Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Made From Different Timber Species Or Just Different Logs?


capmaster

Recommended Posts

Posted

My knowledge of timbers is rather limited, let alone that of botany. The bigger has been my surprise when I looked for comparisons of big-leaf aka Honduran mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) and West Indian mahogany (Swietenia mahagoni). I didn't know before that the latter species is rated higher endangered since a long time. Anyway, I was browsing for a while in the recent past but wasn't able to find helpful pictures. Unfinished timbers look rather different, and it's hard for me to judge anything from that. Then the looks of the hues on pics from the web are varying to a significant degree and corrupt all the rest of clues I may have thought I had.

 

Anyway, the reason for my research is the very different look of the natural backs of the guitars shown below. Until today I would have considered as unlikely that a Les Paul one-piece back only a few years old could be made from Honduran mahogany. What I just read about species conservation would make that more probable.

 

Trees grown in countries outside the natives of the species are unrestricted in trade, but I'm in doubt there are wood suppliers already offering logs with diameters allowing to make a Les Paul back of one piece.

 

I'm curious if the different looks, in particular hues, of these clear-coated guitar backs mean just a different log or also different species. The first fact seems clear since the guitars were stamped 27 October 2011 and 02 April 2012.

 

Perhaps some of the experts here can tell me what these backs and necks might be made from. For two genuine Gibsons with a one-piece back each, and probably with of either both back and neck made from one tree trunk each, both specified as real mahogany, the two species mentioned above are the only ones in question I believe. (Oh God! I hope I got this nested sentence anyhow understandable :unsure: )

 

The first two pics were mug shots I did long ago just in case. (You're right, in open cases then [biggrin] ) They are pretty close in the camera's automatic colour correction settings, but unlikely to be the same. To provide pictures showing both the guitars with identical auto-correction together, I also added two of these. Sadly all of the pics are flashed, so varying lighting distances and angles make it all a bit unclear. Having pics done by a pro would have been better, of course, but is beyond budget for me.

 

Standard 2011:

IMG_0636_zpszlayc2vw.jpg

 

Standard 2012:

IMG_0618_zpshtcznznz.jpg

 

Standard 2011 on the left, Standard 2012 on the right:

IMG_1624_zpsb5wifmjy.jpg

 

Standard 2011 on the bottom and right, Standard 2012 on the top and left:

IMG_1627_zpsqdnlczzb.jpg

Posted

Ahh man.. I tell you what.. Wood recognition is very very hard....

 

Ive been trying to get good at it for a few years now and I think its the kind of thing you can only learn with years and years of experience... Mahogany has many different species and cousins and wood varies for the same species let alone subtly different ones.... You have Sapele, Meranti and Utile (Love Utile) which could all be mistaken for Mahogany. And you get soft and hard versions of some of those and then it depends on how the wood is cut... So some is quarter sawn some is not. In fact one way to tell the difference is actually feeling the raw wood, how heavy it is stuff like that tends to give you more clues than just looking at it. Some Meranti I have is softer than pine, some of it is harder than Mahogany...

 

I would guess that those two are slightly different species, I wouldn't like to even guess exactly what they are.. The one thing I do know (not that it makes much difference) is that the darker the wood, the harder the wood (usually)... Older Mahogany tends to be darker than newer...

 

Heres a couple of pics

 

10309_5F00_041_zpsnmxu5wqr.jpg

 

AfMo-vs-Sapele-vs-Utile_zpscio0mx8y.jpg

Posted

Thank you very much, Rabs. [thumbup]

 

I guess the pics you linked show sanded surfaces. For me as an absolute layperson without notable history in viewing unfinished timbers it is facinating how unremarkable raw wood blanks often look. As you pointed out, it takes lots of experience and an educated eye to know where to look and what to look for.

 

Even the pure, unaltered look may not do sometimes. Thomann's Master Luthier was reluctant to commit himself on two fretboard timbers used by Gibson for two of my LPs including the one of the Standard 2011 pictured above from the back. I once posted a topic on it. It remained without a definitive result until today, and currently there are six species possible. I wonder if I live to see clearing things up... :rolleyes:

 

Mahogany and rosewood both can mean a lot of species. Some scientific names changed due to exact DNA analysis. I revived the fretboard topic mentioned before when that happened. Perhaps you remember: One of the species also known as Coração de Negro or Pau ferro or ironwood changed its scientific name from Caesalpinia ferrea to Libidibia ferrea meaning Brazilian ironwood. From mistaken looks to ambiguity to DNA analysis and finally to Babylonian confusion. [crying] Crazy stuff...

 

Thank you very much again.

Posted

Thank you very much, Rabs. [thumbup]

 

I guess the pics you linked show sanded surfaces. For me as an absolute layperson without notable history in viewing unfinished timbers it is facinating how unremarkable raw wood blanks often look. As you pointed out, it takes lots of experience and an educated eye to know where to look and what to look for.

 

Even the pure, unaltered look may not do sometimes. Thomann's Master Luthier was reluctant to commit himself on two fretboard timbers used by Gibson for two of my LPs including the one of the Standard 2011 pictured above from the back. I once posted a topic on it. It remained without a definitive result until today, and currently there are six species possible. I wonder if I live to see clearing things up... :rolleyes:

 

Mahogany and rosewood both can mean a lot of species. Some scientific names changed due to exact DNA analysis. I revived the fretboard topic mentioned before when that happened. Perhaps you remember: One of the species also known as Coração de Negro or Pau ferro or ironwood changed its scientific name from Caesalpinia ferrea to Libidibia ferrea meaning Brazilian ironwood. From mistaken looks to ambiguity to DNA analysis and finally to Babylonian confusion. [crying] Crazy stuff...

 

Thank you very much again.

Yup.. Raw wood tells you nothing but the basics until you sand it back a bit.. Only then do you know what you are dealing with... most of the wood I get comes with massive machine marks and you cant see the grain at all.. I always have to sand it back first before I do anything else to get the grain direction right and use the nicest bits and all that...

 

And yes even if you've been doing for years, to spot a species by just looking at the end product like a freboard is near impossible because you have extremes at each end on every wood so youd get some darker and some lighter examples some with tighter grain and some with wider grain etc no matter what species it is... Youd have to be a scientist probably :)

 

But hey, as we always say. At the end of the day who really cares.. Its the whole myth of tonewood that keeps these discussions going.. I have found that most wood is good wood to use... It will still always sound like an electric guitar in the end no matter what you use .. after that its all just personal preference but if it makes you feel good and inspires you to play then thats cool.

Posted

... Its the whole myth of tonewood that keeps these discussions going...

That myth keeps me going, too! [biggrin] Occasionally I try to find out why these things sound as they do, and in particular why the Standard 2011 with quilt top and Coração de Negro fretboard neither shown nor subject here sounds so very different. A note separation like an ES guitar, the sustain - no surprise - of a Les Paul, and a structure of harmonics anywhere in between. Yes, I love that thing, she is dearly captivating, but today after playing her my curiosity did overcome my enchantment again... [rolleyes]

Posted

That myth keeps me going, too! [biggrin] Occasionally I try to find out why these things sound as they do, and in particular why the Standard 2011 with quilt top and Coração de Negro fretboard neither shown nor subject here sounds so very different. A note separation like an ES guitar, the sustain - no surprise - of a Les Paul, and a structure of harmonics anywhere in between. Yes, I love that thing, she is dearly captivating, but today after playing her my curiosity did overcome my enchantment again... [rolleyes]

Well yeah, im not going to say that there are no differences between using one wood or another.. But they are tiny.... Especially in similar species... Id say that the workability of the wood has a huge part in why they use Mahogany and Maple.. It works easy and not too hard that its just going to constantly break your tools (like Oak)....

 

The thing is from all I have learned.. Body wood, it really almost makes no difference what you use.. As long as we arnt talking Balsa wood or something stupid :) but stuff even as soft as Pine.. sure, as far as I know some of the original Teles were made of Pine (and they've done some modern day ones too) but Pine splits easy and doesn't carve so well which is a reason not to use it in commercial building... Whats most important is the neck wood.. That must be hard enough to take the string tension and actually some of the experiments ive seen on youtube say to me that the neck wood makes more difference to tone than the body (even though we are still talking small differences like maybe slightly more or less treble)....

 

But again... its all fairly subjective and not that scientific.. so doesn't mean much..

 

It is fun though talking about it.. :) (as long as people don't take it too seriously)

Posted

 

 

The thing is from all I have learned.. Body wood, it really almost makes no difference what you use.. As long as we arnt talking Balsa wood or something stupid :) but stuff even as soft as Pine.. sure, as far as I know some of the original Teles were made of Pine (and they've done some modern day ones too) but Pine splits easy and doesn't carve so well which is a reason not to use it in commercial building...

The reason for Pine, the reason LEO used it, was strictly for "prototypes". He didn't consider it a good wood for permanent use in production, but to quickly build a shape to see how it comes together.

Posted

The reason for Pine, the reason LEO used it, was strictly for "prototypes". He didn't consider it a good wood for permanent use in production, but to quickly build a shape to see how it comes together.

http://en.audiofanzine.com/tlc-shaped-guitar/fender/reclaimed-eastern-pine-telecaster-dark-stain/medias/pictures/a.play,m.847458.html

 

http://intl.fender.com/en-GB/guitars/telecaster/modern-player-telecaster-plus-maple-fingerboard-charcoal-transparent/

Posted

Well yeah, im not going to say that there are no differences between using one wood or another.. But they are tiny.... Especially in similar species... Id say that the workability of the wood has a huge part in why they use Mahogany and Maple.. It works easy and not too hard that its just going to constantly break your tools (like Oak)....

 

The thing is from all I have learned.. Body wood, it really almost makes no difference what you use.. As long as we arnt talking Balsa wood or something stupid :) but stuff even as soft as Pine.. sure, as far as I know some of the original Teles were made of Pine (and they've done some modern day ones too) but Pine splits easy and doesn't carve so well which is a reason not to use it in commercial building... Whats most important is the neck wood.. That must be hard enough to take the string tension and actually some of the experiments ive seen on youtube say to me that the neck wood makes more difference to tone than the body (even though we are still talking small differences like maybe slightly more or less treble)....

 

But again... its all fairly subjective and not that scientific.. so doesn't mean much..

 

It is fun though talking about it.. :) (as long as people don't take it too seriously)

You deserve my admiration for your guitar building activities. You have learned a huge lot of knowledge and skills in your free time within a few years only. Your personal interest, affinity, talent and diligence must be awesome. Compared to yours, my point of view is just that of a person who heard something here and there now and then, can dream of how a guitar may sound, and otherwise only hope for some luck to find a matching one here or there now or then... [mellow]

 

In my opinion, the hardest part is the lack of predictability where all the ingredients put into a guitar might be leading to in the end. Two pals of mine had custom guitars built by a Master Luthier with international reputation. Both were one-offs, one classical, one jazz box. Each costed close to 4k€. To be honest, the results were fine, but after some months both of my pals admitted they would have gotten virtually the same for much less through patiently trying out guitars already in stock at a dealer.

 

When it's about my limited Standard 2011, I don't know any other one of these. Three each of three different finishes also different from that of mine were sold by GAK in UK, I know of mine here in Germany, and no other one outside the USA where they had been a GC exclusive. Five finishes, 30 to 50 guitars each, that'a all I know.

 

This must have been a lucky punch. I never would have found her had I looked for her on purpose. Besides this limited run no other LPs with that timber combination were ever made by Gibson as far as I know. I didn't even have an idea how this may affect tone, and I don't know if and how they were appreciated by the Gibson people. Perhaps they just experimented with alternative fretboard woods and added a quilt top to make them sell by looks if the fretboard as such didn't do it. Ironwood tree chopping is said to be dangerous since axes may rebound badly, and sawing must be difficult, too.

 

When about tonewood, the "no fretboard approach" is a remarkable one I think. Leo Fender took the step rather with red pencil than science I guess. Given density, elasticity, rigidity and the resonance properties resulting from that, a specific, extremely hard-wearing wood could be seen as indispensible. However, they started making one-piece maple necks, and the only indispensible property missing has been resistence against biodegradation, so they finished them. Maple is all sapwood, not heartwood, and thus seems far from ebony, rosewood, ironwood and others, but except the need for protection it works nicely. Maple boards are part of the tone of four guitars and one bass here, too. Two more have baked maple, one guitar and bass each.

 

Not all went as desired for Leo though. Even his guitars couldn't do without a truss-rod. :P

 

Fortunately, these are experiences you won't have to redo. Fender did them once and for all. B)

Posted

This is a good thread...don't have much to contribute, but I could learn something maybe. The subject fascinates me.

 

I don't believe in the the superiority of certain tonewoods over another, but I DO believe it matters. I also believe, one thing about the desirability of specific woods has to do with the classics, certain guitars that became classics because of the sound.

 

I think a good example might be a Martin D-28. We are used to the sound, even seek out the particular, specific sound it makes. Brazilian Rosewood was part of the "recipe" for that particular guitar. Had it been a different wood, it's possible it wouldn't have sounded as good and became a classic. Also, it's possible had it been a different wood, they would have altered the construction some. So in a sense, using "exactly" the same building/construction with the "exact" same woods results in a certain sound that becomes "proper".

 

I think this point of view only has merit if we consider the other guitars built with the same quality at the same time, but didn't become "classics". Or rather, what is considered the best of the best has a lot to do with chance, which ones have endured history.

Posted

sorry if its a dumb question Rabs, but would you expect a pine tele to be light weight. the floor in my home is honey coloured pine and it would look great on a tele (kind of butterscotch) - I once played an early custom shop tele (relic'd b/scotch b/guard early 50's style) which was so beutifully light I could have bought it then and there - did they use pine or similar around '95? - this was very light compared with any other tele I've picked up.

Posted

sorry if its a dumb question Rabs, but would you expect a pine tele to be light weight. the floor in my home is honey coloured pine and it would look great on a tele (kind of butterscotch) - I once played an early custom shop tele (relic'd b/scotch b/guard early 50's style) which was so beutifully light I could have bought it then and there - did they use pine or similar around '95? - this was very light compared with any other tele I've picked up.

No dumb questions.. Only dumb answers :)

 

On the above comment.. Acoustics are different.. The wood on an acoustic clearly defines the tone. On an electric there are slight differences, like maple is harder and more dense than mahogany so will produce a brighter snap for example. But once you then include the pickups and amp those differences become almost nothing...

 

As for if the pine will be heavy.. Probably not... BUT there is such a thing as hard pine so who knows... But yeah most pine is softish (comparatively) and light as its not as dense as say mahogany... Not sure exactly what type Fender used or when (usually just listed as Pine with no sub species).. I just know they do use it sometimes..

Posted

sorry if its a dumb question Rabs, but would you expect a pine tele to be light weight. the floor in my home is honey coloured pine and it would look great on a tele (kind of butterscotch) - I once played an early custom shop tele (relic'd b/scotch b/guard early 50's style) which was so beutifully light I could have bought it then and there - did they use pine or similar around '95? - this was very light compared with any other tele I've picked up.

 

Pine was dismissed by Leo because it could sap at anytime in the process, and that would ruin the ability to finish it.

 

Squier uses pine in some guitars, the pine they use coupled with the sealing to keep it from sapping makes it dreadfully heavy.

 

If it was a Broadcaster, Nocaster, or Esquire it COULD be a custom shop pine job, they were the only ones that could have seen pine, by the time Telecaster was decide they had stopped fooling with it. More than likely delightfully light ash.

 

rct

Posted

You deserve my admiration for your guitar building activities. You have learned a huge lot of knowledge and skills in your free time within a few years only. Your personal interest, affinity, talent and diligence must be awesome. Compared to yours, my point of view is just that of a person who heard something here and there now and then, can dream of how a guitar may sound, and otherwise only hope for some luck to find a matching one here or there now or then... [mellow]

 

In my opinion, the hardest part is the lack of predictability where all the ingredients put into a guitar might be leading to in the end. Two pals of mine had custom guitars built by a Master Luthier with international reputation. Both were one-offs, one classical, one jazz box. Each costed close to 4k€. To be honest, the results were fine, but after some months both of my pals admitted they would have gotten virtually the same for much less through patiently trying out guitars already in stock at a dealer.

 

Cheers :)

 

And as much as I have learned.. Im still just scratching the surface when it comes to this.. Just when I think I have a good grip on it I see an example of a wood which I thought I knew what it was and was totally wrong, I just hadn't seen a piece with that type of grain before.. Wood is so unique in that way.... One of the reasons I love it so much... and why in a way every guitar is unique...

 

As you say trying to predict the exact effect of a single component on an electric guitar is near impossible.. Its more about the combination of everything that the guitar is made from and how its set up, what sort of bridge, neck angle, headstock angle etc etc every tiny bit makes a tiny difference that adds up to a whole. Its why when looking for a guitar, the ONLY real way to find your "one" is to go out and play them.

Posted

No dumb questions.. Only dumb answers :)

 

On your first post.. Acoustics are different.. The wood on an acoustic clearly defines the tone. On an electric there are slight differences, like maple is harder and more dense than mahogany so will produce a brighter snap for example. But once you then include the pickups and amp those differences become almost nothing...

 

As for if the pine will be heavy.. Probably not... BUT there is such a thing as hard pine so who knows... But yeah most pine is softish (comparatively) and light as its not as dense as say mahogany... Not sure exactly what type Fender used or when (usually just listed as Pine with no sub species).. I just know they do use it sometimes..

 

cheers Rabs (though the first point wasn't mine - i am a non-believer in tone wood re electrics) - and rct - yeah, might just have a been a good 'un - ash or even basswood maybe?

Posted

cheers Rabs (though the first point wasn't mine - i am a non-believer in tone wood re electrics) - and rct - yeah, might just have a been a good 'un - ash or even basswood maybe?

Whoops yeah sorry, was eating dinner and answering at the same time.. Need to pay more attention :)

 

Yeah, Ash is often used in guitar building.. A really nice pretty hard wood, ive used it myself in builds.

 

This is half Ash and half Utile... Ash is a nice wood to work with and if you accent the grain I think looks really nice

DSC01459_zpszlb4c0o5.jpg

 

Basswood... hmm well that wont win you any points in a list of specs... And looks really boring grain wise.. You get a lot of cheap Basswood bodies on ebay... you can just do better than that when it comes to wood, a nicer looking wood wont cost you much more :) (but theres nothing wrong with it really)

 

The other thing to add is not only the workability but obviously looks count.. Mahogany and Maple can be really pretty and actually I LOVE the look of pine... So theres several factors.. And is why Mahogany and Maple are so widely used, they tick all the boxes youd want from your wood. Workability, availability, cost, strength and looks.

Posted

Interestingly my solid Roadstar Red finished Ibanez RG 430 guitar built in 1986 has a basswood body. It contributes nicely to her "stratty" tone - she's an SSS model, just 2.15 H inductance per Super 7F pickup with two ceramic bar magnets and six covered pole pieces. For 25 years she was my most played guitar and now is, along with my 1978 S-G Standard, one of my two immediate candidates for refretting. [mellow]

 

So nothing wrong here with basswood so far! It's only about worn frets... [biggrin]

 

Current MIM Fender Strats come with pickups of similar build, a little higher inductance, but also beef up the bass due to the bar magnets. Anyway, I modded all of my MIM Fender FR Strats for Noiseless SSS. I like that! [thumbup]

Posted

A question more than an observation but it has always seemed to me that it is better to test a guitar's "resonance" (for want of a better word) unplugged. As soon as the amp is flicked on the electrics take the whole thing over and it seems to me the sound (I hope this makes sense) of the wood is lost.

 

I know it isn't really - the harmonics are in the mix somewhere - but less easy to hear.

Posted

A question more than an observation but it has always seemed to me that it is better to test a guitar's "resonance" (for want of a better word) unplugged. As soon as the amp is flicked on the electrics take the whole thing over and it seems to me the sound (I hope this makes sense) of the wood is lost.

 

I know it isn't really - the harmonics are in the mix somewhere - but less easy to hear.

hmm id say the resonance test is an important one for sustain.. If it sustains well acoustically it will do it well when plugged in...

 

I do think there are differences.. some wood is brighter and some more mellow.. But you can compensate for that easy with the amp and guitar controls.. that's what they are there for :)

Posted
...it has always seemed to me that it is better to test a guitar's "resonance" (for want of a better word) unplugged. As soon as the amp is flicked on the electrics take the whole thing over and it seems to me the sound (I hope this makes sense) of the wood is lost.

If I may be so bold, Pin?

 

I agree completely with the general thrust of this but disagree in some of the detail.

As long as amp / gain / FX settings are kept to a minimum (IMO) as soon as the amp is flicked on the electrics DON'T take the whole thing over. Quite the reverse, actually.

The better a guitar sounds unplugged the better it will sound once amplified.

 

Pip.

Posted

A question more than an observation but it has always seemed to me that it is better to test a guitar's "resonance" (for want of a better word) unplugged. As soon as the amp is flicked on the electrics take the whole thing over and it seems to me the sound (I hope this makes sense) of the wood is lost.

 

I know it isn't really - the harmonics are in the mix somewhere - but less easy to hear.

To my feel it will depend on possible interaction between speaker and guitar. Along with increased gain and/or volume, peaks and notches in the overall response may occur, partly regardless of "live" and "dull" notes of the guitar itself. This will happen at some point before feedback starts, but to my experience mainly hollowbody and partly semi-hollow guitars tend to run out of control this way. Hollowbody guitars may disintegrate in extreme cases of feedback. Solidbodies are far less susceptible to that, with the possible exception of magnetic speaker/pickup feedback through single-coil pickups.

 

Magnetic pickups, amp and speakers will always boost or attenuate parts of the string vibration. This will share into the overall performance, as well as all the ingredients of the entire guitar will, wood inclusive.

 

Piezo'd hybrid solidbodies are a different thing. Piezos blown through a full-range acoustic amp will tell the whole story. Only few players use them - I love them!

Posted

To my feel it will depend on possible interaction between speaker and guitar. Along with increased gain and/or volume, peaks and notches in the overall response may occur, partly regardless of "live" and "dull" notes of the guitar itself. This will happen at some point before feedback starts, but to my experience mainly hollowbody and partly semi-hollow guitars tend to run out of control this way. Hollowbody guitars may disintegrate in extreme cases of feedback. Solidbodies are far less susceptible to that, with the possible exception of magnetic speaker/pickup feedback through single-coil pickups.

 

Magnetic pickups, amp and speakers will always boost or attenuate parts of the string vibration. This will share into the overall performance, as well as all the ingredients of the entire guitar will, wood inclusive.

 

Piezo'd hybrid solidbodies are a different thing. Piezos blown through a full-range acoustic amp will tell the whole story. Only few players use them - I love them!

Heres a video I just saw.. Talks about almost exactly what we were talking about.. And that guy says the same as me, its about every tiny bit of what makes a guitar and how its designed that makes an end sound...

Posted

Mahogany and rosewood both can mean a lot of species. Some scientific names changed due to exact DNA analysis. I revived the fretboard topic mentioned before when that happened. Perhaps you remember: One of the species also known as Coração de Negro or Pau ferro or ironwood changed its scientific name from Caesalpinia ferrea to Libidibia ferrea meaning Brazilian ironwood. From mistaken looks to ambiguity to DNA analysis and finally to Babylonian confusion. [crying] Crazy stuff...

 

I don't know much about mahogany and rosewood but I know that the only way to tell the species of any timber is to examine the endgrain for various properties of the timber like the rings and pores and sapwood and that kind of stuff and use a "key" to narrow down the species until you are only left with one possible alternative. That's the way the experts do it. You can't tell by just looking at the grain and guessing. There's probably some reference somewhere that includes the various types of mahogany and rosewood.

 

For instance, there's a book by a guy named Hoadley (I think) that tells how to identify North American trees. HERE

Posted

...

 

For instance, there's a book by a guy named Hoadley (I think) that tells how to identify North American trees. HERE

Thank you for that link, BBP. [thumbup] I researched on the author, and to me it seems a very good read. Tropical woods are included, too. I think I'll have to order me one.

 

Thanks again.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...