No two luthiers approach their art in the same way. Almost all will produce certain specific models, with certain options available for each. I prefer a different way of building instruments: making each one different, with its own strengths, tailored to fit the player that will use it. I give my guitars names, not serial numbers, and never expect them to sound exactly like another instrument.
The vast majority of guitars in the world have been mass-produced. This is not a bad thing; it means that now there are decent-sounding instruments available for such low prices that anyone can afford a guitar. A $200 guitar is a great value, no question. At the other end of the spectrum, however, it becomes harder to justify the price. Better guitars cost more to manufacture, but if you're committed to owning a great guitar, do you really want it to come from an assembly line? I know some musicians who had thought that there was no option but to buy an instrument "off the rack".
I'm trying to change that. I've discovered that I can build a unique, custom-built instrument for a price competitive with that of a top-notch factory instrument. Being a small business means that I'm more adaptable to my customers and a changing marketplace. Being able to perform all of the aspects of construction from start to finish means that the quality of the finished guitar is easy to guarantee. And having the skill to build instruments by hand, without investing in costly manufacturing machinery, means that the saving are passed on to you, the customer.
Some luthiers relish developing innovative new construction techniques, using the latest technology to increase their output. Most are probably more like me, recognizing that the sensible use of power tools can increase the quality of the final product. A drill press or router, for example, are tremendously helpful. A computer-controlled laser cutting machine is much less essential. I tend to rely on power tools less than most, not because of any philosophical opposition to them, but because I have found that I can perform many operations the old-fashioned way, by hand, in about the same amount of time, with a great degree of accuracy. Being able to build every guitar by hand without molds or forms means that it's easy to customize the design of each guitar. It doesn't have to conform to a pre-defined body shape or depth, or to use standard-issue components. The only limits to customization are practicality and imagination.
There are some unique features I have developed that I like to incorporate into my guitars. They may even be considered radical compared to the generally conservative common practice. They are not fixed requirements, but I believe that they offer significant benefits:
Flat backs: My arch-top guitars so far have had "flat" backs. They're not actually flat, but rather slightly domed, in the same manner as that of a flat-top guitar. Guitars of this type are rare, but there is a clear historical precedent. To see it, we have to look at the days when the arch-top guitar was first being developed. As far as we can tell, it was Orville Gibson's idea that a guitar should be carved out of solid planks of wood like a violin, rather than assembled out of thin sheets as flat-tops are. His instruments are generally regarded as curiosities; it wasn't until Lloyd Loar came to work for the Gibson company that arch-top guitars were developed into the instruments we recognize today. Loar kept the carved, arched top and back developed by Gibson; it was now an integral part of the company's heritage, and all subsequent arch-top guitars built by anyone pay homage to these terrific instruments.
If Gibson had wanted to be inspired by an instrument more like a guitar in the first place (instead of the violin, which is acoustically very different from a guitar) he would have found the viol family. A viola da gamba, or bass viol, is a bowed instrument much closer in size to the guitar, and tuned roughly the same as well. It is generally regarded as being mellower and sweeter-toned than members of the violin family, and it has a flat back. There have been a few notable arch-top guitars with flat backs built, such as the Martin C-3 and the Gibson ES-325. The efforts of a few modern luthiers such as Steve Grimes, Jeff Langdon, Stephen Holst, and myself may someday make it more mainstream.
There are practical advantages to using a flat back. It requires much less wood, and since guitar backs are by necessity made of wide planks from old trees, it makes ecological sense to try to minimize the amount of wood used. It also makes sense from an economic point of view. The guitar can be less expensive because a thin piece of wood costs less than a thick one.
This would mean nothing if the flat-backed arch-tops I build didn't sound as good as the traditional type. I believe they do. The back of any guitar has a much more subtle effect on tone than the soundboard, and a flat back merely contributes to a certain underlying quality to the tone. The sound of a fine guitar cannot effectively be described, it must be heard: for some sound samples, see my Gallery.
Non-Traditional Woods: Good-quality archtop guitars have traditionally been made with only one wood combination: spruce top, figured maple back and sides, and ebony fittings. They conspire to produce the appearance and sound we have come to expect from archtop guitars. Those who desire a slightly different appearance and sound will be pleased to know that it is possible to use a variety of different woods for the body, especially when designed with a flat back. Woods normally only used for flat-top guitars because of their weight, expense, and difficult workability, such as Padouk, Macassar Ebony, and the various Rosewoods, become viable options. Here is a more thorough description of some possibilities. For soundboards, besides the various species of spruce, we can also use Western Red Cedar, which imparts a darker, woodsier tone that matches its warm brown colour, the similarly toned Redwood, or ghostly pale Fir.
Thrust bar: The body of a guitar is under a great deal of stress when it is tuned up to pitch; the combined tension of a set of strings can add up to 150 lbs. The guitar must be strong enough to resist this force with almost no movement, but at the same time must be built lightly enough to be easily resonant. These conflicting demands are difficult to reconcile; too strong a soundbox and the tone will suffer, too light and the guitar will feel flimsy, difficult to intonate and keep in tune, or possibly collapse. I've developed a way to retain suitable stiffness while allowing the soundbox to be made lighter and more resonant than before. It consists of a small bar of wood carefully fitted during construction between the neck and tail blocks, near the front of the guitar. This bar effectively prevents the neck and tail blocks from being pulled towards each other as they would under string tension, resulting in a very solid-feeling guitar. It allows the soundboard, sides, and back of the guitar to be made thinner and braced more lightly, creating a more resonant guitar without the drawbacks of flimsiness or fear of collapse.
Minimalism: Instruments of all kinds have been undergoing a steady reduction in decoration for hundreds of years. In baroque times a guitar for a wealthy patron would often feature an oil painting by a famous artist on the back (or even the soundboard) or be so encrusted with ivory it would sound noticeably feeble. After the French revolution aristocratic fashions became less popular, and builders concentrated more on balance and proportion. They limited their use of marquetry to a decorative border around the instrument and the soundhole, a trend that has continued to this day.
Modern luthiers like myself are experimenting with further refining the aesthetics of our instruments, paring away extraneous decoration to reduce the guitar to its essentials. Modern glues and finishes have allowed binding to be optional, while new materials and machining techniques have allowed soundhole rosettes and fingerboard inlays to look different from ever before. It is my personal preference to produce an instrument where the geometry and proportions are the main decorative element, and where the sure hand of expert craftsmanship is merely a means to display the infinite beauty of natural wood.