Triumph1050 Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I'm looking to learn something about my Songwriter Deluxe. I'll ask this on the "other site" if needed due to a large number of D-18/28 owners but I wanted to try here first. I'm looking for some detailed measurements that aren't listed in typical specs lists. I'm curious to the volume and it's configuration inside a D-18/28. I would like these measurements in inches or cms: - Width across upper bout, waist, and lower bout. - Depth at those same locations. - Length from top to bottom. I'm trying to determine where the SWD is actually "smaller" than the D-18/28. The D-28 clone I just built is not exact to spec as my jig wasnt exact but its very close. But here's the thing, my SWD has a WIDER lower bout than the D-28 clone. I'm guessing the SWD has to be thinner but just eyeballing it, it doesnt look much thinner overall. Is the SWD just called a "smaller" dread by Gibson, compared to other Gibsons...or is it a smaller dread period? I want proof from an actual D-18/28s measurements. Not that this matters as my SWD has PLENTY of unplugged volume but I just want to be more informed. Thanks. Edit: I'd also like to learn this same comparison to the sloped and square shouldered Gibsons if anyone feels ambitious. It'd be nice to know the actual volume size specs of those two Gibson popular dread sizes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph1050 Posted June 3, 2011 Author Share Posted June 3, 2011 Here's the SWD measurements by my hand... Width: - upper 11 1/2" - waist 10 1/8" - lower 15 7/8" Depth: - upper 3 3/4" - waist 4 3/8" - lower 4 5/8" Height: - body 19 3/4" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_78 Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 The SW is a smaller Gibson dread in the sense that it's smaller than a square shoulders H-bird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph1050 Posted June 3, 2011 Author Share Posted June 3, 2011 Teh SW is a smaller Gibson dread in the sense that it's smaller than a square shoulders H-bird. Yeah...so Ive read. I was looking for some measurements to see where and how its actually smaller. I dont have a D-18/28 or H-bird or J-45 at hand. Nor a store to go to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 These dimensions may confuse things a bit, but here they are. My 1948 J-45 is at the shop, but I took these dimensions carefully last month, as I am looking for a better-fitting case. At the time I measured mine, I also found detailed construction plans online, which gave slightly smaller designed dimensions compared to the actual dimensions of my own J-45. I didn't download the plans (they weren't free), but below are the dimensions I toook off the plans. I should note that there are multiple plans for the J-45 online, and the dimensions are not completely consistent, nor are they as-built dimensions. Unfortunately, I don't have all the designed dimensions, but here's what I have. These are all measured to the outside of the body shell, and are measured to 1/16" accuracy. Interior dimensions are obviously smaller. J-45 as designed: lower bout 16" waist 10.5" upper bout 11.5" Actual dimensions of J-45 3644-8: (1948-1950) lower bout 16.25" waist 10.875" upper bout 11.625" body length 20.25" 3644-8 body depths: at neck 3.75+" at bottom centerline 4.75+" (+ means less than 1/16" larger) Note that neither the back nor the top are actually flat. The back is designed with a slight belly. The top has a small transverse radius at the bridge. My professional life requires measuring things to great precision, so I can guarantee that the dimensions I took off my own J-45 are accurate to the stated tolerance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhanners623 Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I don't know if this makes a difference or not, but I do know that with most kit-built guitars -- particularly the Martin clones -- the body dimensions do not exactly match the real Martins for a reason. The clones are slightly smaller and as I recall the explanation, it has to do with patents or copyrights or something like that. I noticed this when I stuck my kit-built guitar in a Martin case. The Martin guitar fit snugly in the case, while the kit-built guitar had wiggle room. When I inquired of the builder what the deal was, he said it was a patent issue and that while the kit manufacturers could copy virtually everything else about a Martin, they couldn't copy the exact body dimensions. I have no idea if that's an issue here. Just thought I'd mention it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_78 Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 These are the dimensions by the book: Square shoulders gibby: length : 19 7/8 lower bout width : 15 15/16 waist width: 11 1/8 upper bout width: 11 5/8 body depth, rear: 4 15/6 body depth, front: 4 Slope shoulder gibby: length : 20 3/8 lower bout width : 16 1/8 waist width: 10 11/16 upper bout width: 11 5/8 body depth, rear: 4 7/8 body depth, front: 3 13/16 Martin: length : 19 15/16 lower bout width : 15 3/4 waist width: 10 3/4 upper bout width: 11 7/16 body depth, rear: 4 7/8 body depth, front: 3 7/8 For comparison, the Guild D-25 share the same measures of the Martin but it's 1/2 inch thicker. Note: I measured the Sheryl Crow and the max width is 41 cm sharp, therefore the measures of the square shoulder can be underestimated or the reissues are bigger than the originals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph1050 Posted June 3, 2011 Author Share Posted June 3, 2011 Wow...thats some good info. The overall size differences from the SWD to the Martin and the other Gibsons is not near as much as I'd been led to believe from online postings from people. Only slight variants in each area of the guitar. Some are the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph1050 Posted June 3, 2011 Author Share Posted June 3, 2011 I don't know if this makes a difference or not, but I do know that with most kit-built guitars -- particularly the Martin clones -- the body dimensions do not exactly match the real Martins for a reason. The clones are slightly smaller and as I recall the explanation, it has to do with patents or copyrights or something like that. I noticed this when I stuck my kit-built guitar in a Martin case. The Martin guitar fit snugly in the case, while the kit-built guitar had wiggle room. When I inquired of the builder what the deal was, he said it was a patent issue and that while the kit manufacturers could copy virtually everything else about a Martin, they couldn't copy the exact body dimensions. I have no idea if that's an issue here. Just thought I'd mention it. That's possible. Wouldnt surprise me. Next time I'm around a D-18/28 and have my build handy I'll compare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_78 Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Wow...thats some good info. The overall size differences from the SWD to the Martin and the other Gibsons is not near as much as I'd been led to believe from online postings from people. Only slight variants in each area of the guitar. Some are the same. But you can feel the difference when you're playing a Gibson and a Martin side by side, a square shoulders feels much bigger against your body, not to mention that the Guild is so thick that requires to change the position of your arm after some hours of playing. Sometimes very few fractions of inches make a guitar sound completely different, not to mention entire inches: a 17" is classified as "super jumbo", while a 16" can be a dreadnought or a grand auditorium ( Martin M, Guild Valencia, J-185) that are two completely different classes of guitars. Of course, the D-25 has a deeper voice with a stronger bass voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modoc_333 Posted June 4, 2011 Share Posted June 4, 2011 These dimensions may confuse things a bit, but here they are. My 1948 J-45 is at the shop, but I took these dimensions carefully last month, as I am looking for a better-fitting case. At the time I measured mine, I also found detailed construction plans online, which gave slightly smaller designed dimensions compared to the actual dimensions of my own J-45. I didn't download the plans (they weren't free), but below are the dimensions I toook off the plans. I should note that there are multiple plans for the J-45 online, and the dimensions are not completely consistent, nor are they as-built dimensions. Unfortunately, I don't have all the designed dimensions, but here's what I have. These are all measured to the outside of the body shell, and are measured to 1/16" accuracy. Interior dimensions are obviously smaller. J-45 as designed: lower bout 16" waist 10.5" upper bout 11.5" Actual dimensions of J-45 3644-8: (1948-1950) lower bout 16.25" waist 10.875" upper bout 11.625" body length 20.25" 3644-8 body depths: at neck 3.75+" at bottom centerline 4.75+" (+ means less than 1/16" larger) Note that neither the back nor the top are actually flat. The back is designed with a slight belly. The top has a small transverse radius at the bridge. My professional life requires measuring things to great precision, so I can guarantee that the dimensions I took off my own J-45 are accurate to the stated tolerance. i would guess that the variances you get comparing the 2 would be based purely off of a difference in temp/humidity expanding the wood, or even just the thickness of the finish. sounds like you have a very "to spec" J45! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph1050 Posted June 4, 2011 Author Share Posted June 4, 2011 OK....so I brought my D-28 clone build up from the shop and got its measurements. It's the same size in just about every area as my SWD except the width at the waist is 1/2" wider and at the lower bout is a 1/4" smaller. So my eyes werent deceiving me. My SWD is wider across the lower bout slightly. The depths were the same except at the upper bout where the SWD is a 1/4" shallower. So two conclusions... 1) Dhanners seems to be right, the D-28 clone(at least mine) is slightly undersized in some areas from a real D-28. 2) The Songwriter Deluxe is only slightly smaller in a few areas than other well-known dreads. The narrower waist, but full bouts, along with a slightly shallower upper bout depth give it its more "modern" shape but still gives it almost as much volumetric area inside. Thanks folks, for all the spec info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.