wouldn't likely even try with hand tools. Equally, there are some hand tool things I wouldn't even try with a CNC machine - I'd have the job done by hand several times over before even finishing the modelling that a CNC equivalent would require. And, of course, there is 3D printing. It's a fascinating time to be making "stuff". So much freedom to create. Imagine what someone like Stradivarius or da Vinci might have done with these options...

[Kent Chasson]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

The significant distinction regarding "hand" work is not about the source of power that drives the tool. It is about how the tool is controlled and whether the system that controls it makes the outcome of the tool process predetermined. "Hand" and factory builders part company over which processes it is desirable to make highly determinate. For factories, the answer is: as many as possible within economic reason. For hand builders at the other end, the answer is: only those in which the builder will not care to vary design.

For example, it is desirable for both factory and hand builders to have a process for cutting fret slots uniformly and to precise locations, once given the scale. For a factory it is desirable to cut each headstock uniformly. But the hand builder may wish vary the headstock from one guitar to the next; for this builder a process that ensures uniformity removes control over design and is not desirable.

Most hand builders chose to use processes that ensure uniformity and repeatability of some aspects that, having once been designed, are then fixed. This moves them in the direction of the factory for those aspects. Familiar examples are molds for body shape, or templates for headstocks, bridges, etc. Builders closer to the "hand" ideal leave more design aspects for freehand processes that are subject to variation at the builder's choice.

Hand work is not valuable only if it can be done as well or better than "machine" work. It is valuable for the creative freedom it gives. Because it is often less well regulated than "machine' work, it can create a certain amount of observable randomness that many people find charming and of value because it signifies the free control of the tool that was employed. Other people find value in knowing an object was made by freely controlled processes even if it is indistinguishable from one made by determinate processes. Many others care not at all, or even would prefer that an an object was made by determinate processes, since they like the assurance that it is exactly like all the others of its kind.

About once a year I refer people to David Pye's wonderful book, The Nature and Art of Workmanship, and its companion volume, The Nature and Aesthetics of Design. So far I've never seen an indication that anyone has taken my advice, except Bruce, who didn't need to.

I agree that is very well put. In fact, it is so well put that I don't have anything to argue with, though that has rarely stopped me before. I'll even take your advice and order the books so make your count 2.

Only thing I have to add is that I believe the method that is best is the method that makes the builder the most fulfilled and content. I think happy people tend to do better work. Unless you're writing songs. Then it's heartache and sorrow all the way.

[LouieAtienza]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

More recently, I purchased a small CNC machine. It is an entirely different way to work. It, too, is a fascinating exercise. Using modern "parametric" CAD tools, I'm able to change a design in as little as a few keyboard strokes, allowing a certain freedom and flexibility in design, much as Howard mentions in hand tool work. But, it is a very different process. That flexibility allows the freedom to do some things I wouldn't likely even try with hand tools. Equally, there are some hand tool things I wouldn't even try with a CNC machine - I'd have the job done by hand several times over before even finishing the modelling that a CNC equivalent would require. And, of course, there is 3D printing. It's a fascinating time to be making "stuff". So much freedom to create. Imagine what someone like Stradivarius or da Vinci might have done with these options...

Charles, I built myself a small format CNC (24 x 36 x 6 work area), currently on versiion 3. I originally built it to rough out electric guitar bodies, but I've also taken work from a car tuner/enthusiast as well as a local sign company. I love working by hand but I don't have the time I used to for the shop, and years of hand "abuse" have taken their toll.

That said, I've done everything from carve necks for electrics, electric bodies, acoustic bridges, rough-cut tops and backs (and maybe sides soon if I can figure out "unfolding" my acoustic guitar model), fretboards, even braces. I've rid of more than a few jigs that I would have used previously, which does save space. Not always steady but it is a source of income. The problem is software. There are certain things that just cannot be done with cheaper CAM, and I had to bite the bullet. And it was a big bullet to bite!

[dkwvt]

I have been full circle with tools and technology as varied as working on a concrete form crew building forms with hand saws and hammers, (hated it then, proud of it now), to full on production cad and cnc work out of my shop making anything and everything for anyone to pay for the machine. That got old fast as well. After a fire in 2009 where I lost everything I was forced to re-evaluate my space, tools and motivations, the inner light...

I love wood, always have, the feel, the smell and the sound. That tactile relationship was a big part of the way I have chosen to work forward. One of the back door revelations to me was changing the relationship from stationary tool/moving wood to stationary wood/moving tool. This came out of a concession to much smaller space and "age/energy" syndrome.

I downsized drastically, salvaged as much of what was lost as possible, used the insurance (pennies on the dollar) conservatively and came out of it debt free. Without the financial pressure I have been able to make aesthetic decisions about the build process not workable in a more bottom line format. Hand tools when I can, power tools when I have to, working up the scale from handheld to stationary. (Learn how to sharpen your hand tools. Sharp is the most important component of using them efficiently.)

There are tradeoffs in every decision and path taken, and my perspective has changed quite a bit thru the years, clients and projects. Woodworking is a meditative experience for me requiring conscious choices about what I use, how I use it and very importantly who I use it with and for. Try as much as you can, formulate your own work ethic, allow for change and read Pye!

[random works]

A builder getting the first twinges of arthritis in finger joints might want to move more time into using power tools, but then you need more ear protection.

[Alan Carruth]

Another vote for Pye's books.

I have two students who work in a local factory, and who have set up production lines. They are also craftsmen who have built things from the ground up. We've had numerous discussions about this. In the end it comes down to what's important to you; what you want to control, and what you choose to allow to float. And, of course, it's about how you achieve your aims. You can become flexible by acquiring a high order of hand tool chops, or you can learn to be a really good CNC programmer. Each has advantages and drawbacks, but it may be hard to say which is 'better'.

I will say that, to me, it seems as though the prevailing aesthetic in the guitar world is tilted toward a 'production' look. As Howard Klepper said, hand work can;" ...create a certain amount of observable randomness that many people find charming and of value because it signifies the free control of the tool that was employed." Many in the guitar world seem to see variation as 'sloppy' rather than 'charming'. Hand work, and individualism within a known canon are much more appreciated in the violin world. Some low end violin makers will actually buy machine carved scrolls, for example, and then touch them up with a gouge to create tool marks so they will look 'hand made'. Of course, it takes a high order of skill to create works of art on the level of Stradivari, where the tool marks are not 'mistakes', but the aesthetic choices of a master who knew when to stop. It's the fine line between enough control to ensure needed precision and too much control, that becomes aesthetically sterile. It's not an easy place to get to, and, of course, one man's 'freedom' is another's 'license'. It's hard to define, but you know it when you see it.