Visually Lackluster Maple Example?

[thegreatgumbino]

Saw this J100xtra on Craigslist near me and was surprised by the maple back. Visually, it is the most lackluster set of maple I've seen. Any chance it isn't maple? Guess I'm used to seeing at least some flame to it.

 

[JuanCarlosVejar]

It’s maple.

 

Just not much flame or figure on it.

Nature gives what it can ... and it had to get used at some point.

 

 

 

 

JC

[zombywoof]

As a friend of mine who deals in guitars likes to say never underestimate the influence of the eye on the ear.

[gearbasher]

What year is it? Here is a '99 that was sold by Elderly. Also, very plain.

 

https://www.elderly.com/gibson-j100-xtra-1999.htm

 

If I recall correctly, they used sycamore on the 100s for a year or two ('89-'90?).

[zombywoof]

It’s maple.

 

Just not much flame or figure on it.

Nature gives what it can ... and it had to get used at some point.

 

 

 

 

JC

 

 

In some cases it is actually what man gives you because he is the one who saws the wood. Flame maple is cut with a vertical grain while quilted is flatsawn. So in theory flame maple will be preferable to quilted because it will be stiffer.

[bobouz]

This particular version of the J-100xtra, with black binding and a mahogany neck, was introduced in 1999 & lasted, I believe, only through 2001. Yes, it is indeed maple.

 

I have one from 2000, but the back and sides are done in a very dark sunburst (the top is still a natural finish, with a beautiful blue/greenish abalone rosette). When combined with the black binding, the dark back & sides make the guitar look smaller, almost like a J-185, until you actually see them side by side!

 

Edit: Just looked at the one referenced above that was listed at Elderly, and that's exactly like mine (except for the natural vs dark stained back & sides). One other noteworthy factoid about mine is that the darn thing feels as light as a feather, and has a very fine tone (plenty of J-200 bass rumble). If you get a good one, a J100xtra from this particular era can be a real sleeper.

[Jinder]

That looks more like Sycamore than Maple to my eyes...I played a Sycamore J200 from ‘89ish many years ago, what an incredible guitar that was!

[fortyearspickn]

Sycamore was my first thought also. We had Sycamore cabinets in our kitchen in a previous home - looked just like this.

As always - the question is, how does it sound? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

[Leonard McCoy]

As JC said, it's maple, just not figured maple, such as flame or quilt. I still think it looks amazing under the right lighting conditions and if buffed properly (see the Elderly pictures).

[JuanCarlosVejar]

In some cases it is actually what man gives you because he is the one who saws the wood. Flame maple is cut with a vertical grain while quilted is flatsawn. So in theory flame maple will be preferable to quilted because it will be stiffer.

ZW,

 

I have to disagree with you there Quilted Maple can be just as good or sometimes even better than Flamed Maple in tone.

 

 

I own a J 200 M with QM that’s stellar sounding

 

 

 

 

JC

[fortyearspickn]

As JC said, it's maple, just not figured maple, such as flame or quilt. I still think it looks amazing under the right lighting conditions and if buffed properly (see the Elderly pictures).

 

Oh, the GUITAR ? I thought we were talking about the bureau.

[62burst]

Oh, the GUITAR ? I thought we were talking about the bureau.

They were made in a satin finish from 2000 to 2001, but many people buffed theirs out to a gloss finish. The BUREAU.

 

 

There is an interesting thread on The forum that has good info, photos and lore (thx, J-1854Me): http://forum.gibson.com/index.php?/topic/95143-two-1990-j-200-fred-specials-on-ebay/. Merseybeat "reminds" us that American Sycamore (platanus occidentalis) is in a different genus than English Sycamore (acer pseudoplatanus)

 

ps- Bobouz: burst back & sides on a 100? 'Would love to see a pic.

[zombywoof]

ZW,

 

I have to disagree with you there Quilted Maple can be just as good or sometimes even better than Flamed Maple in tone.

 

 

I own a J 200 M with QM that’s stellar sounding

 

 

 

 

JC

 

 

I do not think any of it makes much of an appreciable difference when it comes to sound unless maybe you have dog hearing. The wood on the back of our 1960 J-200 (on which the body is made with a bookmatched laminate) does have some flame to it but it is far from over the top and was pretty much luck of the draw. But I would wager what gives that guitar its sound is not as much the wood but the second thin, tall extremely wide angled brace above the soundhole which was a return to how the SJ-200s were built in the late 1930s.

[jvi]

"dont judge a book by its cover"

[zombywoof]

Cannot explain it but my favorite guitars always seem to have been built with the crappiest looking wood. I would, however, pay for upgrades such as a top made of old growth Englemann spruce (such as that small batch of guitars Martin came out with in the 1990s) or a hand rubbed varnish finish. Now you are talking my kind of language.

[Hogeye]

This subject has been discussed many times in the past. It's really just a matter of the cost of the wood involved. Gibson buys it's wood from a vendor. The vendor sets the price. The higher the figure in the wood the higher the price. Gibson buys a "lot" designated as "High Figure". They pay a premium price for the wood. In this lot or parcell of wood there are varying degrees of figure in the wood. Some has a lot of figure some has a small amount of figure.

 

Gibson has found a way of dealing with the variety. They grade the final wood selection. The high figure goes to the highest priced J-200's. To deal with the least figured wood they created the J-100. This has a much lower price point and the guitar gets less fancy appointments. Why would someone be surprised at this? In 1999 the J-100 retailed for $2049.00. The price description simply states Maple back and sides. The J-200 is listed at $3999.00 The description states figured maple back and sides.

 

This way they can use all the Maple they get from the vendor and still have a high quality guitar. If you look carefully at the guitar in question you will see the guitar back is indeed flat sawn. The wood has some figure in it but not enough to qualify it as a "High Figure". Does this low figure back need to be put in the burn pile. Of course not. Gibson uses the wood and sells it at a lower price point.

 

Each piece of wood varies in it's characteristics. God makes the trees Gibson just makes the guitar out of it. Now we can get at the real discussion. Which is best for guitar production? Quarter sawn wood is considered by all to be the best way to cut wood for guitar production. Quarter sawn does not display the figure that the wood may or may not have. So.... What is best? The less flashy quarter sawn blank or the flat sawn flashy blank? It just gets down to the individual guitar from my experience. I've played high figure quilted maple guitars that are terrific and I have played quarter sawn blanks that are real dogs.

 

 

I'm a bit of a Maple nut and love high figured Maple wood. I have a wonderful coffee table in my living room. I made this table from flat sawn Maple slabs that I bought just for the figure. I have many pieces of high figured maple that I have acquired from Gibson wood sales. It's great to look at but I don't have any high figure guitars. Oops. I do have a high figure J-185 Custom shop guitar that was designed and built by Lynn Bundy. This guitar sounds terrific and the looks are stunning. This is the exception to the rule. I'm sure that J.C.'s guitar is the same. The lesson here? play before you buy.

 

If you need I can discuss the Sycamore issue but it has been told many times before.

[scriv58]

Thanks, hogeye, always a pleasure to read your posts.

Indeed, try before buy whenever possible.

The back of the guitar is seldom seen when playing, as it is pressed against a graybeard's beerbelly, if it is played very often. If i was going to spend big money on guitar cosmetics, i would rather save a grip of cash and just frame a picture of the guitar to gaze upon.

I had a j100 xtra from 1999, toneful, real thunder in a box, and the back was not all that fancy. I forgot to care.

[bobouz]

ps- Bobouz: burst back & sides on a 100? 'Would love to see a pic.

Sorry 62, this old mind forgets things sometimes. It's just the sides that are done in a very dark burst - it's very subtle, but it's there. The back is a uniform dark color that matches the lighter areas of the sides. The catalog from this period lists it as an "antique walnut finish." I've actually never seen another one like it. In the early 2000s, I played a number of these, but they were all the natural finish version. I personally think the black binding looks a little odd with the natural finish, but imho, it works very well with the dark back & sides.

 

I've never posted photos on this site, but can send them via email if you like. Just PM me.

 

Oh, and again, these are indeed maple, not sycamore.

[62burst]

". . . I've actually never seen another one like it. "

Well, when you say something like that, consider yourself pm'ed. If ok with you, I could add the photo to the thread (?)

[bobouz]

Well, when you say something like that, consider yourself pm'ed. If ok with you, I could add the photo to the thread (?)

Thanks 62, that would be great. I'll take some new photos tonight & get them sent to you.

[62burst]

Looks really nice, Bob. Although with the pics coming in at 4300 x 2850 pixels (!), we did lose some clarity in the downsizing, yes, the sides on the '100 look very cool, pickguard and nicely shaped bridge:

 

 

 

 

Who's the other blonde?

[bobouz]

Who's the other blonde?

That's my 2012 J-185, just for a bit of a comparison.

 

Thanks for posting the pics!