So, after my adventure rebuilding my 1619-4, Jay contacted me asking if I would like to take a stab at his 1967 Balladeer.

Being the adventurous-type, I naturally said, "You betcha!"

It arrived in the mail today.

We had discussed many different ways to proceed. Among these was using bearclaw spruce and the forward X-brace I used on my 1619 and using one of the rosettes I bought off eBay. We also discussed using hardwood binding instead of the plastic binding.

In the end, we decided to make a 3-piece top using straight-grain Sitka spruce like the original. I'm also leaning toward recreating the plastic binding it already has. I contacted JB and he managed to find a couple of 40th RI rosettes, one of which he was willing to sell me.

All I can say about these rosettes is: CHEAP!!! They're printed on pearloid paper which was glued into place after the guitar was finished.

Also, for the 40th RI, it looks like they used the original printing plates because all the detail of the grapes seen in the original rosette is all but gone and all the lines are thicker, which is what happens as printing plates wear out.

Jay already had a 5-point rosewood bridge, which he included in the guitar case when he shipped the guitar to me.

I've heard from a few people that the original X-bracing used by Ovation sounded really good, so I was looking forward to hearing how it sounded and to comparing to the forward X-bracing I used on my 1619.

In short, it sounds really good. I'm very impressed. It's hard to make an accurate comparison because Jay's guitar is strung with PBs and mine is strung with 80/20s. I bought a set of the same strings I put on my 1619 (Elixir 80/20 Lights) and I'm going to restring Jay's guitar so I can see how it sounds with 80/20s.

Because the bridge on Jay's guitar is lifting, I hope it doesn't pop off when I restring it for aural testing.

But, based on what I'm already hearing, I can see real benefit to using Charlie's original X-bracing. The pic below shows what braces are on the inside of Jay's guitar. If I decide to go with the original X-braces, I'll probably also use the fiberglass reinforcement strip seen in the lower bout.

I'm not sure why Charlie changed the original brace pattern unless he was a "dyin' to improve it" kind of guy. Martin tends to be a "benign neglect" kind of manufacturer, which is to say, "if it works, don't fix it." But, from what I gather from all the different brace patterns Ovation guitars had on them, and from what I read in the "Book", Charlie was always chasing after the 'perfect' brace pattern. IMO, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's hard to beat the sound of his original, simple X-braces.

Another thing we discussed was the fading logos on the head stock. I've already got artwork for the Ovation logo in vector format. It will be easy enough to duplicate the Balladeer text. I've got an ALPS 5000 printer that can print gold leaf, and I'm familiar with how to create decals having done it for many years for my model airplanes. My only real concern is whether I can make sure the clear carrier sheet of the decals are able to disappear under the finish. When I get to that point, I'll do a few tests to make sure before I do it on Jay's guitar.

More to follow...

Thanks, guys.

Well, I restrung the guitar with Elixir Nanoweb 80/20 Lights (.012-.053) which are the same strings that are on my 1619 and the two guitars sound very, very similar.

The Balladeer has a little more bass on the low E and A string, but only just a little. I attribute this to the lack of tone bars and finger braces, which allow the top to resonate a little more freely.

All-in-all, I'm very impressed with how good it sounds. IMO, the best thing for this guitar is to replicate the braces and keep the guitar as original as possible.

I'm going to start putting together a list of supplies, such as top wood, braces and binding, then get the parts ordered in the next couple of weeks.

It's interesting to note the differences between this guitar and later Ovations. The first thing is the headstock is noticeably smaller, as is the size of the body. The pic below, which I got from Talbert shows this difference between the size of the 1st Gen bowl and a later generation cloth bowl.



Another thing is that the binding is narrower than on later guitars. The binding on this one is just under 3/16". The binding on later Ovations is ~1/4".

Dan, threads like this encourage voyeuristic tendencies.  Yay!!! 

    "All I can say about these rosettes is: CHEAP!!! They're printed on pearloid paper which was glued into place after the guitar was finished."

I've seen that guitar rosettes are commonly just paper labels, but it is a bit of a let down to see that this one is too. Now I wonder if that's the case for the other O rosettes also. ??

    "Another thing is that the binding is narrower than on later guitars. The binding on this one is just under 3/16". The binding on later Ovations is ~1/4"."

Did the early models have pop'd top problems that prompted the switch to wider bindings? Or maybe it was just a supplier / manufacturer change?

I'm glad you approve. :D

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but it looks to me like all the O rosettes use the same cheap paper in their construction, even the (very expensive to buy) abalone rosettes.

Here's a few pics:

First, the rosette with which we're all very familiar:

Next, the dark underbelly of the beast. (DUBOB):

If we take a closer look at how it's constructed, we see that it's the same cheap pearloid paper glued to the back of the plastic rosette.

The oak leaf pattern is, either printed or silk-screened to the back of the clear plastic frame. The pearloid (or, abalone) paper is glued to the back of the frame, then the whole thing is sprayed with flat black paint.

The back of the abalone rosette I used on my 1619 looked just like this.

I don't know the answer to that question. Going to the wider bindings could have been a result of using different molded kerfings. Once I get the top off Jay's guitar I'll take a couple of pics to show what the early molded bindings look like. They don't have the same radiused (filleted) underside as what I saw on the 1619.

So, I'm back to work on 485. I wanted to finish up a 3D printed parts project for my brother.

In the meantime, I've been looking here and there at the guitar assessing it's general condition and what will need to be done during the re-top.

Not only does 485 sound really good, it also plays pretty nice. The action is a little higher at the nut end than I prefer, but it's still playable. The action at the bridge end is also pretty low.

While checking the neck angle I found the fretboard does point slightly above the top of the bridge. But, the bridge has a funny profile for an O.

I compared the bridge height to the replacement 5-point bridge. =8^0 (Yikes!)

I compared the 5-point bridge to an OEM walnut bridge and they're both the same height.

I used a small carbon fiber rod to get a basic idea of the neck angle. I laid it on the bowl.

Then, I looked at the neck from the side. It should be angled slightly down away from the bowl, but it's angled slightly up, which explains the shaved bridge.

I moved the CF rod to different positions to get an idea of how the top was warped. Overall, the top is cupped inward.

There is a noticeable bulge below the bridge.

Looking at the guitar from the top to the bottom, the reason for the deformation of the top is that the sides of the bowl in the upper bout area have warped inward. This is most apparent when compared to the lower bout in the next few photos.

I compared this guitar to all my other Ovations and this is the only one with the warping on the upper bout. All my other Os are flat in this area. Here's a close-up that shows the warped upper bout.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the neck position once I get the top off it. Ideally, 'stretching' the sides with piece that's slightly oversize will pull the neck back into proper alignment without having to heat the bowl. If 'stretching' the sides of the upper bout doesn't pull the neck into alignment, then the only other thing to do is a bowl bend, like what MWoody did recently to his 12-string.

While I was messing around in the bridge area, I decided to measure the scale. This was about 1/16" short. I used my strobe tuner and found the intonation was sharp on all six strings at the 12th fret, so this confirms that the bridge location is slightly off. It could have been glued into the wrong place when the replacement bridge was attached, or it could be a result of the top warping.

The plan is to put a new top onto the guitar and new binding. I used my CAD program to make samples of lines with differing widths to determine the thickness of plastic I'll need. The one below is the winner.

Unfortunately, while I can buy binding that's a close match to the ivory-colored binding used on Os, what I can't buy is binding that's the same thickness used in 485's binding. Which means I'll probably need to design and build a machine or a tool that will allow me to precisely thickness-shave or grind the binding.

More updates soon...

"found the intonation was sharp on all six strings"

 No wonder this was the only guitar I could sing in tune with.

Dan...holy cow...she was in pretty bad shape. It was evident that there was buzzing on the neck around the lower middle...but no one ever complained.  

I guess my question is...is it the tension/age that caused the multiple shifts...the lack of hydration on the top... 

Is it a good bet that the original 5 point was removed (and possibly damaged?) so that the guitar could be playable?

This is fascinating to watch.

It looks like it's mostly tension/age related. The splits in the lower bout probably contributed, too. 

My guess is that over time, the tension of the strings caused the top wood to cup inward. The plasticity of the bowl sides allowed them to be warped as the cupping top wood rolled the top of the sides inward.

Based on my experience with fiberglass, I'd say the sides have probably taken a set to this new shape. The tricky part is whether the upper bout sides can be warped back into shape.

Maybe. It's hard to say why the bridge was replaced. I can say that once this one comes off, it's not going to work on too many other guitars.

Thanks! I'm proceeding slowly right now so I can make a list of what needs to be done and map out the course of action so everything gets done in the right order. 

So, after a bit of thought and research online, I think I have a pretty good idea of how to proceed.

The first thing to do is to remove the strings, tuners, TRC and bridge saddle.

These were stashed into a compartmentalized container.

Next, remove the bindings. And, as it turns out, the purfling, too.

Now the edges of the top are exposed.

I used an Xacto chisel to split the glue joint holding the top into place. As you can see, the style of the kerfing is completely different.

Voila! The top is off. This poor, poor top. What a hard life it's had. More on that later.

I used the Xacto chisel to clean the kerfing of all the wood fibers. That looks 100% better already. Of note in this photo are the molded kerfing and the vertical lines around the sides of the bowl underneath the kerfing. This is an important feature. More on this later, too.

The only step remaining in the top removal is to clean out the area between the underside of the fretboard extension and the top of the neck block.

I used the same tools and techniques as on my 1619. And, for whatever reason, the progress stops right around the 15th fret. These next two pics also show the molded cloth kerfing really well.

IMO, the molded kerfing is an important factor that makes the the early Os sound so good. This, along with the simple X-bracing allows the top to vibrate really freely. The molded kerfing reminds me of the patented suspension ring used on the Adamas guitars.

Moving right along...

Nah! Just kidding!

Seriously, I used the practice top wood from my 1619 so I could check the neck geometry. (Ewww...)

One idea I had to push the sides of the bowl back into place was to cut down some Go-bars. (didn't work --the bowl flexes in all the wrong places.)

Getting back to the top. It has had a hard life. It's got several cleats used to reinforce crack repairs. These look to me like bass wood. (Think: popcycle sticks) Whomever did the repairs obviously loved epoxy as it was generously slathered on.

But, let's talke a little about how its construction. It's a 3-piece top. But, what's interesting is that it's hand-made and full of pencil marks for the alignment of the bracing. Here's a few pics that show the pencil marks, starting at the upper bout and moving down to the lower bout.

The fiberglass tape reinforcement across the lower bout looks entirely ordinary and should be easy enough to duplicate.

Noteworthy is the extra tone bar across the lower bout between the two lower legs of the X-braces. Obviously, not a part of the original construction. It was probably done as a doubler for the crack repairs.

Also interesting is the 'loose' manner in which the bracing parts were aligned to the marks during assembly. So loose that one of the reinforcement strips overlapped the sound hole and needed to be sanded to match the opening.

Since I had the top off the bowl, I was curious about comparing the 1st Gen bowl vs. a 2nd Gen bowl. If you'll recall from my The History of the Bowl thread, the 1st Gen bowl was a cloth and resin layup vacuum bagged over a male mold. The 2nd Gen bowl was also cloth and resin, but was done inside a female mold and without vacuum.

From my own knowledge of molding fiberglass parts, I know what difference these methods makes in the final part, but I was curious what if any difference it made in the bowl, i.e.: weight, resonance, etc.

Luckily, I just bought a BFLG 1978 1617 project off eBay that was missing its top and hardware, so it's a fairly accurate apples-to-apples comparison between 1st Gen and 2nd Gen.

First, the weight. The two are within ounces of each other. The 1617 weighed in at 3 lbs. 8 Oz. while 485 weighed in at 3 Lbs. 4 Oz. So, the 1st Gen. is lighter than 2nd Gen.

I tried a tap-test of both bowls. What a difference. The 1st Gen. has real tone. The 2nd Gen. sounded dull. It still had tone, but it was being muted. It was about then that a light bulb went off.

From a purely construction standpoint, the two guitars, although separated by 12 years, are nearly identical. But, the 1619 weighs 4 ounces heavier. The 2nd Gen. layup method can result in heavier pieces, but not 4 ounces in a piece this size. And, the 1617 kerfing is beefier, but not significantly heavier than what was used on 485. The only difference between these two that would add that much weight is the finish applied to the bowls.

When flying model airplanes, weight is critical. As a result, serious modelers are very weight conscious. One thing I've learned is that paint is heavy. Thick paint is really heavy. And, thick paint can easily add ounces on a piece the size of the bowls on Os. But, more importantly to guitars is that thick paint impedes the vibration of the parts.

IMO, this is just one more thing that gave the early Os the reputation of good sounding guitars. And, any Ovation knock-offs I produce will have thin paint on the bowl.

WOW Dan, 

A couple of questions...

I have read where the bracing is supposed to be a little ways away from the soundhole ... 

and I noticed that the bracing around the soundhole did not come in contact with the cross bracing.

Going for optimal soundboard response, do these two things inhibit that?