VIDEO- Methods for Shaping Back Braces

In this video, I show a few methods I use to shape back braces, specifically the brace ends and the pocket that they are fitted into in linings.
I also use these methods to shape the upper & lower transverse brace ends.

All back braces and transverse brace ends should be fitted into the linings.
It is bad, lazy luthiery to not do so.

Luthier of luxury heirloom quality guitars and ukuleles.
https://www.beauhannamguitars.com

Perfect I am about to do that tomorrow. Thank you!!!


You use the router jig to make sure the ends of your braces are all the same hight......right?

How do you use the Dremel to cut the pocket in the lining? I tried to cut the pocket by hand last time, and it turned out rather awful.

Thanks again

1- I position the back on the sides while in the mold (I use the center joint of the mold to show me where to position the center of the back and tops)
2- I mark with a sharp pencil each side of the braces on the top of the sides- for both sides of the back.
3- I connect these indication marks with a ruler/pencil.
4- I scalpel the lines and inside the linings to minimize blowout.
5- I dremel between the lines, then clean up with a chisel if needed.

Next time i do the job, ill do a video.

Beau Hannam Ukuleles said:

1- I position the back on the sides while in the mold (I use the center joint of the mold to show me where to position the center of the back and tops)
2- I mark with a sharp pencil each side of the braces on the top of the sides- for both sides of the back.
3- I connect these indication marks with a ruler/pencil.
4- I scalpel the lines and inside the linings to minimize blowout.
5- I dremel between the lines, then clean up with a chisel if needed.

Next time i do the job, ill do a video.

Click to expand...

Thank you that would be great

It's called 'notching' Beau. Strong words - I have been flamed for less

Pete Howlett said:

It's called 'notching' Beau. Strong words - I have been flamed for less

Click to expand...

I was under the impression that there were two schools of thought about, to notch, or not to notch. I could be wrong.

Beau, I would very much like to know why you think it is "bad, lazy lutherie" not to let the brace ends into the linings. That's a pretty strong statement. Thanks. Kevin

Pete Howlett said:

It's called 'notching' Beau. Strong words - I have been flamed for less

Click to expand...

Hahahah- While I know you agree with notching, I only say it to teach the best method, not to offend. If i didn't know about it, I would want someone to tell me about a better way. I'm always searching for a better, more sensible and neater way. I have learnt luthiery tips from young and old. When I was at Gilet in Sydney, many students (that I was teaching) pointed out a better solution which hadn't occurred to me. Being too proud to learn new tricks....never good.

DPO said:

I was under the impression that there were two schools of thought about, to notch, or not to notch. I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

What is the logic behind the other "thought"? I've not heard it and would be interested-
An argument could be made for not notching the back braces in order to promote a more active back. There is logic there for sure but the not notching type i've seen isn't related to promoting a more active back as they (the back braces) stop just in from the linings. That's just time saving laziness- at least on high end instruments- i'm not talking about cheap instruments here btw (perhaps i should have led with that!)

Masonguitars said:

Beau, I would very much like to know why you think it is "bad, lazy lutherie" not to let the brace ends into the linings. That's a pretty strong statement. Thanks. Kevin

Click to expand...

Hi Kevin.
I'm in a bit of a bind as on one hand I don't want to make other makers work look bad but on the other hand it is best to teach the best methods (which I explain in short below). Also, this is the luthiers lounge where, i expect, customers don't hang out that much.

In short, it is bad and lazy not to "notch" (thanks Pete) in the brace ends because of the integrity/strength of the geometry of the instrument under string tension.

The most important thing is for the upper and lower transverse braces to be tucked in as the end of the fingerboard is constantly being forced downward (towards the back) due to string tension. If you don't tuck the brace ends in, you run the risk of the brace end popping off and that area collapsing. Obviously this risk is less huge with a uke, but I still apply the principle to ukes.

In Australia, there is a guitar/uke brand called Maton that used to not tuck their back braces (maybe pre 2010? im not sure when they changed) in and they popped up alot and it kept the repair community in constant work. I'm pretty sure they tuck them in now.

Great instruments still work without doing it of course, but it is very sensible to notch em in. I like being sensible.

Beau Hannam Ukuleles said:

Hahahah- While I know you agree with notching, I only say it to teach the best method, not to offend. If i didn't know about it, I would want someone to tell me about a better way. I'm always searching for a better, more sensible and neater way. I have learnt luthiery tips from young and old. When I was at Gilet in Sydney, many students (that I was teaching) pointed out a better solution which hadn't occurred to me. Being too proud to learn new tricks....never good.



What is the logic behind the other "thought"? I've not heard it and would be interested-
An argument could be made for not notching the back braces in order to promote a more active back. There is logic there for sure but the not notching type i've seen isn't related to promoting a more active back as they (the back braces) stop just in from the linings. That's just time saving laziness- at least on high end instruments- i'm not talking about cheap instruments here btw (perhaps i should have led with that!)



Hi KEvin.
I'm in a bit of a bind as on one hand I don't want to make other makers work look bad but on the other hand it is best to teach the best methods (which I explain in short below).

In short, it is bad and lazy not to "notch" (thanks Pete) in the brace ends because of the integrity/strength of the geometry of the instrument under string tension.

The most important thing is for the upper and lower transverse braces to be tucked in as the end of the fingerboard is constantly being forced downward (towards the back) due to string tension. If you don't tuck the brace ends in, you run the risk of the brace end popping off and that area collapsing. Obviously this risk is less huge with a uke, but I still apply the principle to ukes.

In Australia, there is a guitar/uke brand called Maton that used to not tuck their back braces (maybe pre 2010? im not sure when they changed) in and they popped up alot and it kept the repair community in constant work. I'm pretty sure they tuck them in now.

Great instruments still work without doing it of course, but it is very sensible to notch em in. I like being sensible.

Click to expand...

My 73 years on the planet tells me there is always more than one way of doing anything.

DPO said:

My 73 years on the planet tells me there is always more than one way of doing anything.

Click to expand...

Indeed true, however what i'm hearing is "I can't use logic to defend why I don't notch in braces".

You only have to repair a few instruments that don't have the braces tucked into the linings to decide that it's the most logical course of action.

If you want an active back then there are better ways of going about it while still tucking in braces.

Beau Hannam Ukuleles said:

Indeed true, however what i'm hearing is "I can't use logic to defend why I don't notch in braces".

Click to expand...

And what I'm hearing is, anyone who does not use my method is a bad and lazy luthier.

DPO said:

And what I'm hearing is, anyone who does not use my method is a bad and lazy luthier.

Click to expand...

Not at all.
Like I said, I am very willing to adjust any and all methods according to the latest and best findings (be them actually new modern findings or traditional methods I hadn't be exposed to). I did it last year- totally changed some major methods id be doing for 15 years.

Also like i mentioned previously, there is a cost/quality element which i understand- I don't expect to find high end fretwork, finish work or other time consuming things on a cheap instrument. But when I say "luthier", I don't think cheap factory instruments, I think of people like me striving to be the best instrument maker they possibly can be.

Time out fellas. Notching is 'mechanically sound' method of construction. The only repairs I have ever had are in areas where the instrument is unsupported. Even a uke which had multiple fractures from being sat on only had these in unbraced areas of the front - no damaged to the notched braced back. I would take issue with labeling it lazy or bad. To me, it makes no sense for the way I build and my background in design and making furniture. I've also moved away from the idea of 'live' backs. Most people 'hug' the instrument in the playing position which to my logic cancels the whole 'live back' premise. If you want a live back you do what Peter Sensier did (look him up under Dorita y Pepe - the first 'world music' duo when that was a musical category before appropriation confused the issue) and build a false back into the instrument.... Now there is a thought eh? I know how to do it and now have the means.... I wonder?

A luthier, Tim McKnight, does a issolated back which he call a Hollow Back. The inner back does not touch the person playing and the back contributes to the sound of the guitar unlike if it was held next to the player.

If one admits that an 'active back' is not in the picture, and that one should tuck the back brace ends in for strength, then one can ask the question, "Why taper the braces at all?". Surly a non-tapered brace would be stronger and stiffer than a tapered one. I wonder about this; is tapering and worrying about the taper being a little asymmetric, a little higher over here than over there, etc, then purely an aesthetic issue?

jupiteruke said:

If one admits that an 'active back' is not in the picture, and that one should tuck the back brace ends in for strength, then one can ask the question, "Why taper the braces at all?". Surly a non-tapered brace would be stronger and stiffer than a tapered one. I wonder about this; is tapering and worrying about the taper being a little asymmetric, a little higher over here than over there, etc, then purely an aesthetic issue?

Click to expand...

I'm with Pete on live backs- they are cancelled out due to the playing position of 99% of players. So I don't bother. But they do sound good if you play without holding the instrument against you, but that is uncomfortable and doesn't feel very natural. Also, normally built instruments (those not built specifically to have a live back) also sound better when the back isn't dampened by the chest/tummy/clothes.

Brace ends are scalloped somewhat out of necessity for most builders as you cant notch in a full sized brace with commercial linings.
Some classical guitar makers don't scallop the upper/lower transverse brace ends (see attached pics) but support it with a larger tentellone or full/partial side brace- they can do this as they build upside down, top glued on first, then the tentellones go in.
My brace ends are about 5mm high which I couldn't do with triangle shaped linings. It works with reverse kerfed and solid linings.
And to answer your other question on asymmetry in brace ends, it doesn't matter if one side is different to the other, just as long as both of stable/sound etc. Having said that I personally wouldn't make one end really strong (say 5mm), and the other really weak (say 1mm and not notched in)- it could cause some kind of twisting...? maybe. not sure but it sounds reasonable enough.

Great video. I always learn a lot from your videos. Thanks.