When is a “Wedgie” a Good Thing?

By Mike Maddox

Manuscript submitted to Flatpicking Guitar Magazine

April, 2002

Revision 1

Introduction

As a member in good standing of the flatpicking guitar community, I know there are a number of persistent questions that have been the topics of long-standing discussions among our members. These include:

Is rosewood or mahogany the “best” tone wood?
Are three-piece backs more or less desirable than two-piece backs?
Are pre-war Martins really the holy grail of flatpicking guitars?
Why would I want to have a “wedgie”?

Certainly, the on-line contingent of flatpickers has all but exhausted the range of opinions regarding these matters – well, except for that “wedgie” thing.

In an attempt to answer these burning questions, I visited well-known luthier Randy Lucas at his shop near Columbus, Indiana. During a wide-ranging interview that consumed nearly four hours (including the 3-gravy lunch at Bob Evans), Randy filled me in on his background, his product line, and his thoughts regarding where things might be heading in the world of flattop guitars. Rather than presenting a “question and answer” account of our conversation, this article is a distillation of the most salient information from that interview.

Beginnings

Randy’s path to the top of luthiery world began in 1988, when repairing and restoring vintage guitars led him to recreate some of the Martin guitar models from the golden era of the 1930’s. Working as a repair person allowed him the opportunity to take apart, measure, sketch, and otherwise absorb every detail of many types of instruments, including the pre-war Martin guitars that are so highly regarded.

With a natural curiosity regarding the components that made one guitar sound different or better than another, Randy made enough detailed notes and drawings to literally fill entire books. He immersed himself in the luthiery fraternity – picking up information regarding wood, woodworking methods, and guitar construction from other luthiers and from every publication he could find. This experience provided the reference point from which to launch his building career.

Randy’s experimentation with vintage Martin designs evolved into his most well-known instrument – the Kenny Smith (KS) Model guitar. Randy credits his association with Kenny and the wide acclaim of the KS Model guitar, as the most significant factors in his rise to notoriety within the flatpicking and luthiery community. Although he no longer offers the KS Model in his product line, he is still completing these instruments for those who had previously placed orders.

It would be easy to believe that the KS Model and other dreadnaught-style guitars would be a great niche for any luthier. However, Randy is very clear in his perspective that he has absolutely no desire to build only great reproductions of the pre-war dreadnaught guitars. Instead, his explicit goal is to advance the state of the guitar design and building art. His quest for new and different guitar designs is rooted in the belief that there is ample room for the guitar to grow – both in its fundamental ability to produce sound and its ability to relate to the musicians who play it.

To a significant degree, Randy, along with a few other individuals, has already dramatically improved the level of expectation regarding guitar construction. He is generally acknowledged to be among an elite group of luthiers whose craftsmanship is superior. His name is usually mentioned in the same sentence as Bill Collings, Lynn Dudenbostel, and Marty Lanham as producing instruments with impeccable fit and finish.

Even among the notoriously anal-retentive (and I use that term with Randy’s blessing) luthier community, Randy’s work is perceived as a cut above. Randy accepts these assessments with a good deal of humility. He acknowledges that his work is subject to the dictates of the “helpless perfectionist” that forms the basis of his personality. He compares himself to any artist who is striving to produce the best possible embodiment of his craft.

That Guitar is HOW MUCH?

This line of discussion provided an opportunity for Randy to explain how his quest for perfection relates directly to the price of his instruments. He acknowledged that he has heard comments regarding what some perceive as the relatively high price of his guitars. He has, in fact, raised his prices over the past few years. He reacts with consternation when people assume that his prices reflect an inflated ego or elitism related to his much-in-demand instruments. In fact, these prices reflect two facts of life in the luthiery business.

First, independent luthiers can produce only a certain number of instruments each year. Randy acknowledges with an “I’m ashamed to admit it, but…” comment that he is the least efficient luthier he knows. His basic guitar model requires about 90 hours of labor to build. For comparison, large (mass production) builders typically take less than 10 hours to build an instrument. His construction techniques involve a great deal of hand work and serial operation.

The devil, as they say, is in the details. Selecting materials, voicing (or tap tuning) the top, using hide glue to construct the body, fitting the dovetail neck joint, hand radiusing the corners of the fingerboard, and individually rounding the ends of each fret are among these time-consuming details. Wringing that extra 0.5% of construction perfection takes an inordinate amount of time. Currently, Randy builds only about 15 guitars a year. His goal is to build 30 instruments a year.

In an attempt to address some of the less efficient steps in his production process, Randy is in the middle of creating and re-designing many of his jigs and fixtures. I saw a detailed CAD drawing he made of a bending fixture that will allow him to produce bent sides with a much higher degree of repeatability and a much lower level of grain damage than with his current bending technique. Where automated shaping is appropriate - rough neck blanks, for example - Randy is getting ready to employ computer-based milling equipment. To ensure the best tone from each instrument, he draws the line where hand work is still needed, especially when it comes to voicing and bracing the top. Although this process re-design is time-consuming, Randy is betting that the eventual payback in efficiency and consistency will more than offset the resources he’s devoting to it.

The second biggest cost factor for Randy – really for any luthier – is finding, purchasing, cutting, grading, and storing wood species that are, in many cases, all but extinct. Randy makes 4-5 extended trips a year to find and buy wood. Knowing that certain types of wood will not be available within a few years means that Randy and other builders must try to balance the cost of acquiring and maintaining sufficient inventory with the projected client demand for various wood species. Although wood is the fundamental ingredient in guitars, none of the activities related to acquiring and storing wood is independently subsidized. In other words, these costs have to be recovered in the price of the instruments sold.

Ergonomics

You might not think about it in these terms, but playing a steel string, acoustic guitar can be, and often is, a serious health threat. The awkward arm and body posture, the force required to hold down the strings, the repetitive nature of both left and right hand actions, and the often tense and static nature of holding a particular playing position all combine to present a significant threat of repetitive motion injuries. These injuries, which tend to result from an accumulation of many small stresses (rather than a single traumatic event), include both joint and soft-tissue inflammation, as well as nerve compression and irritation.

For those who might not know, I should confess at this point that my formal education and much of my professional life has revolved around the science of ergonomics and human factors. The first time I had an opportunity to spend an hour or two with Randy, which occurred at the Merle Watson Memorial Music Festival (Merlefest) in 1999, we found that we had a mutual interest in this topic. I had been interested in the early ergonomic work of William Cumpiano, which had been reported in Acoustic Guitar Magazine. Bill had designed a guitar with a shallow, wedge-shaped body for a musician who had suffered a chronic shoulder injury caused by playing a standard dreadnaught.

When Randy and I met at Merlefest, we talked about possible changes that might be made so steel-string guitars would be more comfortable and less dangerous to play. I mentioned to Randy during our interview that I was impressed by our Merlefest conversation – to find that a well-known luthier was so interested in ergonomics. Randy’s interest in ergonomics, though he might not have known it by that name at the time, began when he was studying classical guitar in college. Hours of practice holding a guitar with his forearm resting on a sharp guitar edge caused him to start his search for what he knew must be a better way to design and build these instruments.

When Randy built guitar number four (a jumbo), he used a shallow body depth in an effort to reduce the arm extension required to play it. This was his first stab at changing the design of a guitar to accommodate those who would play it. In the early 1990’s, during an ASIA (Association of Stringed Instrument Artisans) symposium, Randy met Grit Laskin and Bill Cumpiano. During a panel session, they answered questions and described their ideas about ergonomic guitar features. It was just before this time that Bill Cumpiano had designed and built a wedge-bodied guitar. Grit’s approach included an arm cutout along the top edge of the lower bout. Randy liked both approaches, but he preferred Cumpiano’s design, since the appearance of the front of the guitar was not altered.

Our Merlefest discussion included the advantages of using a wedge-shaped body, as well as other possible ergonomic features, such as rounded body and fretboard edges, different neck profiles, etc. Of these possibilities, the wedge-shaped body provides probably the biggest immediate return in terms of reduced injuries. Playing a typical acoustic guitar shape requires the musician to drape his or her picking arm over the top of the instrument. This causes two things to happen – both bad from an ergonomic perspective.

First, the picking arm must be held out away from the player’s body. Technically, this is called “abduction” and, like all static, non-neutral postures, can lead to joint and soft tissue problems. Second, since we can’t really suspend our arm in mid-air (at least for any length of time), part of the weight of the picking arm is usually resting against the top edge of the lower bout of the guitar. The sharp edge where the top of the guitar meets the side can reduce blood flow in the lower arm and can, in fact, directly impinge on the nerves running on the body side of the upper arm.

Varying the depth of the guitar, with a shallower bass bout and deeper treble bout, allows the top to be held at a slight angle to the body. In the case of Randy’s version of the wedge design, the depth of the bass bout varies in depth from ľ to 1 inch shallower than the treble side of the guitar. Over a 15 ⅝ inch distance (the approximate width of a dreadnaught guitar lower bout), the change in body depth results in an angle of about 4 degrees. This angle allows the relationship of the player’s arm and the top of the guitar to approach parallel, reducing the angle of arm abduction and the amount of sharp contact between guitar edge and soft tissue. Cutting through the technical jargon, wedge-bodied guitars feel more comfortable to hold and play – and they reduce the probability of joint and soft-tissue injuries.

In the domain of ergonomics, small changes can make a big difference. On all his guitars, Randy rounds the edges of the fingerboard by hand sanding the sharp transition between the top and sides. Instead of a sharp edge, Randy’s fingerboards contain a refined, convex shape. He also hand radiuses the ends of each fret, so they present a smooth shape over which the player’s fingers can slide. These seemingly small construction details contribute to an package of ergonomic improvements that make for much more comfortable (and inherently safer) playing.

The Wedgie

The ostensible purpose of my interview with Randy was to discuss his new LD18/3 LSH Wedge guitar. When I first saw the prototype for this guitar (at Steve Kaufman’s Flatpicking Guitar Camp in 2001), I jokingly named it the “wedgie”. Much to Randy’s chagrin, I’m sure, that name stuck. It’s just easier to say “wedgie” than “LD18/3 LSH”. Unfortunately, it is misleading to call the LD18/3 the “wedgie”, since Randy makes the wedge-shaped body available on any instrument he builds. In fact, I’ve got a new Lucas SJ model ordered and it will also have a wedge-shaped body. The complete specifications for the LD18/3 LSH are given below.

AA Grade Adirondack/Red Spruce top
Scalloped, 1” advanced, Red Spruce bracing
1930’s style herringbone trim
Large soundhole
Vintage-style Brazilian Rosewood bridge with 2 5/16” pin spacing
1930’s style tortoise-style pickguard
Ebony fingerboard with no front-facing position dots
25.4 inch scale
Tortoise-style body binding, end graft, and heel cap
Aged Mahogany sides
Three-piece back with aged Mahogany outer panels and old-growth Brazilian Rosewood center panel
Neck is 1 ľ” at the nut, 2 Ľ” at the 12th fret. Slim profile with diamond volute.
Waverly tuners with tinted ivoroid buttons
Brazilian Rosewood peghead veneer with torch-style inlay – bound with tortoise-style edging and black/white purfling
Fossil ivory nut with intonated bone saddle
Wedge body depth for ergonomic playing benefits
Hide glue body construction
Nitrocellulose gloss finish
Geib style five-ply hardshell case

Price $5,000

Randy’s goal with the LD 18/3 LSH was to create a flatpicking guitar that captures the sound of the prewar guitars and re-package it in an ergonomically correct body. While the wedge body is certainly an innovation, the LD18/3 is really a groundbreaking instrument for other reasons, as well. As the designation implies, its heritage is the 1930’s vintage D-18 that also formed the basis for Randy’s KS model. It’s body outline and dimensions are very much consistent with vintage D-18’s, as is the use of hide glue in its construction and the use of Adirondack (Red) spruce as the top material, advanced X-bracing, herringbone trim (from D-28’s of that era), Brazilian Rosewood bridge, and tortoise (plastic) pickguard. Also, of course, the sides and part of the back are made of aged mahogany.

Beyond these features, which owe their heritage to pre-war Martin dreadnaughts, other elements of the LD 18/3 LSH are derived from Randy’s experimentation with improvements to the original design, his desire to be a better steward of the environment, and his determination to prove that guitars with three-piece backs have gotten a bad rap. The most visible non-vintage details are the large sound hole and the use of a fossil nut. I asked Randy specifically why he uses fossil nuts and bone saddles. He told me he believes fossil, especially the harder enamel layer he uses, allows wound strings to slide more easily in the nut grooves than bone, while maintaining the mass required to transmit vibration efficiently. He uses unbleached bone as the saddle material. Fossil saddles can sometimes impart a glassy, bright sound and Randy thought the LD 18/3 LSH was already bright enough.

The use of a three-piece back accomplishes several objectives. First and foremost, Randy decided this would be a good way to combine the best tone characteristics of rosewood and mahogany. Most luthiers acknowledge that the soundboard material determines most of the volume and overall tone of a guitar. However, the materials in the back and, to a lesser extent, the sides contribute to the “color” of an instrument’s sound. What better way to combine the contributions of rosewood and mahogany than to actually use these woods in the back?

Martin pioneered the use of three-piece backs in 1965 with the D-35 (and the subsequent HD-35). These guitars evoke strong feelings from many in the acoustic community. I should admit here that I still own the HD-35 I bought over 12 years ago and I very much like it. However, a significant number of knowledgeable people claim the 35’s simply don’t have the sound for lead guitar work. Also of historical note is the fact that one of the Martin “special issue” guitars in 1991 was the D-3-18, which was essentially a D-18 with a three-piece mahogany back and several vintage appointments.

One of Randy’s motivations in designing and building the LD 18/3 LSH was to demonstrate that three-piece backs are no less desirable, sound-wise, than two-piece backs. In his analysis of D-35’s, Randy discovered that Martin not only introduced three-piece (rosewood) backs in this model, but also significantly changed the top bracing. In the D-35, Martin used the 000 model X braces, which are shorter and narrower than the standard “D” X braces. He attributes the distinctive, bassier, sound of D-35’s to these bracing changes and not the three-piece back. In the LD 18/3 LSH, Randy has provided a top bracing design that he feels will deliver a balanced, clear sound, while still providing that bass “oomph” that dreadnaught players love.

The third reason Randy chose to give this model a three-piece back is the same reason that is attributed to The Martin Guitar Company for introducing the D-35, namely, to use pieces of Brazilian rosewood that were too small to make two-piece backs. As CITES-regulated tone wood becomes more and more scarce, it will become increasingly important to use as much of the existing material as possible. Like all builders, Randy has many small pieces of material that are either too small to form half a guitar back or that have a small defect (that can be removed at the expense of some wood area). Using these smaller pieces of wood is an economic issue for builders and an environmental issue for all of us who make, buy, and sell instruments made from these materials.

I discovered during our interview, though this really comes as no great surprise, that Randy is passionate about finding and using great wood – and about preserving the sources of wood through careful forest management, very selective cutting and salvage, and designing instruments to make the most efficient use of the wood that is available. The LD 18/3 LSH embodies this philosophy in a way that lets the musician, wood freak, visual artist, and environmentalist in all of us win. Think of it as a “no guilt” way to enjoy a great guitar.

Looking Toward the Future

Randy Lucas is a thinker as well as a builder. This is trait that is probably shared by all great artists and craftspeople. How can I do this better? How can I make these guitars respond more effectively to the person playing them? What materials am I overlooking that might really make a quantum leap in sound (or use of materials, or construction efficiency, or design, etc.)?

Randy’s ideas for the future form a pretty long list. They include the practice of milling fret slots in fingerboard blanks so they do not extend all the way to the edges. This technique provides all the advantages of bound fingerboards without requiring any edge binding. On all mass-produced guitars with unbound fingerboards, frets are installed so the ends of the fret tangs overhang the edges of the fingerboard. These ends are then filed so they are flush with the side of the fingerboard. After the guitar is finished, the fingerboard shrinks (but the frets don’t), leaving chipped lacquer on the side of the fingerboard. In severe cases, the fret ends actually overhang the fingerboard enough to interfere with sliding the fretting hand up and down the neck. As a great industrial designer once said “All great design ideas seem obvious in retrospect.”

In addition to such incremental improvements, Randy has two patent applications pending. These relate to the use of layered wood veneers in ways that mimic, and in many ways improve upon, the properties of solid wood. For now, this feature will be limited to one or two models. He is also considering how the use of composite reinforcing might allow tops to be built with very few braces and with as yet unexplored tonal properties.

As our conversation was winding down, I asked Randy what sorts of things he sees himself doing in the future. He mentioned that, although he is best known for his steel string guitars, his formal musical training and first love was the classical guitar. He wants to explore ways to make the classical guitar much more responsive. He’s pondering whether different types of string compositions might be the path to the better classical guitar. You’ll recall that Randy actually started his luthiery path while hanging around with John Monteleone when John was primarily building mandolins. Randy told me that he’d love to start building mandolins and archtop guitars using the unique peghead outline he developed for his new “SJ” model guitar.

For those who might be concerned that Randy is stepping away from his “standard” 1930’s era models, rest assured that he is not. However, in an effort to direct more of his efforts to his later models, Randy is limiting the production of his mahogany (base price) models to three orders per year.

We ended the interview with a few thoughts from Randy regarding “things he’d really like readers to know.” What Randy said, which I’ve paraphrased below, seems to apply equally well to all independent luthiers – and maybe to one’s general perspective on all things musical. Randy’s advice: Try more than one example of a luthier’s work before passing judgment on whether you like or dislike it. Heck, try more than one model from the same luthier.

Those of us who inhabit the Internet have seen a number of examples of people proclaiming that they played a particular guitar from builder “X” and either loved it or hated it. Randy rightly points out that these public proclamations have an effect that might far exceed the author’s intention – or the reality of why and how that particular instrument was designed.

As an example, Randy cited his own KS model. He said that he designed the action on this guitar model so a player of Kenny’s caliber could depend on the strings popping back under the pick quickly. This gives the guitar, or at least early versions of it, a “stiff” feel. Other Lucas models have a completely different feel. Not to mention the fact that as a custom builder, Randy can provide whatever characteristics a particular player might want, in terms of neck shape and tonal characteristics.

So how do I sum up my visit with Randy Lucas? I already knew Randy was a nice guy. Like most of you, I also knew Randy’s reputation as a luthier. I had played several of his guitars. None of this information came as a revelation. I suppose what struck me after spending almost four hours talking with Randy is that, like most other “hot” talents, he’s been laboring in the trenches for years – perfecting his craft and thinking about how he can advance the state of the art.

The new ergonomic features Randy offers on his guitars elegantly demonstrates that ergonomics does not necessarily translate into a weird looking instrument. When Randy showed the prototype of his SJ model (with the wedge body) to some musician friends, their first reaction when they opened the case was “Wow! It’s not a Frankenstein guitar.”

His craft is difficult and demanding. Earning a living building guitars is a daunting proposition and Randy struggles with this aspect of his chosen craft. Above all, Randy is a person who loves what he does and is driven to perfection. The artifacts he builds bring pleasure to a great number of people and they will survive as testaments to his craftsmanship for decades – perhaps centuries. We should all be so lucky.