Where is Cumpiano's Book Outdated? [Pictures] - created 11-30-2007

murray, michael - 11/30/2007.09:45:04

Hi all,

I will use Cumpiano's book as my primary reference. I've read on the MIMF that many folks remark it's 'outdated.' I'm hoping I can get a little insight on what aspects of the book may be outdated and where a better reference might be. I visited Cumpiano's website. He has helpful tips for a lot of the outdated methods (see below). I especially like his bolt-on neck. But are there other methods I should be aware of?

Thanks for steering me in the right direction!

michael

1- How can I buy this book? Click here!

2- Help! I can't find the truss rod nut your require!

3- All those planning to build a steel string from the book should read this first:

A recommended alternative to the pinned mortise neck joint described in the book.

4- Retrospective thoughts

5- The history behind the writing of GUITARMAKING

6- Headblock dimension typo error in early editions

7- Upper transversal graft dimension error in early editions

8- Swapped captions in the classic bracing sizes diagrams

9- Tips on obtaining rubber rope

10- Workboard shim clarification

11- Workboard clamping shoe caveats

12- Interior fingerboard glueing caul (classic): additional comments

13- "It says to leave only 1/8" for the nut!"

14- "Difference between the classic headblock and tailblock heights only 1/8?"

15- "Where are all the French Polishing details?"

16- Improved truss rod design

17- Dimension error on headblock fixture diagram

18- Clarification and additional caveats on side bending

19- Why don't the heelblock dimensions add up?

20- Is the truss rod spline really necessary?

21- Why does the truss rod nut deflect downward when tightened?

22- NEW Recommended classic workboard upgrade

23- Final width dimension of Side Blanks is not evident. But It should be same as the tailblock height.

Recent additions:

24- How do I tap tune my guitars?

25- How do I compensate a scale other than the one in the book?

26- Another typo error has been discovered.

Using radius dishes provides a huge advancement over Cumpiano's techniques.

I would make a mold for the sides, and depending on the woods you plan to use, a side bending machine; some woods are difficult to bend on a hot iron. Also a go bar deck for gluing braces to the plates and the plates to the rims instead of his method with cam clamps and inner tire tube band / sliced rubber band. His method of cutting binding rabbet leaves you with a lot of hand work, build or buy a better jig! What more? Oh, his neck block is HUGE; I would inlet the braces into the lining more conventionally; I would laminate the tail block or make it out of plywood; I would buy a truss rod instead of make one like he shows (there are much better designs out there for not much money); I would press the frets in instead of hammering; I don’t think he mentions side braces; his soundboard and brace dimensions are on the heavy side for a guitar of that size. He uses PVA glue for everything, I use a variety of glues depending on the application. Cap the X-intersection with a sliver of spruce instead of that glue soaked textile he shows.

Some of the best things in the book are in my opinion his layout chapter, the section of carving a neck, and the planing techniques shown, they alone make it well worth the money.

I agree with all of the above comments. I strongly recommend learing to use hide glue.

With all of it's limitations, C&N is still a valuable reference and starting point for learning to build.

There seems to be a general consensus that the neck joint used in the book is not the best for a beginner (maybe anybody). As you already know, Cumpiano has addressed this on his web site. While you're at it you might want to take a closer look at the bolt on necks that have been talked about recently on the MIMF.

While I don't disagree with anything Arnt said (well maybe the laminated tail block goes a bit far) if you go that route you'll end up with a mini factory in your house. Is that really want you want? You also have to consider what you're after in this guitar. If you want it to sound good but don't care if it has that factory perfect look then the techniques in the book will get you there. Would you rather experience what it's like to hand bend the sides of a guitar, even if the results are less perfect?

Everybody has there own preferences, I would add a side mold to Cumpiano's techniques. I would try bending by hand and if I couldn't make that work I'd build a side bender. If perfect bindings are the goal then I'd build a ... It's a slippery slope, you'll end up with a factory. It really depends on your goals.

Using radius dishes provides a huge advancement over Cumpiano's techniques.

This I don't agree with. Radius dishes don't provide any advancement. Use Cumpiano's method for a side profile and you'll have a beautiful and traditional looking guitar.

Even Cumpiano now uses radius dishes. Try them out John.

There's also room for a hybrid approach. I really like radius dishes for gluing back braces and sanding the rim for the back, but have decided I don't like a fully-arched soundboard.

I still glue up soundboard braces in a dish, though -- the Kinkead style that transitions to a flatter surface in the upper bout. This gives me better results with the fingerboard extension.

Even Cumpiano now uses radius dishes. Try them out John.

Oh I've tried them, I bought into the radius dish method big time and I'm still trying to recover!

And if you like the look they give then by all means use them. I especially don't care for the waist bulge that is the result of two spheres interesting. To my eyes that's "ugh". But that's a matter of taste. And sure there are ways around that by using multiple dishes on a side and tilting it this way and that but for a home builder I don't see the point. For a factory, or somebody trying to put out a fair number of guitars, well then I get it.

Straight sides on the top, a nice brake angle, some manual shaping with a block plane. Sounds like a traditional guitar to me.

At the moment I actually do what Lauren does except I shape the back sides by hand. But I feel like I'm just working my way back to where I started one step at a time, which was close to T&Ts.

I started with... and still reference, the Cumpiano book during my builds. I also glean information from other books. internet, etc. I suggest you follow the basic format (with the ammendments) for your first scratch Guitar. In my case... I have many variations to his formula that I include in my modern builds. Everything from bracing through finishing have "evolved" and make for an easier to build and better product (in my humble opinion). Radius dishes are a choice you may want to make. Another important one is modern two-way truss rod for the neck. Also sidebenders and binding cutters are another big help. Guitar building is a series of a thousand steps... the variations you can develop are infinite.

Most importantly, move slowly and carefully. The biggest challenge for me is not errors or alternatives in the book... but stupid little "mis-judgements" on my part. Those are where you'll find most of the big "gotchas" in your builds.

I've bent sides by hand, and the worst part of it is having to hold the sides in tension while you wait for the wood to set up as it cools. If you don't want to hold them you can clamp them to something while they set, but that gets a little complicated, and then you still have the issue of getting smooth curves and getting the two sides to match. By the time I got done building "drying" molds for my hand bent sides, I could have spent that time and effort on a bending mold. I realized one mold would serve the purpose of both bending and drying if I used a heat blanket, and would give me easier more consistent results. So now I use blankets and molds. I don't use a bending machine just a mold. The picture shows a mold with a set of bindings getting ready for bending.

I realize hand bending has a certain romance, but so does making your own horseshoes. Very few horseshoers make shoes anymore because it's intensive, takes forever, and in most cases costs the customer a ton of unneccesary money. I can make a mold and bend both sides in less time than it takes me to hand bend a set of sides with no mold. Both sides are perfect and now I have a mold for next time I make this body shape.

Larry, could you give more detail about your bending technique?

Thanks,

Brian.

I'm just now varnishing a guitar using the Cumpiano book as a reference book/guide. For the most part, my only change was the bolt on neck. The bending of the sides went well over the hot pipe, but on my next one I will DEFINITELY use a mold and a Fox bender.

I will be showing pics of this guitar in about a month.

Brian, my bending technique is very simple. The pictures show bending of binding but it's the sanme for a side. I spritz the bare wood at the waist with water, and then slightly overbend it with a hot pipe. I immediately clamp it to the mold as shown in pic #1.

After about ten minutes it's "set" so I pull it off the mold and put the blanket on the mold, next the wood, next the stainless backer. Aklignment is important. The only place the wood is touching the mold yet is the prebent waist. I spritz the wood on both sides and turn on the blanket at high. It gets very hot very fast so I start bending in about a minute. I pull the upper bout down, clamping retainer sticks over the metal backer as I go, this takes maybe two minutes. Once the upper bout is bent I spritz the outside of the backer really good at the waist and upper bout to keep it from getting too hot, and I may turn the blanket down to about 7/8 or 3/4 if things start smelling burnt. The lower bout is the same procedure, same amount of time.

As soon as the lower bout is bent I turn the blanket to about 1/2 and cook for about five minutes. Then I remove the backer as shown in pic #3 and cook for about 15 minutes to get all the water off.

I'm sure a dry bending technique at lower temps would also work fine. The only difference between my rig and a fox bender is that the wood is pulled down using the hand and held down by clamping a retainer stick to the rim of the mold.

Picture #2 shows the lower bout right after bending. You can see the binding sticking out.

Pic #3 showing removal of stainless backer prior to final cooking or drying. Note backer is pulled off but clamps are left on to retain shape during drying.

How we bend doesn't matter, as long as the final shape is correct. How we arrived there is of no consequence.

But a solid form to hold the body's shape is so easy to make, and assures you that the body will not only be the correct shape, but that it will be square everywhere. Nothing worse than trying t fit a neck to a body where the neck block isn't squared correctly(IE: the block shifted slightly while gluing the top or back).

Using a dish to shape the rim's profile to fit the back is a great help. We'll all use a radiused back, so may as well fit it correctly. There's a ton of great information on how to make your own dish. The top need not be radiussed. We can even glue a slightly domed top to a flat rim. But for the back, sheesh...

And the tools he chooses. Today, everyone has a power drill, and if not a bandsaw, at least a jig saw. If ya don't, get one. I still use the same little jig saw that I found for a few coins at a yard sale eons ago...

the there's the sequence of doing things that makes no sense to me, but that's a personal observation, since you will get there from there.

In short, many steps seem over-complicated either by being convoluted in sequence or outdated in tool selection. And that, I fear, will result in many mistakes.

Read everything you can find, blend them all together, and make your own judgment calls. Following any one method like a bible teaches you little. Learn to learn, use the books as guides, but not as bibles to be followed to the letter.

Using a dish to shape the rim's profile to fit the back is a great help. We'll all use a radiused back, so may as well fit it correctly.

A spherical back is a choice, it's not THE correct way for a back to be. There are other choices that are equally valid and a radius dish is less helpful with backs that use more than one radius.

John,

I secretly embrace your opinion about the radius dish. You'll find speaking against it is an unpopular stance to take. I think steel string builders are more apt to employ the method than classical makers who build in a more Spanish style. Refrain from being sacrilegious about all that steel string builders hold dear

At this point I see the difference between the lines of a guitar made in a radius dish and one built to a plane geometry to be mainly aesthetic. As Lauren said there are hybrid methods, which inevitably seem to be what people develop anyway. For example there are some classical makers who use a solera for neck-top-rib assembly in traditional Spanish style and then fit the back on with a radius dish.

I agree that pitching the radius dish as the only way of building is unnecessary. It's like you said a person can start anywhere as long as the information given them is correct for the particular method they choose to follow. I daresay on MIMF there is a bias toward teaching the dish because many of the professional steel string builders who post here use them and coach people use them. For steel strings perhaps it is a better method. In the end it really does not matter to a person who learns with the dish and chooses to continue to build because it's easy enough to change working methods if they really want to take a different approach to structure. Information a person would learn from making a radius dish guitar would have crossover to making a guitar build in plane geometry.

My point is, can't we all just get along?

See John, we who maketh guitars to plane geometry are like a secret society, keepers of ancient mystical knowledge of ratio and geometry. The Dishers are reformers who've nailed the demands for structural homogeneous precision to the shop doors. Some will follow the new order and prosper, while we will clandestinely initiate newbs into our ranks through subtle skillful means of observation. There is room for both orders of practitioners to practice and succeed and at this time even share knowledge of the craft.

Go placidly like a limpid trout stream through an Adirondack Spruce meadow and make your heart like seawater. Cast not aspersions against your sisters and brethren the Dishers;Remember to keep the geometry an open secret for those who seek to learn its enigmas and mysteries. Withhold nothing, while saying nothing online. Always ask yourself while walking the geometric walk:

What would Fibonacci do?

I don't think Cumpiano is outdated. That's a bit like saying every guitar built before 1905 is crap. It matters not if you use your very fingernails to thickness tops/backs,it's the results that are important. Just because Cumpiano uses an eggbeater drill for the tuning machine holes doesn't make that an invalid method. I use the same type of drill and get cleaner holes than some of the factory built guitars that are probably done with some type of drilling machine.

If you want to use sanding,routing,cutting machines at every step so be it. I haven't got anything against it. Just don't tell me that the 'other' method is somehow inherently wrong or outdated. To be honest if I had to thickness using a sander I think I'd quit.

It may be now history, but I think of Cumpiano & Natelson as a work of practical literature. It was the best example of the 'craftwork' in that time, but I think that it conveyed both a sense of craftsmanship as well as a sense of the art of guitarbuilding. That's it's value.

I built my first by following Cumpiano & Natelson; there was no one else to consult for help. I read it cover-to-cover twice before starting, and yet I made many mistakes. But as I made the mistakes, I reread their book and I learned, because they presented the process in a thoughtful and logical manner. I'm sure that I'll consult the book from time to time.

I like what Bob says, C&N is a document of a certain time and all of us with two brain cells left to rub together know how to evaluate a document written at a given time. There have been some changes to guitar making in since this book was written, but C&N still stands as a seminal text in the genre of guitar making literature.

Regarding the neck attachment: There is a section on Frank Ford’s “Frets” web site where he takes the neck off a Gurian guitar. The guitar has those tapered pins to secure the neck to the neck block that is demonstrated in “Tradition and Technology”; of course Cumpiano worked for Gurian early in his career so that is why the joint shows up in his book. The process of taking the pins out and getting them back in looks straight forward enough on “Frets”, but then hey, it’s Frank…

People like to learn differently. Some like to ‘learn how to learn’; others are more comfortable if they have a clear guide to follow. The good thing about Cumpiano’s book is that if you build exactly like it’s written, you will end up with a decent guitar. It can be confusing for a first timer to get a grasp of every possible way of doing things, and mixing a little of this and a little of that is difficult when you don’t know the reason behind every procedure; as Al C likes to say ‘you don’t know what you don’t know’. If you mix many methods there is a real possibility for some big OOOPS moments, especially regarding sequence of steps. For some people this is very discouraging, others may take this as a fine opportunity to learn even more. A thorough step by step instruction like “Tradition and Technology” leads you by your hand through the process, and by the end of the first instrument you will have a much better idea of what goes into a scratch built guitar. The book offers a complete system for building, and even if there are ‘better’ ways of doing many of the procedures, this gives you a much better foundation for picking and choosing other methods on subsequent instruments.

I built my first SS acoustic following C&N (I did do the bolt-on neck though), and as per Arnt's post, ended up with a decent guitar. However, after having done so, I now have a better appreciation (understanding) of arguments for and against using a side-bender, radius dish, binding jig, etc. I am slowing moving to many of the alternative processes that Arnt outlined in his initial post. But, I am sure that I would not have built any guitars without the reassuring guidance that C&N provided. Like several posters above have noted, a key variable in what modifications to make to C&N is what your guitar-building goals are. If you only want to build one or two guitars for yourself and/or family/friends, without filling up your basement with tools and jigs, then many of C&N's techniques will get you there. If your intent is to become a more serious builder, the road to achieving that will be much smoother by adopting many of Arnt's suggestions. (Incidentally, I think this is a great thread.)

I seem to remember somewhere at the beginning of the book that the aim of the book was to present traditional methods using ONLY hand tools. From this perspective, it will never be outdated. (at least until CNC has been around long enough to be considered "traditional")

Roger, I think that C&N would be recommending using hide glue, ropes, and soleras if they had intended to go completely 'traditional'.

My opinion is that the book wanted the beginner to be able to feel that they could master every step of the building process, and to this end C&N chose the methods that could accomplish this goal most efficiently. Throughout the entire book they give you choices - hand saw and chisels, or router, long linings or tentellones, popsicle stick circle cutter, or dremel and jig- that kind of thing.

I am one of Cumpiano's former tutorial students. As you might imagine, he has progressed beyond the methods in his book. He uses heating blankets, for example, for side bending though we also used a bending pipe when I was there. Recently, I taught a guitar building class at Woodcraft, using what William taught me. The students and I had an ongoing discussion about using hand tools versus power tools. I expressed the opinion that when you think you should use a power tool, it is usually a time when you should really use a hand tool. My students laughed at my provincialism! Recently, one of the students emailed me to tell me that I was right. He used a power sander to sand his beautiful inlaid rosette and sanded right through it! As William said to me many times, the way that works for you, is the way you should go.

The real problem in determining whether the book is behind times or out of date is ultimately determined by who you think the book is aimed at. PVA may not be the glue of choice for someone fairly experienced in instrument making but it does seem a logical choice for someone setting out on their first build. So it is with the many hand tool methods he gives, they are a logical choice for someone who is either a beginner or fairly new to instrument making. It builds skill, hand eye co-ordination and many of these type of tools can be user made. The popsicle stick is a case in point. It works, it's simple and it's cheap. It may not be the ultimate solution for the experienced guitarmaker producing 50 instruments per year but I doubt if those type of people were the intended audience of the book.

The actual quality of the finished instrument isn't determined by the lack of power tools or the latest vernier. It's more a question of experience and skill but that also applies to using power tools as well.

Good point on the glue, but I'll argue the popcycle stick. It teaches nothing. zip. It doesn't even teach to improvise a tool well, because we can improvise better that that.

I guess I just found much of it dumbed down to the point of being condescending and discouraging.

But that's just me

My perception of the C/N is colored by having read every newsletter and every article on his website. They kind of meld in my mind so my impressions are more of a package. But overall it is well written, organized, and very detailed, which isn't an easy task even for a professional writer.

C&N I feel are more a choice of method as opposed to outdated methods. In 2002 I undertook building a guitar using only hand tools, no power operations at all. The project took on the order of 3 times the amount of time it takes me to build an instrument with my current methods. I could not have produced this guitar and sold it for a profit unless it sold for the price of a new Toyota Camery automobile. Surly the endevour could not be justified on a commercial basis. But as an expierence it was priceless. It showed me just how amazingly good the old masters were to produce the work they did consistantly and profitably.

One thing is certain though there is a huge gulf seperating the person with the skill to guide a hand tool with master precision with the person guiding a power tool with master precision. We who guide our power tools with master precision are not in the same league with those who can guide a hand tool with master precision. Sadly on a commercial basis there is no room anymore for a purely hand built and finished guitar. However I am in full favor of anyone setting out to recreate the work methods of CF Martin Sr. as an end that is its own reason for being and hopefully an enjoyable end.

Much of what was accepted as a common approach to building has changed, as Mario points out. And there are better, simple methods as Cumpiano himself points out on his website.

I think it's time to quit bashing those guys and accept the book for what it is. If there were to be an updated version, it might be similar to, and available at the same time as Mario's book. Or not.

Lance Wrote:

'Sadly on a commercial basis there is no room anymore for a purely hand built and finished guitar'

I don't wish to turn this into a power V hand tool thread but that statement is far from true. There are a small minority of (usually very successful) makers who use virtually all hand tools with the exception of a Bandsaw for re-sawing. They are still planing ribs by hand, using a hot pipe to bend ribs and a purfling cutter and chisel to cut the purfling channel. In fact many of the Spanish makers still do it this way and some of them are astonishingly quick.

That is partly why I think C&N still has a place in the world of guitarmaking. At it's core are techniques that you can either take with you along your guitarmaking journey or you can eschew them for methods that involve more power tools. That does not mean that either of the approaches are invalid, it simply means that you have chosen a different path.

I will be posting pictures of a guitar I am nealy finished with, using C and N's book almost to the T, except with a bolt on neck and varnish instead of laquer. But more about all of that later.

Cumpiano and Natelson's book provided me with the "confidence" to attempt a guitar, much as Siminoff made me feel that I could actually build an F-5 mandolin.

It would be nice if Cumpiano would perhaps write the book again, as Siminoff did, with his newer methodology.

I used a hot pipe to bend my sides, and shaped them all free-hand, but on my next guitar, and there will be a next, I will definitely use a mold and a Fox Bender, though this current instrument did turn out fine.

I guess that my point is that, while many of his techniques are outdated, or even questionable, Cumpiano did provide many, many people with the feeling that they could actually build a guitar.

That part of the book remains a very important and valid achievement.

I agree with Stephanie. The book gave me sufficient confidence to try building a guitar. For any shortcomings, it was written well enough to give me a start.

At the time, it was much better than any other book.

It's not always about power VS hand tools, either. For just one example... Carving a neck with a chisel borders on criminally dangerous advice. A cheap Nicholson rasp will get the job done in 1/8 the time, better, with zero chance of a massive tearout, and in full safety.

I'm sure the book lead a lot of people to their first guitar; that is priceless, and very good. But I swear, had I read the book before I built my first, I'd have likely never attempted to even try. I have to imagine there are many who did the same. Read the book, decided it was too tough, or read the book, began building, and gave up. I've had 3 people bring me their home built guitars, 2 of them being Martin kits, to ask for help with getting the neck lined up. One was so badly out of square, the neck could never fit(there would be no heel left, and if we built it up, it would be massive and joint the body at the 15-1/2 fret!). The common thing? No mold, and funky clamping setups... And all of them weren't nicely shaped. If they'd have spent their first day "working" simply making a form/mold, they would have very likely had very decent guitars.

We still don't have a better book today, but I'd much rather someone taking interest now spend a week reading the archives and the "new builder's FAQ" here than reading the book. The methods now are more solid and simple, and will stand a better chance of a successful guitar being the result.

IMO

I think the top line of the Ramirez are still done like that. Most of the makers in Granada were doing it by hand last time I was there (10 years ago) and I visited lots of them. Manuel Reyes in Cordoba, Lopez in Madrid, Baba in Seville and many others. I can't remember seeing one router or thickness sander. Don't forget that the Welford book from 30 years ago shows him using a router for the binding channel, it's not as if they weren't aware of other methods.

Reyes was joining tops when I visited - all done with a longish plane. He must have had a stack of 50 tops or so that had all been jointed previously and he was adding more. That gives you an indication of how they get up to speed using their methods.

I didn't see one fox bender, although I don't think they were well known then. Things may have changed since my last visit, although another maker has since told me that the ones he visited are still using hand tool methods.

Your point on the N.American makers is well taken but there are some individual makers in N.America commanding big dollars. So it is here in the UK. I've visited makers who are really (power) tooled up and who charge way more than others I've visited who are still using all hand tools. At the end of the day it's the individual makers decision as to what approach he/she uses. To be honest I KNOW that the buyer or player doesn't give two figs how it was made. So be it.

Mario! I couldn't agree with your last post more! When I started in 1992 there was already a lot of things available such as ready made truss rods and electricly heated bending irons. I had the good fortune of knowing a guitar maker and was able to cross reference methods. I recall C&N advising on having a pipe smashed at a wrecking yard to form the basis of the fabricated bening iron. I saw that and remembered my Mentor having an electric iron and simply called him and he put me on to some of the many fine guitar making tool suppliers. I too felt C&N's methods were daunting perhaps too daunting.

I personally think the book's "problem" might be that it is, in fact, a book. It isn't Cumpiano's fault that the book's marketers and others have labelled it as the "Bible" of guitar-building. This implies to many readers that it demonstrates the one and only way of doing things. The fault may lie more with the medium than the message. Today, from this site, we have the luxury of hyperlinks to explanations of umpteen different ways to cut a scarf joint in a neck, for example. Had C&N included that amount of info in their book, it would have been umpteen volumes, no publisher would have touched it. It would have been a loss. Many of us have been inspired, and yes, oftentimes confused by it. I think the bottom line is that it is only outdated because it has been printed, and therefor has remained stagnant. Updated editions haven't been published. It has not evolved or grown as we in the internet age have come to expect.

Read on his website the trials and tribulations that Cumpiano had to go through to get published. He is basically self-published. That he was able to include the kinds of pictures and graphics in a self-published book on such a technical subject in the 1980's is quite amazing. If you visit his website you will see that one of his projects for the coming year is to create a DVD to update his book. It won't be perfect or an attempt to assimilate all of the new techniques, but, as one of his students, I can guarantee that it will be an excellent documentation of the methods that have worked for him for a very long time.

This has been a fascinating thread. I've often thought about these issues regarding William's book, usually when I am about to screw up some critical procedure that I have decided to do by hand.

Like Mark, I am a former student of William Cumpiano (1998). Since that amazing summer I've built 12 guitars, some great, some not so great. I've religiously followed Bill's techniques. As my confidence and occasional frustration grew I began to make changes that worked for me. Although I have an extensive library, C&Ns "Guitarmaking" remains my reference standard. When an altered procedure doesn't work, I pull out the book and revert to the old Tradition standby. I've actually gone through two and I'm currently on book number three because the others have been worn out.

Yes, some of the methods prescribed in the book can be tedious and needlessly difficult. But they provide invaluable insight into how a guitar is born and what makes it tick. I have a bending iron, but haven't used it in 6 years. I have a marvelous collection of planes, but use only two of them. I rent time on a cabinetmaker's Timesaver belt sander. Way easier than thinning plates by hand. More accurate too! I use a butt joint and bolts - no apologies here folks. It works for me and I've done only one reset in 10 years. But having said all of that, it is so empowering to know that if I had to, I could build a guitar in the Spanish style from scratch using nothing but hand tools. I wouldn't want to, but I could. I am eternally grateful to Bill Cumpiano for sharing his time with me back then. Every time I open the book I am transported back to Northampton and feel like a newbie all over again.

Buy it and memorize it. Use it, don't use it, whatever. Just know that even though it may not be "the Bible"" it is an icon for acoustic guitar builders.

Cheers

Randy "Coop" Harris