My old Stella Harmony parlor...

[Ryan H]

Considering this isn't about a Gibson acoustic, and I'm more familiar with the people here, I decided to post this in the Lounge instead of the Acoustic forum.

 

I've had this old guitar laying around for years, unstrung, unplayed. It was my first guitar, and my god it was the most unplayable thing I ever touched. Didn't sound all that great either. I'll explain why...

 

It's a 60's Stella Harmony H929 parlor...12 frets to body, all birch, floating bridge and stamped metal "trapeze" tailpiece, Massive baseball bat neck with completely flat fretboard and thin, low frets.

 

The biggest problem is the lack of an adjustable truss rod. It has a "steel reinforced neck", which I'm assuming is a facsimile to Martin's non-adjustable truss rods of old. The neck is thicker than any guitar I've ever played. Because of this, I've only ever put 10's or 11's (acoustic strings) on it, out of fear of breaking something. The problem is that unlike a fixed bridge acoustic, the floating bridge needs downward pressure to transfer the vibrations properly.

 

On an archtop, the arch that the bridge sits on aids in this, as the strings slope down and away from the bridge. With such light strings and a flat top, I can easy Move the bridge with my fingers, which tells me there isn't enough downward force. The neck is perfectly straight with the 10's and 11's.

 

Another problem is playability. The action is already what I would call "medium", and with the flat classical-style fretboard and not even Toothpick thin frets, it takes considerable force just to fret a simple D chord. But if I lower the bridge/saddle to get lower action, I'll lose break angle. Are the only options either a refret with more "normal" sized frets, or a neck reset to get a better angle? It still has the original frets (they look almost brass, definitely not nickel silver), which show no pitting or wear whatsoever.

 

I think the flimsy tailpiece might contribute to it somewhat, but I doubt it's significant.

 

Any other thoughts?

 

I've attached pics for your examination. And yes, that's a horrible faux-flame finish (what kind of flame runs vertical like that??), and that pickguard is Screwed into the top (it came stock like that).

 

 

 

-Ryan

[BigKahune]

.

My first purchase was a Stella Harmony back in the 60s. Same type of action and sound problems. You should post this in the Acoustic subforum - Stellas have been discussed there many times. It can be tough and more than it's worth to improve the playability of those types of guitars. If he doesn't post a comment, PM KSdaddy on this.

 

 

.

[Ryan H]

Thanks BK, I'll be sure to post this in the Acoustic section, and moniter this topic for KSdaddy's reply, if he does reply.

 

Cheers,

 

-Ryan

[Rabs]

Its a nice looking guitar :) (even if its a fake top)...

 

It also reminds me of my first guitar.. not in looks but in the way you describe the action and playability lol.. But I had a Classical guitar with nylons...

 

I donno... maybe if you dont mind taking the chance it might be worth trying to shave the neck down a bit? Could be cool to experiment on it and see if you can improve the action and sound with all the stuff you know... :)

[Ryan H]

Its a nice looking guitar :) (even if its a fake top)...

 

It also reminds me of my first guitar.. not in looks but in the way you describe the action and playability lol.. But I had a Classical guitar with nylons...

 

I donno... maybe if you dont mind taking the chance it might be worth trying to shave the neck down a bit? Could be cool to experiment on it and see if you can improve the action and sound with all the stuff you know... :)

 

One of my buddies recommended the "poor man's neck reset", which involves sawing the neck joint up towards the fretboard, then using a strap pin or something to bolt it back down. The wood taken away by the saw would change the neck pitch and put more pressure on the bridge, and lower the action slightly.

 

Also, it's a ladder-braced top And back.

 

-Ryan

[Rabs]

One of my buddies recommended the "poor man's neck reset", which involves sawing the neck joint up towards the fretboard, then using a strap pin or something to bolt it back down. The wood taken away by the saw would change the neck pitch and put more pressure on the bridge, and lower the action slightly.

 

Also, it's a ladder-braced top And back.

 

-Ryan

Hmm.. that sounds quite hardcore... But if you think you can do that (or get someone else to do it :)) then I guess that would work.. But the neck would still be fat.

 

Id probably just shave the neck down.. You obviously cant change the width of the neck so much but you can make it thinner.. which may help playability a bit.

[Ryan H]

Hmm.. that sounds quite hardcore... But if you think you can do that (or get someone else to do it :)) then I guess that would work.. But the neck would still be fat.

 

Id probably just shave the neck down.. You obviously cant change the width of the neck so much but you can make it thinner.. which may help playability a bit.

 

I don't think it's the fat neck on it's own. I think it's a combination of the fat neck, flat fretboard, Incredibly thin frets and high action. The fat neck would also help compensate for the lack of an adjustable truss rod.

 

-Ryan

[Rabs]

I don't think it's the fat neck on it's own. I think it's a combination of the fat neck, flat fretboard, Incredibly thin frets and high action. The fat neck would also help compensate for the lack of an adjustable truss rod.

 

-Ryan

Yeah well you could try and take the frets off, but with such an old guitar you could come across complications, cracks and stuff.. If you can get the frets off sanding a radius isnt that hard...

 

Where as just shaving the neck down is the least risky (unless it makes it too bendy or more breakable)...So it depends on how far you want to go :) (its all gonna be a bit risky).

[RaysEpiphone]

Being as it was your first guitar I would just keep it as-is for a display memory keep-sake. Wish I still had the old Les Paul copy I got when I was 16. That was the first guitar that I could say was mine. It was a piece of crap, I had access to one or two other guitars before I got it but I lurned how to play on that one.

[pippy]

FWIW...

 

30 years ago I bought the vestiges of an f-hole acoustic which had no bridge and once a reasonable one was fabricated it became apparent that the neck was more 'Banana' than 'Railroad'.

I had vague thoughts of it becoming my 'Bottleneck' guitar but it was plainly unplayable.

 

Last year I put it in the hands of a luthier who fabricated a new bridge section; planed the neck 'true' and had it refretted and it has become my #1 'Go-To' guitar.

 

Nothing is impossible. If you like it that much take it to a luthier and discuss your thoughts. The worst that can happen is they will advise you against a rebuild. And that's pretty much where you are now...

 

Good luck, Ryan!

 

P.

[Ryan H]

FWIW...

 

30 years ago I bought the vestiges of an f-hole acoustic which had no bridge and once a reasonable one was fabricated it became apparent that the neck was more 'Banana' than 'Railroad'.

I had vague thoughts of it becoming my 'Bottleneck' guitar but it was plainly unplayable.

 

Last year I put it in the hands of a luthier who fabricated a new bridge section; planed the neck 'true' and had it refretted and it has become my #1 'Go-To' guitar.

 

Nothing is impossible. If you like it that much take it to a luthier and discuss your thoughts. The worst that can happen is they will advise you against a rebuild. And that's pretty much where you are now...

 

Good luck, Ryan!

 

P.

 

Thanks Pippy, that gives me a great deal of confidence. I love the way the guitar feels in my hands, the way it rests against my body, and especially the weight; It's so light that I could honestly forget that I was wearing it around my neck. The tuners are surprisingly stable; it got left in an attic for several months tuned to C Standard and when I brought it down, the tuning hadn't budged. I know it's a cheap guitar; it's appointments are proof of that (it was just under $24 new in the 60's!). Regardless, it's still an all-solid wood guitar, built like a tank and just has "something" that keeps me grabbing it, even if only for a few minutes.

 

Even being my first guitar, I'm not the type to leave a guitar unplayable because it has some sort of "sentimental value". It was a horribly playing guitar back then and it still is. I have no "fond" memories of it. But something just draws me to it every time I practice. There's some mojo to it I'm sure.

 

Thanks for all the help guys, I'm open to more suggestions!

 

-Ryan

[bonzoboy]

Thanks for posting that pic,I learned on a guitar much like that,it had strings like steel mooring cables,1/2" action,frets like angle iron with knife like edges and a neck that was little better than a 2X4 that was lightly sanded.The advantage about learning on that guitar was that when I graduated to a decent electric guitar I was able to leave the guys who started learning when I did,in my dust.My fingers had become so strong and the fingertips so thick that I could almost bend the strings right off the fingerboard and play lead and do barre chords much better than my buddies could.

[milod]

Got me thinking of some of my own old first guitars...

 

Harmony and its big competitor, Kay, tended to use IMHO woods that were pretty much third quality - or at least they didn't always trust the folks who bought and aged their woods.

 

I figure that because most seem to have actually been rather overengineered kinda like the old DC-3 airplanes.

 

Even so, in the '50s and early '60s they were probably some of the best low-cost pieces available and they made thousands of poor up to playable working tool guitars.

 

But the necks... Baseball bats.

 

Oddly I have one from the '50s that's pretty decent and, if I were where there were good luthiers, I'd consider having an upgraded neck on it because it actually plays decently in spite of the neck thanks to a decent fingerboard and frets, and sounds pretty decent.

 

I keep having this image, though, of dozens of apprentice cabinetmakers messing with the low-end pieces.

 

Here's what I have, although mine has gone through a bit more than some of the photos. I used it for a year and a half, two years of saloon gigs doing country/rock stuff in a trio in the late '70s.

 

http://harmony.demont.net/guitars/H65/189.htm

 

m

[Ryan H]

Glad this topic brought up some nostalgia for some people here :)

 

To update, I took the tailpiece off and bent the mounting tab to make it closer to a 90 degree angle, allowing the tailpiece to sit flatter when tuned to pitch, and therefore increasing the break angle over the bridge. I've noticed an improvement in projection, high end response, and a very pleasant midrange "purr" when I dig in...it's crazy how such a small change can make such a difference. Still seriously considering a refret...these things are unbelievably thin and low...and yet they don't have Any wear. Just looking at them they look about 2mm wide and maybe 1 or 1.5mm tall. Crazy thin.

 

-Ryan

[bonzoboy]

Harmony was capable of making some really nice and comfortable playing guitars.Most of their archtop electrics and solidbodies had really good ergonomics,my first "decent" acoustic was a Harmony Archtone,which was one of their lower priced "Starter" archtops with painted on position markers for instance.Despite being low priced they were very comfortable to play and had a really nice tone.

[milod]

Bonzo...

 

I'd agree to a large extent. Although I still think the necks were way too "fat" due to concerns the wood quality was not enough for less engineering.

 

But I had one of the less expensive ones too, and it worked marvelously with a pup added - and addition of a doubled G string an octave up - so the G was doubled as on a 12-string.

 

I used it in a rock band for six months or so. Got the idea from folkie "Spider" John Koerner who apparently got sorta the idea from Big Joe Williams' 9-strings. Nowadays Roger McGuinn seems to get credit for it, I think, but Koerner was using one in the early '60s. I stole the idea in the late '60s although obviously I wasn't famous. <grin>

 

Williams had at least one 9-string that was a Kay.

 

m

[bonzoboy]

You're right about the necks being fat Milod-they were pretty hefty but to compensate for that you could get very close action on them that was consistant all the way down the neck-well at least that's how my old Archtone was/is. I still have the old girl and take her out the odd time to try and take a trip to the halcyon days of my teen years and playing Donovan songs at the local coffee house-The Void and the teen/young adult drop in center in the church basement. Those really were the days.