When researching Benedetto guitars of the 1990s, it is difficult not to be guided by the impression created by their appearance.
The Manhattan and Cremona look like thoroughly modern, unmistakably Benedetto archtops. The Fratello and Limelite, with their traditionally shaped pickguards, seem more classically oriented. The La Venezia, meanwhile, appears to be the distilled essence of an acoustic archtop, stripped of ornament.
That, at least, was how I had tended to see them.
From that impression, I assumed that parallel bracing might be relatively common in the Fratello and Limelite.
Following the production log, however, unsettled that assumption.
This survey covers records from August 1991 through the end of 1999. The reason is simple: it is from around this point that bracing patterns begin to appear in the log.
This article is not intended to make a sensational claim that “Benedetto used a great deal of X-bracing.”
Rather, X-bracing may have been an important option for archtops fitted with floating pickups, or for instruments designed to preserve the acoustic response of the top.
My own Tsuji Shiro GEM-B and Heritage Sweet 16 are both X-braced. So was a 1947 D’Angelico New Yorker that I owned.
These few instruments cannot prove a general rule. They do, however, suggest that X-bracing was not especially unusual among archtops that avoided cutting a pickup into the top and sought to retain an acoustic response.
At the same time, not every archtop with a floating pickup—or no pickup at all—was X-braced. The Gibson L-5C, for example, is generally discussed as part of the parallel-braced tradition.
The prevalence of X-bracing at Benedetto may therefore deserve more consideration than simply treating it as the inevitable result of using floating pickups.
The question here is where X-bracing appears in the 1990s Benedetto log, how consistently it is recorded for each model, and how the small number of parallel-braced instruments should be understood.
Scope of the Survey
The survey covers Benedetto production-log entries from August 1991 through the end of 1999.
This period was selected because bracing patterns begin to be recorded in the log from approximately August 1991 onward.
Five models were included: Cremona, Limelite, La Venezia, Fratello, and Manhattan.
The totals are necessarily limited to entries in which the information can be confirmed, but they produce a revealing picture of Benedetto’s internal construction during the 1990s.
This survey does not claim to establish the entire history of Benedetto bracing.
For context, I also examined a little over a dozen very early instruments dating from the beginning of the 1970s. Most were X-braced. Seen in that light, the prominence of X-bracing in the 1990s log may not have been a new tendency, but a basic line extending from a much earlier period.
A sample of only a dozen or so guitars cannot represent all early Benedetto production. More information about the bracing of 1970s and 1980s models such as the Supreme and Cremona could produce a different picture.
Benedetto’s Own View of Bracing
Before considering the figures in the log, it is useful to examine how Robert Benedetto himself described bracing.
In Making an Archtop Guitar, Benedetto explains that bracing serves two functions.
First, it transfers and distributes string vibration through the top plate. Second, it acts as structural support, allowing the top to withstand the downward pressure exerted through the bridge.
He identifies parallel bracing and X-bracing as the two principal systems used in archtop guitars, and describes them as different both acoustically and structurally.
Parallel bracing makes the top more resistant to deformation from the strings’ longitudinal pull, allowing the plate to be carved more evenly and thinly. An X-braced top is somewhat less resistant to that longitudinal force, so the central area and the region around the neck block must be left slightly thicker.
As a general observation, he also states that a thinly carved top combined with parallel braces can produce greater volume and stronger projection.
Benedetto therefore understood the structural and acoustic advantages of parallel bracing perfectly well.
Yet X-bracing is heavily represented among the principal models of the 1990s. That is what makes the subject so interesting.
Results from the Production Log
The totals by model are as follows.
| Model | Total | X-braced | Parallel | Other | Unknown |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cremona | 15 | 13 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Limelite | 12 | 9 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| La Venezia | 21 | 20 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Fratello | 22 | 13 | 9 | 0 | 0 |
| Manhattan | 63 | 50 | 10 | 2 | 1 |
Overall, X-bracing is clearly predominant.
Twenty of 21 La Venezia guitars, 13 of 15 Cremonas, and 50 of 63 Manhattans were X-braced. Nine of 12 Limelites were also X-braced. Only the Fratello retained a comparatively high proportion of parallel bracing.
It would be risky, however, to read these figures as fixed specifications for each model.
Many Benedetto guitars appear to have been individually commissioned rather than made as standardized dealer stock in large batches.
Between the Log and the Specification Sheet
“Custom-made” does not necessarily mean that the customer selected every detail.
In my own case, the specification sheet for my Benedetto 16 Custom did not mention a bracing pattern, and I do not remember being asked about bracing when I placed the order.
It would be dangerous to generalize too far from this single example.
My 16 Custom had an unusual soundhole design, so I cannot know whether its bracing could have been selected under the same conditions as a more conventional Benedetto order.
By contrast, my preferences for neck width and profile were incorporated when I communicated them. I favor a somewhat wide 1 13/16-inch nut and a 1950s Gibson-style neck profile, and requested that direction from both Benedetto and Buscarino. I received that profile on three instruments in total.
My experience therefore shows that clearly expressed preferences could become specifications, while bracing—at least on my specification sheet—did not appear.
The production log is revealing in a different way.
From August 1991 onward, the bracing type is recorded for nearly every instrument, regardless of model.
If X-bracing had been an unremarkable default not worth recording, it would have been sufficient to note only the non-X patterns.
Instead, the bracing of each guitar was recorded whether it was X, parallel, or another pattern.
Bracing may not always have appeared on a customer’s specification sheet, but for the builders it seems to have been an important entry describing the character of each instrument.
X-bracing is a clear majority in the log. This suggests that it may have occupied a position close to Benedetto’s standard baseline.
That conclusion cannot be established from order sheets or my own example alone.
Floating Pickups and X-Bracing
X-bracing may have been an important option for archtops fitted with floating pickups, or designed to emphasize the acoustic response of the top.
When a pickup is not mounted into the top, the plate is freer to vibrate. X-bracing may have suited that design philosophy particularly well.
My Tsuji Shiro GEM-B and Heritage Sweet 16 are both X-braced, as was a 1947 D’Angelico New Yorker that I owned.
Again, those few examples prove no general rule. They do suggest that X-bracing was not especially rare among archtops designed around the acoustic response of the top.
Nor, however, was every archtop with a floating pickup—or no pickup—X-braced. The Gibson L-5C is one familiar model associated with parallel bracing.
The amount of X-bracing found at Benedetto should perhaps not be dismissed as an automatic consequence of the floating-pickup format.
The lineage of X-bracing in archtops also brings Johnny Smith and D’Angelico into the discussion. The D’Angelico instruments favored by Johnny Smith, and the later Gibson Johnny Smith, combine a floating pickup, 25-inch scale, relatively shallow body, and X-bracing. Those features provide an intriguing line of comparison for Benedetto.
It would be wrong to trace all X-bracing among modern independent builders directly to D’Angelico. Still, D’Angelico was a major point of reference for independent archtop making, and that broader lineage deserves a separate investigation.
Here, the focus remains on the bracing trends recorded in the 1990s Benedetto log.
With that limitation in place, the distribution of X-bracing—and the meaning of the few parallel-braced exceptions—becomes easier to see.
The Impression Created by Appearance
I originally understood the lineup in fairly simple terms.
The Manhattan was the central modern Benedetto, with the Cremona above it. The Fratello had a more traditional appearance, with the Limelite as its upper-level counterpart. The La Venezia was the distilled essence of a minimally ornamented acoustic archtop.
Seen that way, it was tempting to assume that parallel bracing would be common in the Fratello and Limelite.
In fact, X-bracing outnumbered parallel bracing even in the Fratello, and the Limelite leaned quite decisively toward X-bracing.
My classification by outward appearance had been somewhat superficial.
The Place of X-Bracing
Benedetto archtops were generally designed around a floating pickup and a 25-inch scale.
The combination of that scale, a floating pickup, manageable body depth, and X-bracing naturally recalls the Gibson Johnny Smith.
The Johnny Smith occupies a somewhat different position from the parallel-braced lineage of the L-5 and Super 400. Its 25-inch scale, relatively shallow body, floating pickup, and X-bracing suggest a design intended to preserve acoustic response while remaining manageable as a jazz guitar.
This is not to reduce Benedetto to a simple successor to the Johnny Smith.
But Benedetto’s apparent preference for X-bracing, despite his clear understanding of the advantages of parallel bracing, is important to any consideration of his archtop philosophy.
It may have reflected not a pursuit of maximum volume and projection alone, but a broader conception involving the floating pickup, 25-inch scale, body depth, and acoustic response.
Trends by Model
Manhattan
Fifty of 63 Manhattans were X-braced. As the central model of Benedetto’s 1990s production, it leaned strongly toward X-bracing.
If the Manhattan is understood as the center of modern Benedetto design, this result is not especially surprising. More interesting is the extent to which the same tendency appears across other models.
Cremona
Thirteen of 15 Cremonas were X-braced.
Even as a model above the Manhattan—or as a more fully developed expression—it strongly retained X-bracing rather than returning to parallel braces.
The Cremona did not suddenly appear in the 1990s. Information about the bracing of earlier Cremonas would deepen this picture.
Fratello
Of 22 Fratellos, 13 were X-braced and nine parallel-braced. It had the highest proportion of parallel bracing in this survey.
Even here, however, X-bracing remained the majority. The Fratello is better understood not as “the parallel-braced model,” but as a model based primarily on X-bracing in which parallel examples were also relatively common.
Limelite
Nine of 12 Limelites were X-braced.
For someone who had regarded it as a more traditional upper-level counterpart to the Fratello, this was a particularly interesting result.
Its appearance suggests that parallel bracing might be common. The record instead leans clearly toward X-bracing.
La Venezia
Twenty of 21 La Venezia guitars were X-braced.
This is an exceptionally strong result.
The La Venezia resembles the purest expression of an acoustic archtop stripped of ornament. Yet the figures do not indicate a return to a classical parallel-braced archtop.
Instead, it may have been the distilled expression of Benedetto’s own X-braced acoustic archtop.
Removing ornament did not mean making the internal structure more traditional. The La Venezia may reveal Benedetto’s basic design line in its least embellished form.
Bracing over Time
Another pattern emerged while compiling the figures.
When bracing entries first appear in the log after August 1991, a number of parallel-braced instruments can be found. After the latter part of 1992, however, the record becomes almost entirely X-braced. Near the end of the decade, around 1998, one or two parallel-braced guitars appear again.
Viewed by itself, this sequence suggests a convergence toward X-bracing in the early 1990s.
The few parallel-braced examples near the decade’s end may have been exceptions responding to individual commissions or to a requested type of sound, rather than expressions of a model’s basic specification.
In light of the advantages of parallel bracing described in Benedetto’s book, these few parallel examples become all the more intriguing.
How Should the Few Parallel-Braced Guitars Be Read?
X-bracing forms a large majority of the log entries.
The small number of parallel-braced guitars within that majority may reflect individual orders or differences in the desired response.
Within the limits of this survey, X-bracing appears close to the baseline, while parallel bracing may have been a deliberate departure from it.
Yet even the baseline X pattern was important enough to be recorded for each instrument.
Seen this way, the 1990s Benedetto log seems to reflect both a standard conception of the archtop and the individual preferences that existed around it.
The Line Leading to the Guild Artist Award
The X-bracing trend discussed here also connects, at some point, with the Gibson Johnny Smith and the Guild Artist Award.
Guitars bearing Johnny Smith’s name passed through Guild, Gibson, Heritage, and later into the Guild period involving Benedetto.
The specifications of the Guild Artist Award and Guild Johnny Smith Award by Benedetto changed according to period and production arrangement, and cannot be reduced to a single formula.
The prevalence of X-bracing in the 1990s Benedetto log, followed by the Artist Award and Johnny Smith Award of the Guild-Benedetto period, forms a line that deserves more careful study.
