Acoustic Variations

jwilli · Post by **jwilli** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 8:19 am

And another view...

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:01 am

Externally, at least these are two entirely different generations of guitars. Apparently, the "old" style was completely re-engineered in the mid-1990s; everytime I see one of the older ones I am struck by how elegant but old-fashioned those body shapes are. John, since I'm building a jumbo for you, it will be fascinating to string the two jumbos up with the same strings and do a listening test on them.

The guy who re-engineered the two bodies for RIC (whose name JH has mentioned several times, but which my memory didn't retain except to recall he was Eastern European), was very clear on the shapes being redone for sonic improvement. I would assume that the internal bracing scheme was changed at the same time.

The lower bout on the "old" jumbo is so round and the waist so pinched compared to the "new" style, which has a more oval bout and a gentler waist.

I will really enjoy seeing one of each dread and jumbo next to one another sometime in the future.

lyle_from_minneapolis · Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:32 am

***...(sigh)...***

jps · Post by **jps** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:46 am

jsm610 · Post by **jsm610** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:10 am

Side by side: '95 700 vs. '02/'05 700

JW's '95 'on top' of the '02/'05:

I didn't match the angle of JW's shot in mine... His looks like it is leaning back a little, mine is more perpenticular with the camera.

I'm not sure there is a difference in the body? I'd be curious as to what others see. They use the same case don't they?

JW: what is the TRC like on that '95? Does it have the 'slanted' edges? Is the SN sticker in the same place?

sloop_john_b · Post by **sloop_john_b** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:26 am

I really don't see any differences between the '95 and the modern onces except for soundhole placement and bridge.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:38 am

The guy who re-engineered the two bodies for RIC (whose name JH has mentioned several times, but which my memory didn't retain except to recall he was Eastern European) . . .

Dumitru Manea

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:00 am

What we are seeing, then is camera lens distortion, borne out by the seeming variation in scale length and the definite non-circular shape of the soundhole in the later (Minutaglio) guitar.

I'd be interested to see some measurements of the lower bout of Jwilli's or John M.'s jumbos. I'll bet they match the measurements below:

Here's a photo of a body in progress in my shop, assembled from RIC components in a mold made from an assembled RIC jumbo dating from 2001:

The distance from the lower edge of the soundhole to lower edge of guitar is 13 1/8". The width of lower bout at widest part is 17". Can you see how oval it looks, as opposed to those above, upon which the lower bout looks almost circular? In fact, scaling those photos, the lower edge of soundhole to bottom edge of guitar dimension would be 14.5".

Last, look at the soundholes in all three photos. My photo has a quite round soundhole, whereas the two above it have narrowed soundholes indicating the entire body shape as being distorted.

kog · Post by **kog** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:58 am

My gosh, those are ALL so beautiful. You guys have (and Paul is creating) some truly magnificent instruments. I now have a new Rick to lust after.

jwilli · Post by **jwilli** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:33 pm

Paul, measurement of the '95 700C:
Lower edge of soundhole to lower edge of guitar is 12.5".

Width: 16 11/16"

jwilli · Post by **jwilli** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:39 pm

John, instead of a sticker, this serial number is "stamped" in gold ink. And truss rod cover is "beveled" like the newer acoustics except in white.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:01 pm

I just had a second look at the picture I posted above. On my Apple computer, the proportions look correct--the lower bout is roughly a 65 degree ellipse laid on its side. On my Windows computer, the lower bout looks just like the previous posts--nearly circular, and the sound hole is an oval. The Windows computer or monitor is modifying the proportions...it is not a camera or lens anomaly.

Jwilli, it's obvious that different molds and patterns were used to make that '95 of yours. Someday we'll do a comparo, complete with mirror inspection.

jsm610 · Post by **jsm610** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:14 pm

"On my Apple computer, the proportions look correct.."
Now you tell me, after I've been trying to see the difference for hours, and always concluding that they look the same!

charlyg · Post by **charlyg** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:55 pm

Another reason I switched! Although I didn't know it at the time!!!!

jps · Post by **jps** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:32 pm

"The Windows computer or monitor is modifying the proportions...it is not a camera or lens anomaly."

I had that problem until I set my monitor for it's highest native resolution, then no more problem. Originally I had 1024 x 768 set and got squished images. I then set it to 1280 x 1024 and all is fine now.