Acoustic Guitar Construction

This European builder has a great reputation, and skills to do what he wants to do, so I know he could notch braces cleanly if he chose. But instead, he does it this way (pic) and has been doing it for many years with no bad consequences. You'll notice that the UTB is not inlet at all, and the others just have an open notch, which is left open.

What is your assessment?

Interesting.....He's using reverse kerfing so I'm sure the
stability is still there. I guess another for the annuls of how
far you can take a guitar with less......

The back is not on yet, maybe he will glue on a brace before he closes the back. That is the way I just did my classical guitar I am working on.

He actually leaves the notches open. I was surprised to read it, but he made a point of saying it.

I should be clear that I'm talking about the top braces - that top is glued on and the notches will stay that way. I don't know what he does about the back braces, I'll see if I can find out.

I'm a thumbs down -- don't like

Looks like crap! Can you say China?

Someone asked him about it: (remember this is google translation of French, a little whacky)
"I noticed an unusual thing that intrigues me looking at the pictures of guitars Benedict. The ends of the bars of X and those of the bar under the end of the key are simply up against the sides. These bars are left free, while they are the most important parts in the structure of the table to support the tension.
I imagine that this will allow the table to vibrate more freely, but it is not detrimental to the strength of the structure? Furthermore, the ends of the bars and tone as a small side bars are locked in against-sides.

He responded:
"Well you see I tried both méthodes, brace ends trapped against the sides but also (as in the picture) free, using the same wood (the same tree), , made ​​at the same time ... well I do not hear any difference! In any case my l ears do not allow me to hear ... I also tried catching the Finger brace under X as Martin did on the old pre-war Martin, well in view of the assembly and precise fit of the time, I do not think we can say that works best?"

Here is the site: http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... S:official

This is not a fly-by-night luthier looking for a quick production method, but it sure does not have a 'finished' look to it.

I'm with Ken on this one. To add or keep bass for a guitar's sound, the top does need to be able to move up and down (Somogyi calls it the monopole). So the bracing needs to be as flimsy as possible to allow that movement, but not so far that the top can fly off. And I don't think you can get more bass by having the ends of the braces just resting on a side that's probably about .08" thick. There's probably a point where you reach the limit on thinning a brace and that more thinning does not help. Maybe that's why he takes all the braces to the side where most others only have the X braces set into the side and kerfing. That's an awfully thin glue joint however.
Do you know if he was finished shaping his braces?
Does anyone else think they might be just a bit over built?
I know I've only made a few guitars, and if what I've put in is incorrect, I do apologize and hope someone will correct it. Heavier bracing will work against the up and down movement of the top, even with the thin outside part of the brace that connects with the side.
Am I on the right track?
Bob