Men of Mahogany

[robekert]

I kinda get the sense that many on this board like Mahogany backed and sided guitars. I always thought Rosewood was king. It seems that Gibson marches to a different drummer with many Mahogany and Maple models. Rosewood is there but does not seem to hold the prominent place that some manufactures hold this tone wood in. I saw a video of Ren Ferguson talking about what woods he likes to use. He touched on Rosewood but got real passionate about Mahogany.

Rob

 

P.S. I really do like playing more than talking about playing.

 

Also my 1st thread was about getting a Songwriter Deluxe Rosewood Cutaway. The J-45 seems to be a favorite around here. I thought dreads were the way to go. I seem to be in another part of the world here.........Gibson Country.

[Doc]

I think the tone of rosewood is almost immmediately alluring. When I first got interested in guitars, I gravitated towards rosewood in a flash. Mahogany didn't interest me at all.

 

Having since done a good deal of recording and playing live, I've developed an appreciation for the clarity that mahogany offers. Being an audience member helped a great deal as well. I began noticing how well mahogany compliments a voice. Rosewood is deep and rich, but often boomy and overpowering.

 

There's obviously nothing wrong with rosewood guitars. For instance, the J-45 RW is one of kind. However, my hog J-45, dings and all, is now my #1.

 

I really, really hate the look of cutaways, for what it's worth. But then again, I don't do all that much picking way up high.

[Rambler]

I always thought Rosewood was king. It seems that Gibson marches to a different drummer with many Mahogany and Maple models.

 

Historically speaking' date=' Gibson tended to be about moving units, which meant j45s (hog), not AJs (rose). And maple was always around (jazz thing/mando thing). But they got [i']good [/i]results, at least for applications where cut and clarity are a must (jazz, folk, blues, r&b, r&r). Rosewood IS king at CF Martin and Co, where Euro standards prevail. Not that you cant whup it (Lester Flat, Neil Young), but that was an accidental outcome--Christian Friedrich I, II and III would have blanched.

[guitarstrummer]

I like the rosewood guitars but there are applications which call for mahogany or maple. I don't think one's better than the others.....just different.

[onewilyfool]

I think of Mahogany as my favorite tone wood for backs and sides.......YET, I love the ringing and overtones of a good Rose wood, just getting into Maples, which I often found kind of "jangly" with muted bass and tinny highs.....but now have two maples that I just love......Koa I love the look of......but rarely find a guitar that sounds good to my ear.....I think Hog is the best of the best.....

 

Lots of new tonewoods, Bubinga, Madagascar Ebony, Walnut, others, I'm not that familiar with....but some swear by them....

[ponty]

For the last 25 years I wanted to love rosewood, but I now accept that for me Hog is King. I have had a fair number of Martin RW guitars including two now. But my J-45s are just great. Wouldnt ever sell em!

[robekert]

I guess the reason that I thought rosewood was king was the "Martin Effect". I only live about 1.5 hours away from the Martin plant in Pennsylvania. In this area Martin is the guitar company that rolls off of people's tongues. If you are talkin' guitar, you are talkin' Martin. As stated above at CF Martin, rosewood seems to be the top of the mountain. My nephew has also been a big influence. He is a Martin player. Sometimes you have to strike it out on your own. Guess that is what brings me here.

Rob

[Honky Dog]

I have Gibson dreads in rosewood, mahogany, and maple. Truthfully, I can't say I prefer one over the other. I play each of those tonewoods almost every day. I switch between guitars based on the song I'm playing. Not that one of the guitars can't do all the songs, but I prefer the tone of a particular guitar for a particular song. I'm with Mike: none is really better, just different.

[chop]

It appears I would be the opposite of most folks around. I played Larrivee, Taylor, and Martin hogs for years and never really considered anything else. Then I picked up an SWD at my local Long & McQuade here in Toronto and was blown away with how complex and musical (only term I can think of) the notes were. I love the way the notes blend together & actually find it easy to sing with. Mahogany is indeed a wonderful tonewood, but I am pleased to be only now discovering the complexities of Rosewood.

Cheer to Both, Chop

[Modac]

Mahogany is much more malleable to the player than rosewood---which is too dictatorial for my liking. It's strident, annoyingly reverberant, and it can be cold and metallic. Mahogany is breathy and warm, and allows the player to use the tonal palette it offers much more easily.

 

Maple is probably the most misunderstood of all the tonewoods---largely, because so many people got their introduction to maple guitars through the crummy guitars Gibson was building in the late 60s and 70s. A good maple guitar isn't tinny, thin sounding or overly bright. Maple is clear, dry and full sounding, when a good builder makes a guitar with it. Bozeman is building some killer maple guitars, nowadays.

[Jinder]

Rosewood is an intense Claret, whilst Mahogany is a crisp and refreshing Chardonnay. Maple, however, is three fingers of 25yr old single malt...probably Talisker. The stuff only the intense and seasoned step up to!

 

Ahh... So many tonewoods, so little time.

[Pickax]

Having played Guitars for the past 30+ years, I can't imagine not owning a Rosewood Guitar and a Mahogany Guitar. I need both and I can't say I prefer one over the other. Life is good

[JDWags]

Trying to describe the sound off a guitar is always fun but never quite right. From a Zen perspective, using words (a pointing finger) to describe musical sounds (the moon) can be trouble when you take the finger for the moon. But words are what we got and are, at least, indicators.

 

Doc had it for me when he called rosewood "immediately alluring." When I first strum a rosewood guitar I hear a rich full, lush sound that is very enticing. Further playing brings on, in Modac's words, the "annoyingly reverberant metallic sound" that eventually puts me off.

 

Mahogany, on the other hand, is subtle in it's initial presentation to me, but builds appreciation the more I play it.

 

If the highs, mids, and lows, were a family, I would say the mahogany family gets along fine and is on equal footing with each other. The rosewood family is more demonstrative with each member vying for it's individual voice.

 

Boy, I've carried this explanation way too far. But, I did spend alot of time and money bringing home rosewood guitars that initially thrilled me only to have me sour on the instrument later.

[Jerry K]

It's particularly good to have rosewood and mahogany (and maple and bubinga, for that matter) to play together. As in you play one your friend plays another (or overdubbing) and you get contrasting sounds.

[ajsc]

It's particularly good to have rosewood and mahogany (and maple and bubinga' date=' for that matter) to play together. As in you play one your friend plays another (or overdubbing) and you get contrasting sounds.[/quote']

 

 

 

I agree, playing one makes me appreciate the others.

[Jayla]

Enjoyed all of the above comments on tone woods. My until recently only acoustic has bubinga b & s, and my ear and mind were tuned to it. A couple of months ago I got a new guitar, this time with rosewood b & s. A totally different beast! That rosewood is indeed reverberant -- lots of overtones and ringing. I have to be careful if I want to control it. The bubinga on the other hand just sounds clean and clear, and really full. I don't know what my next guitar will be, but I'm already thinking I'll be considering hog and koa models, just for a change. Gonna try to play alot between now and then.

[onewilyfool]

tone woods are one thing, but then throw into the mix, body size and body depth and body shape, and 12 frets vrs 14 frets, archtop vrs flat top......material of the fret board...and throw in Bob Colosi nuts, saddles, and pins.....and there are endless possiblilities.......now HOW MANY guitars will be enough?????

[vourot]

Best to just have both.

[Honky Dog]

<snipped>now HOW MANY guitars will be enough?????

 

I'm working, striving actually, for six and a half.

[AustinNoName]

 

I'm working' date=' striving actually, for six and a half.[/quote']

 

Like it! My first guitar was so poor, it probably counts as a half!

 

For what it's worth, I've just got a J45 'hog... Love it. But I want Rosewood too dagnammit!

[jefleppard]

i, too, was initially led in by the luscious, chocolatey tone of RW. as time goes on, its hog that's catching my ear but that my taste is constantly changing is certainly a factor. its not the guitar that changes - its me. btw, the title of this thread reminds me of an "article" i just read (i forget the magazine..could it have been playboy?) called "girls of the big 10".

[TWilson]

Hey Cunk, what part did you "read"?

[gearbasher]

Time for my two pennies.

I started out with a RW Guild. Fantastic guitar. Then I got my first Gibson. It was a HOG J-45. To me it just didn't sound right. No power...kinda muddy. Every guitar after that was RW for me. Then I tried a maple Martin. Didn't like it either. Too bright and no volume. I figured maple just wasn't for me. So, I stuck to RW. Then I picked up my Maple J-45. I love it. I play it more than my RWs these days. I guess tone wood isn't the only factor. Now, I'm gonna have to try another HOG and maybe get a good one this time.

[Doc]

Ah Talisker. The peppery malt. I could go for some right about now.

[phil]

Mahogoney & Adarondack for me