A new view of some old dreads...

GardMan

Enlightened Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
5,367
Reaction score
975
Location
Utah
Guild Total
5
Altho’ my primary on-line guitar hangout is “Lets Talk Guild,” I have also spent a considerable amount of time over on the “Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum.” I have never joined UMGF, partly because I hear horror stories about the Yuko BB platform used, and also because I have no intention of ever buying a Martin guitar. But, I have learned a lot about guitar construction reading the technical threads… and found the Martin bracing library particularly interesting.One of the techniques that intrigued me, sometimes referred to as a “Henkogram”(for the UMGF member who advocated the technique), uses lights placed inside the guitar body to image the placement of the to braces thru the guitar’s top. The braces show as shadows in the image. I filed the technique away in my head, planning to try it out with my Guild dreadnaughts during some future string change. That was a couple years back...

Well, I finally got around to experimenting with the technique during my "semi-annual mass Guild string change extravaganza" over the holidays... I used 6-9 battery operated undercounter LED puck lights (from the local Lowes) placed in the body of each guitar (the guitars were on a stand, and the lights were balanced somewhat precariously on the back braces), a cardboard and black felt cover over the soundhole, and my digital camera on a tripod. Exposures ranged from 3 to 15 seconds for the images shown. The D-35 was my first attempt... too much ambient light made the flare on the treble side, and I only had 6 lights, leaving the neck block area somewhat underexposed. I went and bought another pack of 3 lights (3 for $10), and used 8-9 lights for the other images.


162244642.jpg


Individual detailed images can be found here...

A couple things to notice...
The change in upper bout bracing that occurred sometime in mid-1974 is apparent by comparing the '72 D-35 with all the others. The '72 D-35 has a thin transverse "popsicle brace" between the neck block and first transverse brace. In contrast, all the post 1974 Guild dreads have a neck block extension extending to the first transverse brace, flanked by thin "wing braces." I first encountered this change when looking around inside my '70s dreads a couple years ago, and posted a diagram (now revised).


123842603.jpg


My '74 G-37 Bld, with a top date of April 1974, had the popsicle brace, while my '74 D-25M, with a top date of Aug 1974, had wing braces. This pinpoints the change to sometime in mid-1974.

Next, you can see the shadow of the "soundhole re-inforcement plate" in my 1994 DV-72MK, compared to the separate braces surrounding the sound holes in all of the other dreads. My 1992 D-55 also had a sound hole plate... observations from other LTGers suggest this bracing pattern was in use between ~1984 and 1994.

Lastly, the positions of the lower bout braces and tone bars vary a bit... it's hard to tell if this variation from guitar to guitar, model specific, or year specific. But, at first glance, it appears as if the '76 D-50 and '81 D-46 bracing patterns are quite similar, while those on the two DVs are somewhat more similar to that of the '72 D-35. So, here's a revised sketch of the Guild bracing patterns I have observed (the tone bar differences in different guitars with pattern 2 aren't really shown)...


161083471.jpg


The last image shows diagrams specifically comparing the bracing in my '94 DV-72MK and '95 DV-73:

161077993.jpg
 
Last edited:

twocorgis

Venerated Member
Gold Supporting
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
14,025
Reaction score
6,644
Location
Lawn Guyland
Guild Total
18
Excellent work Dave!

What's interesting here is how similar all the bracing schemes really are. Other than the "popsicle" brace on the D35, and the fact that some are scalloped and some aren't, the bracing schemes really don't differ that much.

I'm a member over at UMGF, and while their interface isn't quite as slick (not a Yuku fan either), there are some remarkably knowledgable members there. Martin's bracing schemes have varied widely over the years, as have the way the neck joins the body. I have two distinctly different bracing and neck joining schemes in my Martins ("A" frame and mortise/tenon in my 000-17SM, and dovetail and forward shifted "X" in my D18DC), and both of them are remarkable guitars in their own right. Don't discount Martin guitars either; there's a reason they've been around so long. I owned a bad '76 Martin D28 (lots of bad Martins in the '70s) for a while, and when I sold it I swore I'd never buy another Martin. I'm glad I don't follow my own advice!
 
Last edited:

JohnW63

Enlightened Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
6,315
Reaction score
2,233
Location
Southern California
Guild Total
4
How do the above Guild bracing designs differ from, the recent Martin designs ? I find the back lit shots really cool. I didn't think that light COULD shine through the tops at all.
 

GardMan

Enlightened Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
5,367
Reaction score
975
Location
Utah
Guild Total
5
The Martin bracing library on UMGF is 27 pages long... The last few pages show bracing on some contemporary Martin dreads from the '70s and '90s. Superficially, the Martin patterns are most similar to the bracing on my '72 D-35 (with the older style "popsicle" brace in the upper bout). I am sure the exact placement of the braces differs some... and I couldn't say if Guild's bracing is "forward-shifted."

Of course, these images wouldn't show whether the braces are scalloped, shaved, or straight. My DVs have scalloped braces and tone bars, as did my '92 D-55. My '76 D-50 had its braces shaved by a previous owner (post-factory). All the rest had straight braces.
 

merlin6666

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
1,179
Reaction score
309
Location
Canada .... brrr
Thank you for this interesting investigation. In other forums I have read that age and torrefication substantially reduce the opacity of wood, to the extent that some have reported that 40 year old spruce tops would not be opaque at all any more. Obviously you demonstrate that this is not true. Though I guess it also depends on the strength of the light source
 

GardMan

Enlightened Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
5,367
Reaction score
975
Location
Utah
Guild Total
5
The output of the LED lights I used was 36 lumens/ea. With 6 - 9 lights, that's 216 - 324 lumens... less than a single 60 incandescent bulb (380-500 lumens). I used the LED lights because I didn't want to deal with cords, and I thought they would stay cooler in the guitar body... there was very little detectable warming of the guitar during the 5-10 minutes it would take me to collect several images.
 

merlin6666

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
1,179
Reaction score
309
Location
Canada .... brrr
The 72 looks just as well illuminated as the 95 so assuming that all other factors (e.g. Wood thickness or exposure time) were equal l think we can conclude that age would not affect opacity. Did they shine lights through some really old Martins at the umgf?
 

chazmo

Super Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
25,803
Reaction score
7,358
Location
Central Massachusetts
Pretty cool stuff, Dave!! I didn't know you could that with just light!!

A couple of other thing strike me. First, with the DV-73, the spacing of two bottom braces on the lower bout seems wider than the others. The other thing is where the bottom treble brace meets the X-brace in a different place relative to the two bottom braces, particularly on the D-50.
 

Rayk

Enlightened Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2015
Messages
5,784
Reaction score
1,184
Wow that is cool , if I missed it since the bracing is similar may I ask if they all have scalloped braces ?
 

F312

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
2,760
Reaction score
958
Talk about getting into your guitars.
What is the reason for the soundhole reinforcement? Is there other examples in any other guitars?
Ralph
 

txbumper57

Enlightened Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
7,577
Reaction score
60
Location
Texas
Awesome write up! Love the high tech photos, I wonder what the Orpheum models bracing would look like with this test?
 

merlin6666

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
1,179
Reaction score
309
Location
Canada .... brrr
Awesome write up! Love the high tech photos, I wonder what the Orpheum models bracing would look like with this test?

Or the Tacoma and New Hartford dreads. We know they had structural modifications, and switched to red spruce braces, but I'm not sure if all the changes are documented in such fine detail yet.
 

GardMan

Enlightened Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
5,367
Reaction score
975
Location
Utah
Guild Total
5
Chazmo said:
A couple of other thing strike me. First, with the DV-73, the spacing of two bottom braces on the lower bout seems wider than the others. The other thing is where the bottom treble brace meets the X-brace in a different place relative to the two bottom braces, particularly on the D-50.
I also noticed some slight differences in the positions of the braces and tone bars... for example, in the D-50 and D-46, the lower treble-side brace is nearly co-linear with the upper tone bar (the schematic for bracing pattern 2 was traced off the D-50). In the DVs (and to a lesser extent, the D-35), the lower treble side brace meets the X-brace in between the tone bars (the schematic of pattern 3 was traced off the DV-72).

With this small sample size, I don't know if the differences are model specific or year specific (or how much is just individual variation). Wish I had imaged the other five Guilds I owned before selling them... it would have doubled my sample size.

Wow that is cool , if I missed it since the bracing is similar may I ask if they all have scalloped braces ?
See post #5. Of those imaged, only the two DVs have scalloped bracing. The D-50s was shaved post-factory (not be me!).
 

GardMan

Enlightened Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
5,367
Reaction score
975
Location
Utah
Guild Total
5
Another interesting oddity seen in the full-res image of my DV-72MK:

162212848.jpg


If you look carefully, you can see a slight shift or disconnect across the center seam of the top: the bridge plate, the tone bars, and the end block all shift upwards on the right (treble) side of the center seam. I think this is caused by a light piping effect of the wood grain in the book matched halves of the top, and the slight image shift results from the run-out evident in this particular top.
 

sailingshoes72

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2014
Messages
1,477
Reaction score
414
Location
Virginia, USA
Very cool post. Thanks! I enjoyed the link to your "Guild Dreadnought Bracing" page with the schematics and interior bracing photos. Ol' Mr. Martin certainly had a cleaver idea when he combined "ladder" bracing and "fan" bracing to come up with the "X" bracing pattern. It has resulted in some fine sounding guitars of different sizes over many years.

Bill
 

walrus

Reverential Member
Gold Supporting
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Messages
24,003
Reaction score
8,088
Location
Massachusetts
Excellent stuff! Very impressive research, and a very interesting set of photos - one of the most informative "technical" posts I've seen...

Thanks!

walrus
 

Neal

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Messages
4,865
Reaction score
1,658
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Very cool, Dave.

I suppose that the switch from popsicle brace to a neck block extension might have had something to do with the trend toward heavier Guilds, starting in '75?
 

kostask

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
486
The popsicle brace has a very specific purpose, and the neck block extension doesn't fulfill that function. The popsicle brace is there to try to prevent the top from breaking loose if the upper transverse brace glue joint lets toose or becomes damaged to the point that it is no longer able to support the top in that area. With a compromised upper transverse brace, and no popsicle brace, the string tension will start to put the neck block towards the bridge (the top wood's grain is inline with the string pull, so the spruce will tend to crack pretty easily, as this is not a pull, but a sliding force). This usually results in the top wood cracking/breaking along side the fingerboard/neck, and you end up with a sound hole with the segment below the neck being pulled down into the sound hole. The popsicle brace, having a large gluing surface, and with its grain running perpendicular to the grain of the top, is an attempt to try and prevent this. The strings, in the event of an upper transverse brace failure, would be working against the popsicle brace's strongest direction. Given enough time, the guitar would most likely be quite damaged anyway, but it is a good short term solution.

The neck block extension doesn't help in this regard. It may be a help in counteracting the downwards torque of the fingerboard extension. It will not serve any purpose to prevent top damage in the event of am upper transverse brace compromise/failure. It appears to me that the neck block extension seems to be an attempt to try and extend the neck reset interval, bracing the neck block against the upper transverse brace to try and prevent the neck block from tilting forward, which is what a neck reset ends up correcting.

I'm going to express the opinion that I don't know how effective the popsicle brace is. While a good idea in principle, the real world may be different. The most common failure by far, of the upper transverse brace is doe to overheating of the glue joint. If the upper transverse brace glue joint is over heated, I think the probability that the poposicle brace glue joint will also be over heated (they are pretty close together). So both joints will have heat failure, and you get back to the same situation as if the popsicle brace was never there.

Reference: http://www.bryankimsey.com/popsicle/
 
Last edited:

GardMan

Enlightened Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
5,367
Reaction score
975
Location
Utah
Guild Total
5
I suppose that the switch from popsicle brace to a neck block extension might have had something to do with the trend toward heavier Guilds, starting in '75?
In fact, it was noticing the weight difference between my '72 D-35 and my wife's '78 D-35 that started me poking around inside my dreads....

kostask said:
I'm going to express the opinion that I don't know how effective the popsicle brace is. While a good idea in principle, the real world may be different. The most common failure by far, of the upper transverse brace is doe to overheating of the glue joint. If the upper transverse brace glue joint is over heated, I think the probability that the poposicle brace glue joint will also be over heated (they are pretty close together). So both joints will have heat failure, and you get back to the same situation as if the popsicle brace was never there.
I don't know enough about the engineering principles behind the top bracing to comment... but one of the common mods to Martin dreads from the '70s and '80s is removal of the popsicle brace.
 
Top