Frank,

We have recently taken on a restoration project that may provide grist for your Q&A section. We recently bought a 1908 Martin 0-17 which is in terrible shape (I will post some photos on my web site tonight). It is my intention to restore it to the best possible playable shape. There are several questions which are raised which, although I am never lacking in opinions, are well worth a discussion and second opinion. What comes to mind:

1. The rib on the treble side is very badly broken and even more badly repaired. Pieces are missing. The question is: Do we replace the whole rib or do we patch it so as to retain some of the original wood (perhaps 40% can be saved)?

2. The peghead veneer has 8-10 rhinestones set into it, and will be badly scarred when they are removed. Do we replace the veneer with a new (albeit Brazilian rosewood) veneer or do we simply leave it (or touch up)

3. Do we reinforce the top (bridge plate) so as to permit use of steel strings, or do we leave as is.

4. The original bridge is gone, and the replacement is oversize. In restoring the guitar do we make an "oversize" bridge or do we make it the original size and attempt to restore the damaged finish.

5. Large sections of the wood around the soundhole are missing. Do we leave it as is or do we attempt to restore the original shape (size) of the soundhole.

It seems to me that each of these questions raise questions of both ethics of restoration, value of vintage guitars, players vs. collectors and, of course, issues of how to actually do the work. My initial thoughts on these questions is to lean towards the first option I have presented ¯ i.e. make it a usable instrument and worry less about total originality.

Charlie Hoffman, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Well, Charlie, that's quite a job you've got hold of!

I agree with all your items, and I'd choose the first option on each of them, except the bridge replacement.

1. A new side is sure to be better looking than making a patchwork of the old one with so much damage.

2. The new peghead veneer is no big deal in my judgement, because the damage is not normal cosmetic wear; it's basically impossible to touch up that kind of damage.

3. The bridgeplate is a matter for discussion with the owner of the instrument (in this case, I guess that's you) and is an opportunity for the luthier to help decide whether the guitar can handle steel or if it is even a priority. Personally, I'd go for steel stringing because this critter will undoubtedly sound best with steel. Maybe you can do a really artful job with the bridge plate when the side is off. . .

5. I think the soundhole should be fixed to keep this guitar from being any uglier than necessary.

4. I'd try to work with the original bridge size and shape.

In years past I replaced oversize bridges with oversize bridges. After all, the damage to the top finish had already been done, and it's lots more difficult to touch up finish than it is to make a bridge to cover it. These days, with the emphasis on originality of style, I'm replacing oversize bridges with standard ones wherever possible and suffering the touchup difficulties. I think the results look better that way. The only problem is that it's usually quite a bit more expensive. Now that these old timers are worth more money, we're able to stand the expense more often.

One more thing:

How about a French polish refinish job on the face to correct the soundhole and bridge area? What with all the work this guitar is getting, I think originality of style should take precedence over originality of condition. That is to say I don't think there's much point in worrying about whether the top is refinished when there's new finish in so many other places and the touched up finish on the face is likely to look like just that, when a sensitive French polishing will make things actually look more original, much as the new side and peghead veneer will look more original than a bunch of patches would.

Frank Ford, 8/7/98