Sacrosanct x-brace at risk??

[Dave Bagwill]

The picture is from the R. Taylor website.

This raises a couple of questions.
1. Other issues aside, does butting the x-brace together give as sufficient a joint as the notched x-brace we are used to?

2. Is this a marketing gimmick? The explanation from the website:
"The sonic signature leans towards tight midrange, which our ears perceive as a punchy guitar with very quick response and immediate acoustic projection. Guitars with this bracing pattern position themselves very well in an ensemble setting, with excellent clarity throughout the guitar’s entire range."

That sounds like marketing gobbledygook to me. Then again, he IS Bob Taylor.

But I'm mainly interested in the butt joint for the x-braces.

[dave d]

It's admittedly hard to see the notch, but the lower left leg in the photo (which is actually for the upper bout) is extending into a notch in the long leg.

There may be a butt joint for the upper right brace, unless they've notched out the underside of the X there. Hard to tell from the pic. You still have a point though about one leg of the x not being continuous from tip to tip, which one may reasonably wonder about its structural suitability compared to the usual X. Interesting.

[Dave Bagwill]

Ok, I do see that notch. I wonder if it's there mainly to appease people that are used to seeing a notch? It is interesting.

[ken cierp]

Things to remember -- its a musical instrument -- it will not be used as a suspension bridge --- "X" -- ladder -- fan --- -- length-wise -- sideways --angled -- "Flying!!" all use with great success, so seems there are no rules.

[Tom West]

I think they are trying to loosen the bass side of the top a bit. Dana B. does a scalloped bass side, unscalloped treble side. Two different approaches to reach the same end.
Tom

[Dave Bagwill]

Hi Tom - good to hear from you!