ala Castelluccia

[Craig Bumgarner]

I recently finished a guitar ala a Jacques Castelluccia D hole guitar built Paris in the 1950s. I've had the pleasure of working on and examining three original Castelluccias over the last couple years and I play next to one of them once or twice a week. I've come to love their sound and it seemed only fitting that I should try to build one. I put posted to the archtop forum because even though the top is not carved like an archtop, the Castelluccia has a bridge and tailpiece like an archtop and at least some arch, albeit slight and formed to curved braces. Their use in swing jazz is more relative to archtops than flattops.

This guitar has an engleman spruce top, laminated makori back and sides, mahogany neck, ebony fingerboard and bridge. Finish is french polish in the traditional manner except the back and sides which received three coats of spar varnish first to protect against perspiration damage.

Castellucia's model in the 1950s was clearly modeled after Selmer guitars in appearance, but was quite a bit different in many ways, especially the tops. The tops were thicker (3.5mm) with only three ladder braces where as a Selmer typically has a 2.5mm top and as many as nine braces if you count everything. Where the bridge on a Selmer sits firmly on a box of four braces, the Castellucia bridge sits on unsupported top with the closest brace 35mm away. The result is a different sound. Some would say it is a simple sound, lacking in complexity, but the sound is LOUD and it cuts! Very aggressive, dry and crisp. Bass notes are tight and woody. Mids and highs clear and loud. Chords can be full or dry depending on how you play them. The character of this sound is most appreciated when playing with other players, whether it is rhythm or solo, the sound cuts through well. It works especially well for swing jazz and gypsy jazz.

The three Castelluccias I've played all sounded similar with slight differences between each. I copied much of the design concepts of the originals, especially in the top and body, so it is not too surprising the sound seems to land right in the middle of the three. Castelluccias sound great, but they were not the best built guitar every built and structurally, old ones can have lots of problems. I tried to address some of this as well. The most obvious exceptions to original Castelluccias include:

• the fingerboard is cut off square at the 20th fret so as to fit my Peche a la Mouche magnetic pickup easily. (I usually play acoustic with a mic, but there are some jobs you just need some extra punch. With a mag pickup in the bag, I know I can get the job done).
• I used a bolt on/bolt off neck design similar to Wm. Cumpiano and Trevor Gore. (Honestly, it looks to me that anything is better than the original Castelluccia neck joint, the originals were simply end grain glued to the body in a shallow recess.)
• the blocking for the bolt on neck is tied to the upper brace, stiffening the support of the fingerboard and neck considerably so as to prevent top caving above the soundhole, a problem on the Castelluccia D hole models.
• I used three light braces on the back to get the radius as I was too lazy to build a curved mold for laminating the back.
• Grover tuners because they actually turn.... and in the right direction ta' boot
• in case you are wondering, the lack of mustache pieces either side the bridge is intentional. This is the way Castelluccia did it, on some of his guitars at least. The bases have twice the surface area compared to Selmer style because the Castels have no braces under the bridge and the larger bases are needed to spread the load out over the unsupported top.

Anyhow, thought you all might enjoy seeing this. I've started another along this line as I still have a bunch of ideas to try.

ala Castellucia-3b.jpg (56.67 KiB) Viewed 18535 times

[Jason Rodgers]

Way cool, Craig! Any shots of the guts? I'm know what a Sel-Mac looks like under the hood (braces above and below soundhole, braces framing the pliage, sometimes a 5th brace across lower bout), but I'm not familiar with the Castelluccias. Is that third brace across the lower bout? Is there much of a bend/crease/pliage under the bridge to give it a little more arch strength?

[Craig Bumgarner]

Jason,

Thanks. Picture below, but the bracing is really simple, just three ladder braces, that's it. One at the lower bout, ~35mm below the bridge, one just below the waist and sound hole and one about 75mm from the top end. No pliage, modest arch (15' radius). The arch settles a millimeter or two under the bridge load, so in the end, it is almost flat. Sounds great, but I'll probably use more arch, say 12' radius, next time.

Castelluccia was one of a half dozen Parisian builders in the 40s and 50s who built guitars similar to Selmer. Others include Busatto, Favino, De Mauro (note they are were all of Italian background as was Mario Maccaferri, the designer of the original Selmers). Castelluccia built a cheap guitar, very crude in some ways. Keeping originals playable is a challenge because of their many construction faults, but the tone is sublime. LOUD and clear, can cut through bricks. It really fits perfectly in acoustic swing jazz and with Selmers pushing $40K and Busattos and Favinos pushing $10K or more, Castelluccias are getting a second look. Some people would say they sound like a Busatto which are considered by many to be the best sounding gypsy jazz guitar there is, better even than Selmers, but at a players price. A playable original goes for $4K US, but can be found for $1,500 to $2,000 in France if you look long enough. If you want to rebuild yourself, they can be had for less than $1K. Usually need a neck reset, new fingerboard, frets, tuners, new bindings, refinishing and sometimes reinforcement of the upper brace. Some of the original necks are so big in section they are very hard to play, but these can be trimmed down or replaced during the neck reset. Obviously, I've been having a lot of fun with them.

CB

[Patrick Hanna]

Craig, that is pretty amazing, and a nice looking guitar. Compliments on your extremely detailed first post to this thread. I listen to a lot of the Gypsy players, so I am familiar with the general sound of the Selmers and their replicas and inspired guitars. I will take your word for the sound of this one. But I'm sure we'd all love to hear it, so perhaps you can post a sound clip soon. One thing makes me a little nervous when viewing your pictures: The shot of the tuning head, nut, zero fret, etc.--is the neck really as thin as it looks just under the nut or is that just a trick of the camera angle and lens? This leads me to a second observation which I'll throw out there to all builders of this general style of guitar: Why make slotted peg heads? Why not add a few degrees of head angle and then install standard (for American guitars) tuners with string posts perpendicular to the head plate? Is this simply tradition? The European preference? It can't be a matter of string break over the nut, because headstocks can be built at any suitable angle to allow for a proper string break, regardless of the tuners used. The traditional way DOES look great, but I hate fishing around down in the slots to change and re-thread new strings. I realize I am probably stirring up a nest of hornets with my question. Oh well...I've wondered about this question for several years, so I just took a deep breath and asked it. (I hope I don't regret the plunge........)
Patrick

Patrick

[Jason Rodgers]

Excellent, thanks Craig. It's probably that open and relatively unhindered top that lends itself to the loudness you describe. In my long list of "one of everything" is a bastard manouche design that I have been pondering the number of braces. Looks like 3-5 is a number that works!

Patrick, Gitane makes a manouche model with a flat headstock (John Jorgenson plays one).

[Craig Bumgarner]

Patrick: The thickness of the neck looks thin in the picture but as you suggest, this is just the picture. The neck is actually reasonably thick, about .920" including fretboard at the zero fret. Thicker than most people like, but it works for me. See side view picture below.

Regards the slotted head, that is just the Selmer style. The original Selmers were designed by Mario Maccaferrie who came from a background of classical guitar construction, so it was natural for him to use a slotted head. Selmer stuck with it for nearly all their guitars. There was at least one, however, with a flat headstock ala most American steel string guitars and it is clearly shown in Francois Charle's book on Selmers. As Jason says, Saga copied this guitar and headstock for their Gitane 250 model, the first of their gypsy guitars. It was not a big success and they quickly switched to slotted headstocks all their other Gitane models. In the case of Selmer style guitars and their followers, it is just part of the style. Just like you would not put a Fender head on a Martin or a classical guitar. I don't think there is any significant reason to think one is better than the other. One modern builder who uses a flat head on Selmer style guitars is Michael Dunn in Vancouver. He does lots of interesting avant garde things that are out of the box but it is clear they are still Selmer style.

Jason: The simplicity of the bracing certainly contributes to the unique sound and there is plenty of precedent for simple bracing designs. Violins and early archtops have no braces, just a tone bar. Some early archtop guitars had only a couple braces and even modern archtops often have only two braces in an X pattern. The apparent simplicity can be misleading as there is a fairly complex relationship between the top thickness, graduation, the number and size of the braces and this relationship impacts tone as well as structure. As the number and size of the braces are reduced, the top thickness has to increase some or the whole thing just folds up. (Have a look at Leo Eimers website under the Restoration tab and you'll see a transition period Selmer with only three braces that did just that) If you overbuild it, or under build it for that matter, it just doesn't work. I don't think I have completely nailed it yet, but I'm getting there.

Regards bracing Selmer style, there are two primary patterns. The late period Selmer (~ #600 and up) is five ladder braces with a pair short braces between the two that sit either side of the bridge (#3 and #4 if you will) for the bridge to sit on. Together, these four make a very solid platform for the bridge. There are also two lengthwise braces between the neck join area and the sound hole to help keep the neck from caving the top. In the early 500 series the 5th brace across the lower bout half way between the bridge and the tail block was eliminated. Django's beloved #503 was this way. Busatos and Favino are mostly like this. Castellucia went further away as did some of his colleagues like Louis & Claude Patenotte. No support under the bridge and only three braces. With such light bracing, it is easy to get in trouble and better builders than I have in the past. Eimers page shows it did not work for Selmer. Castellucia and Patenotte guitars have both had trouble with the structural aspects of their tops but I think the problems are surmountable without loosing the sound. Anyhow, that's what I'm trying to do.

[Jason Rodgers]

Thanks, Craig. You know your manouches!

[Douglas Ingram]

Nicely done! I may have to try one built in this manner. I've already built he petite bouce bird's Eye Maple, solid head stock Selmer referred to earlier.

[Al Dodson]

Very nice Craig. I see you used the standard repro tailpiece. What sort of tailpieces did these Selmer knock offs have originally. I know there is nothing else commercially available that fits correctly as they need to be much shorter than most archtop tails to look right. I eventually came up with the solution shown in the tailpiece discussion on the old forum. I'd love to see some of your work up close someday.

[Craig Bumgarner]

Thanks guys.....

See my confession and solution on the Castelluccia top arch posted earlier this morning on the Selmac Crease thread here on MIMF.

Al: The tailpiece I used and you see in the picture is a pretty good replica of what Selmer made. Pressed brass with riveted studs to secure the strings. The work with either loop end or ball end strings. Builders of the style have stayed pretty faithful to this tailpiece over the years. It is the right size, it's light weight and is stylistically correct.

DR is the most common one available today. They can be had at most of the websites that specialize in manouche style guitars.

Regards seeing work up close, where are you? I'm in southern Maryland, but get up to DC frequently.

[Al Dodson]

I'm familiar with the DR tailpieces and agree they are appropriate for Selmer/ Mac copies but, to me, not really appropriate for non-Selmers. Kind of like building a Gibson L-5 and putting a Gretsch tailpiece on it but, as I said before, there aren't any other choices so all is forgiven. <g> The other complaint I have is that the design of the Selmer tailpiece is inherently weak; rivets in sheet metal will eventually pull out and can't be repaired satisfactorily. I'm just curious what other makers of this style of guitar did for their tailpieces.

It would be fun to see some of your work and show you mine. I appreciate your approach and desire to build something besides copies of the Selmers. I am located in Lancaster Co. PA about an hour+ north of Baltimore up I-83. I see that you MUST travel north or fall in the creek. Looks like a nice area to live.

[Craig Bumgarner]

Al: Agreed, DR style tailpieces are unique to Selmer style guitars, not aesthetically transferable to non-Selmer types. Never seen a string stud pull out, but the sheet metal breaks occasionally where it bends across the edge of the top. It has never happened to me, but I've heard of it. This weakness is a by-product of one of its goals, light weight. Selmer and their close cousins like to be light and every gram counts. I built a couple that were under 3.5 pounds last spring, that worked out well. My most recent build plumped up to 4.0 pounds partially because of .120" back and sides vs. .088" b/s, but mostly because of an outrageously heavy ebony fingerboard that added a 1/4 pound all by itself. No more of THAT!

Hey, your not too far away. Let me know if you come to Baltimore or DC, I play with the Hot Club of DC and we are playing in the area weekly.

Craig

[Steve Marks]

Craig, nice looking guitar. I am not an expert on this type of guitar, but was always of the belief that the reason for the pliage on Selmers was to get an adequate break angle over the bridge. What is the break angle for your guitar?

[Craig Bumgarner]

Craig, nice looking guitar. I am not an expert on this type of guitar, but was always of the belief that the reason for the pliage on Selmers was to get an adequate break angle over the bridge. What is the break angle for your guitar?

Thanks. Regards the pliage and break angle, I think yes and no. The arch in the braces elevates the bridge and the straight sides require the top to come down off the arch in a relatively short distance (~6") so they meet at the corner. The pliage facilitates this. So in a round about way, yes, the pliage facilitates the a steeper break angle.

But I'm not sure that is the whole story. If it were simply a matter of break angle, then one could use not much arch and a very high bridge to get a high break angle like the violin family of instruments. The Selmer arch is pretty high and my take is this arch was used primarily to provide sufficient rigidity to support the fairly steep break angle while reducing the top and bracing mass. The arch was the main thing and the reason for the pliage was to adapt to the geometry. Without the pliage, the stiffness of the top length wise takes much of the arch out of the braces when forced down to the tail block. Stiffing the braces or putting extra arch in is counterproductive, so the pliage is an elegant solution.

My guitar in the post has a break angle of 11 degrees. I lost some of the arch by not using a pliage and as a result, my bridge is fairly high, 21mm. Sound wise, this works quite well enough, but it doesn't look exactly right. On my follow up to this first one, I used a pliage and this has retained more arch, so my bridge will be shorter, but the break angle will likely end up pretty much the same. FWIIW, Francois Charle's plan of Selmer 807 shows a break angle of 12 degrees.

I find thinking in 3D is an interesting challenge.

CB