Nelson Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Actually the Wikipedia description of Nato being dubbed a budget wood isn't actually true as it is sometimes found in quite high end acoustic instruments and is well known as a good quality tonewood. In fact it has a tonal quality which is very similar to Honduran mahogany (although obviously not exactly the same) and weighs about the same This actually was the gist of an argument I had with Epiphone/Gibson at the time in that' date=' as Nato can be both a very good looking wood and is an excellent tonewood, why dress it up as something which it really isn't. Also just discovered it is a South American hardwood.[/quote'] Name one high end guitar that uses Nato. You're mistaken. Nato is an Asian, low end Mahogany-like wood used in cheap guitars. It sounds to me like you own a guitar made with Nato. Nelson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Nato wood From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Nato wood, also known as Eastern Mahogany, but actually from Mora excelsa or Mora gonggrijpii trees, is a softer hardwood, used primarily on acoustic guitar necks. It can be compared to mahogany in terms of sound and appearance, but it is also commonly dubbed a "budget wood". Nato wood is used on relatively few guitars, notably the Fender CD140SCE, as well as the Epiphone Les Paul Standard and Custom and several ukulele brands including Kala and others. [edit] See also Tonewood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Growler Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Scroll all the way down to the picture and read: Click here> Epiphone 57 RI Jr. wood example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nelson Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Nato woodFrom Wikipedia' date=' the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Nato wood, also known as Eastern Mahogany, but actually from Mora excelsa or Mora gonggrijpii trees, is a softer hardwood, used primarily on acoustic guitar necks. It can be compared to mahogany in terms of sound and appearance, but it is also commonly dubbed a "budget wood". Nato wood is used on [i']relatively few guitars[/i], notably the Fender CD140SCE, as well as the Epiphone Les Paul Standard and Custom and several ukulele brands including Kala and others. [edit] See also Tonewood First off Wikipedia isn't an accurate source of information but regardless where "Nato" comes from (I've always heard it was from Java (Indonesia) ) it's a cheap wood and not used in higher end guitars (I have a CRAP $150 JB Player made of nato and my '78 Alvarez 5059 HD-28 copy has a nato neck) and "tone wood" is such an ambiguous word as to be meaningless. If Epiphone is using Nato for those Les Pauls and advertising it as mahogany then Epiphone is lying...which doesn't surprise me one bit. Nato=cheap get over it. Nelson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Don't forget the Asian Flu and the Hong kong Flu! Whatever the wood, and I've had it exposed to change pickups, my Epi LP Custom Flametop has the sweetest sound in my arsenal. I can confirm that the neck tenon appears to be the same wood as the body and that the "maple top" is indeed a veneer, not a 1/2"cap, like my Gibby Studio. You can see the cap in the right light through the Wine Red finish on the Gibby. The resonance when played unplugged is just incredible on the Epiphones. I don't really get concerned about where my wood came from. I just care about the sound, plugged and unplugged. OTOH, my Fender Strat has an Swamp Ash body that is supposed to be really dense. It sounds great plugged, but not nearly as loud or resonant when unplugged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 First off Wikipedia isn't an accurate source of information but regardless where "Nato" comes from (I've always heard it was from Java (Indonesia) ) it's a cheap wood and not used in higher end guitars (I have a $150 JB Player made of Nato) and "tone wood" is such an ambiguous word as to be meaningless Nelson Well, as always, I never said "Wikipedia" was the be all and end all, of information sites. Just posted this, as it does tend to confirm what's already been said, about "Nato" wood. Looked on some other sites, as well as a few "Acoustic" guitar information and blog sites, and they say (basically) the same thing... but the Wiki article was the most condensed, word wise. Plus....I thought it was interesting that they specifically mentioned 2 models of Epiphone guitars (and 1 Fender), as opposed to just leaving it "general." So...take it for what it's worth. CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nelson Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Scroll all the way down to the picture and read: Click here> Epiphone 57 RI Jr. wood example Looks like the typical Epiphone scam...mahogany veneer over what to my eyes looks like alder...those Epiphone Juniors are crap toys in my opinion (the Gibson version is still only OK at best...nothing like the originals-which I am abundantly familiar with) but they're cheap and it allows access to the unwashed masses. Nelson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nelson Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Well' date=' as always, I never said "Wikipedia" was the be all and end all, of information sites. Just posted this, as it does tend to confirm what's already been said, about "Nato" wood. Looked on some other sites, as well as a few "Acoustic" guitar information and blog sites, and they say (basically) the same thing... but the Wiki article was the most condensed, word wise. Plus....I thought it was interesting that they specifically mentioned 2 models of Epiphone guitars (and 1 Fender), as opposed to just leaving it "general." So...take it for what it's worth. CB[/quote'] The wiki post was probably made by an Epiphone owner trying to build up his guitar lol...I find it hard to believe they'd ship cheap-sh!t wood half way around the world to make cheap guitars when they have plenty of cheap sh!t wood in Asia...whatever... Nelson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggy Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Name one high end guitar that uses Nato. You're mistaken. Nato is an Asian' date=' low end Mahogany-like wood used in cheap guitars. It sounds to me like you own a guitar made with Nato. Nelson[/quote'] Sorry - you're mistaken and are confusing Nato with Natoya which is Asian. Sounds similar so I guess it's easy to get them confused (btw that's not meant to be sarcastic - they do get confused due to the similar sounding names but are distinct and totally separate woods - bit like Nato and Mahogany though of course they do sound different!.) Nato comes from Venezuela, Brasil, Paraguay. As I already said in my first post that the body on my guitar is Nato you don't get any prizes for guesswork. Frankly I couldn't give a s**t what it's made of as long as it sounds good but then again I've never gone in for the pretending my Epi's a Gibson either (whether it's better or worse is a subjective and moot point but it's a £300 Epiphone and for that I don't expect Honduran Mahogany) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nelson Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Sorry - you're mistaken and are confusing Nato with Natoya which is Asian. Sounds similar so I guess it's easy to get them confused (btw that's not meant to be sarcastic - they do get confused due to the similar sounding names but are distinct and totally separate woods - bit like Nato and Mahogany though of course they do sound different!.) Nato comes from Venezuela' date=' Brasil, Paraguay. As I already said in my first post that the body on my guitar is Nato you don't get any prizes for guesswork. Frankly I couldn't give a s**t what it's made of as long as it sounds good but then again I've never gone in for the pretending my Epi's a Gibson either (whether it's better or worse is a subjective and moot point but it's a £300 Epiphone and for that I don't expect Honduran Mahogany) [/quote'] whatever...as long as you're happy and content... Nelson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Again, we all go and spend some time in guitar stores playing numerous guitars until one reaches out and grabs our eyes and ears as "the one". At that point, it doesn't matter what it's made of. It's look and feel and sound that are the significant factors. I suppose that someone could engineer a wood fiber derivative that had the properties we look for and achieve the same result. In a world where we've gone from heavy steel car bodies to plastic and fiberglass and aluminum with modular frames, we have ended up with a superior, agile automobile that doesn't weigh 4000 pounds and has far better characteristics than the Detroit models of the 60's. Eventually, when ROHS does to woods what it has to everything else, we will be talking about the good old days when guitars were made of real wood from Asia and not synthetic wood designed in some laboratory. The arguement then will once again be sound vs weight vs material. It never ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSDx Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Eventually' date=' when ROHS does to woods what it has to everything else, we will be talking about the good old days when guitars were made of real wood from Asia and not synthetic wood designed in some laboratory. The arguement then will once again be sound vs weight vs material. [b']It never ends[/b]. Indeed, it doesn't..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggy Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 In the end does it really matter what material a guitar is made of as long as the sound is good (a VERY subjective definition I will be the first to admit and certainly one that will vary from person to person.) within the reasonable expectations of price assuming an acceptable standard of finish and build quality. Lets be honest, if we expect an Epi Les Paul to be Honduran Mahogany with a proper figured maple cap as opposed to a figured veneer on a maple or alder cap, top notch electrics/tuners/pickups, then we're going to be disappointed simply because the Epi will always be a budget version of the the real thing and as such, even with the reductions in manufacturing costs derived from a Chinese/Japanese base there is inevitably going to be a requirement for the use of lower cost materials which will closest replicate the tonality and appearance within the customer's budget. I personaly think that one of the big problems is the raising of unrealistic expectations amongst purchasers of lower priced guitars (and I realise that I am making a large generality here) by the admittedly legal but in reality deceptive use of terms such mahogany when the actual timber has only the most tenuous links to what we would expect to find. At the end of the day the reason I bought my Epi was: a) It looked beautiful (to me anyway) It felt right c) It sounded good (albeit changing the pups would be a major improvement) d) It represented great value for money and I guess that's probably the same for most of the rest of us here. It was only after I bought it did I wonder what it was actually made of which was why, out of simple curiosity, I contacted Gibson. If they'd have come back and said it had been knocked up out of bits of last years Christmas trees would I have cared? Probably for about 5 minutes and then I'd have gone back to enjoying it for what it is. Big question I have been asking myself - I've been thinking about getting Gibson's custom shop to make me a replica but using top end materials but would it sound better? Different yes and undoubtedly better constructed and finished, but what actually defines a BETTER sounding guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Growler Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Looks like the typical Epiphone scam...mahogany veneer over what to my eyes looks like alder...those Epiphone Juniors are crap toys in my opinion (the Gibson version is still only OK at best...nothing like the originals-which I am abundantly familiar with) but they're cheap and it allows access to the unwashed masses. Nelson I will say I was somewhat surprised seeing that only because some guy on the old forum had a Junior and stripped it down properly up to the veneer and showed pics . At the time you couldn't tell it was a veneer as it actually looks like a nice smooth piece of wood and he was quite happy, whatever it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie Nazarenie Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 post 13 is interesting here... http://acapella.harmony-central.com/forums/showthread.php?p=32030396#post32030396 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 My wife went with me to GC to pick up the flametop a couple of years ago and I was looking at and comparing two Epi LP Custom Flametops. My wife looked up on the top rack, about 10 feet above our heads and said, "Ooh, I really like that one up there!". She was refering to a Gibson VOS Les Paul Honey Burst. I responded, "Yes, that one is pretty, but it's $3800 on sale and we are getting this $699 model for $591 and tax." Her eyebrows did a flip and suddenly she understood. Maybe if I had played my cards right I could have convinced her that we should have purchased the Gibson (grin). I own 1 Gibson LEs Paul and two Epiphone Les Pauls. I still think that the Epi is a great working man's guitar. BTW, I don't own a Martin either, but I have one that looks like one and it's not a bad acoustic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iansmitchell Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Just out of curiousity' date=' how do you know they are using sapele? Are they using that in the plywood, or did you just mean the solid ones? [/quote'] Just the solid ones AFAIK, the plywood ones are made of smaller pieces of similar stock, though. I believe they phased out alder around 2004 or so. It's only maple/sapele now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie Nazarenie Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 well i keep asking people and my head is spinning. what is a gibson dc faded or gibson sg faded made of now? and what would a 80's gibbo be made of? use the botanical name only please! thanks.:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Summerisle Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 well i keep asking people and my head is spinning. what is a gibson dc faded or gibson sg faded made of now? and what would a 80's gibbo be made of? use the botanical name only please! thanks.](*' date=') [/quote'] Dude, why do you care so much? These are not Gibson Custom shop guitars you know...and they sell for less than $900 (Epi territory, in other words). Get your hands on one and play it. If you like it, then buy it, if not - then don't...or find the extra $$ and buy an SG Standard - Gibson insist that the Standard is "solid mahogany" "Solid Mahogany Body Probably the most central of all SG features is its solid mahogany body. The mahogany goes through the same rigorous selection process as all of Gibson’s woods, and is personally inspected and qualified by Gibson’s team of skilled wood experts before it enters the factories. Inside the Gibson factories, humidity is maintained at 45 percent, and the temperature at 70 degrees. This ensures all woods are dried to a level of “equilibrium,” where the moisture content does not change during the manufacturing process. This guarantees tight-fitting joints and no expansion, and controls the shrinkage and warping of the woods, in addition to reducing the weight. It also improves the woods’ machinability and finishing properties. Consistent moisture content means that the SG will respond evenly to temperature and humidity changes long after it leaves the factory." See: http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/SG/Gibson-USA/SG-Standard/Features.aspx Edit: Gibson claim the SG Special is solid mahogany too. I didn't mean to be rude, but I just think people over-think this whole tone-wood thing. The only way to judge a guitar's qualities is to pick it up and play it IMHO. Sometimes you can play a guitar and think, "Yeah, change the hardware and I think it'll be sweet," sometimes you find a dud, and sometimes you get lucky and find a peach... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie Nazarenie Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 na! i will only pay for a guitar with the proper wood being used from gibson as i can get an african mahogany far far cheaper elsewhere. the money paid is not peanuts to me and we need some honesty and clarity from the companies selling these mahoganies. i do care and thats all that should be said. i am awaiting some responses from some companies. but it would be nice if someone does know they can chip in. after all it's honduran mahogany that is the gibson tone we all know. aything else is sub standard as a gibbo, anyway. besides i have a standard from the 80's i can get fixed and not waste money on a lesser body wood. i need to know. thanks. edit. gibbo seem to be involved in a program of getting from green sources and we hear they have been stock pilling since time began... i just wanna know if it is "Swietenia macrophylla" if not what is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesman345 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 I'm not even going to attempt to weigh in on this very technical discussion about genus and species of prized tonewoods or even offer an opinion about deceptive marketing practises. I will, however, bring up a point that I haven't noticed in any other replies - Does it really matter what particular grade of "mahogany" is in my Epi '56 Gold Top Les Paul when it's encased in almost a quarter inch of high-gloss POLYESTER??!!??? Either way, I don't really care, because this axe weighs a ton (NOT "WEIGHT RELIEVED") and it looks, plays and sounds INCREDIBLE!!! I much prefer my Korean LP to the newer Chinese weight-relieved models - they're almost as light as SG's. Speaking of polyester, I understand that besides the obviously lower production cost of poly vs. nitro, there are apparently some enviro/health concerns about exposure to nitrocellulose lacquer. There is no question that nitro sounds better and is much more labor-intensive to apply. I have a Simon & Patrick high-gloss nitro finished 12 string guitar. If my memory serves me correctly, it has 8 coats of nitrocellulose lacquer, buffed down to the thickness of 6 coats, applied over the span of 9 days (approx). The end result is worth the trouble... Just a thought about the poster who will not buy goods from Africa for all of the reasons stated - pardon a little bit of amateur psychology here - I wonder if, in the past, he had some type of traumatic experience involving a black person (molestation, etc.), leaving him with the lifelong phobia that black people are "dirty" or "bad". If this may be the case, he certainly deserves our compassion and understanding. However, it is up to him to take charge and get some badly needed help. Also, maybe he should stick to spruce, cedar, maple and alder for guitar tone woods :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antwhi2001 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Read the various responses on this and similar threads and take heed. There are many many different variants of "mahogany" and each batch (each tree?) has different, widely overlapping properties. A "good" species does not necessarily make a "good" guitar; there are too many other variables. You can't state as a generalisation that one type or country of origin is always better than another type. It's not like a polymer or a refined metal, it's far less predictable. You have to try each guitar and judge it on its' merits. It's called judgement. The myth that some specs of wood are inherently better than others is generally perpetuated by the marketing boys to persuade you to pay more for their guitars. Ever feel like you've been had? Few companies mass-producing guitars will commit in writing that they "only" use specific sub-species or countries of origin because they want to keep their supply options open in a continually changing supply market. The Gibson tone does not just come from using certain species of wood. I've picked up several Asian "mahogany" Epis with better natural tone and sustain than some Gibsons. And 1980s Gibsons are not a particularly highly esteemed vintage. What matters is how the instrument performs NOT what wood it is or where it came from. Anyone who thinks otherwise has lost the plot. I wouldn't claim to be the most knowledgeable poster here, but I've been a gigging player who's been taking guitars apart and putting them back together since 1976; Japanese, USA, Korean, Chinese, Mexican, Indonesian....alder, plywood, mahogany, ash, basswood.....acoustic, 6 string, 12 string, bass, hollow, semi-hollow....I've learned that specs, labels and country of origin guarantee nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antwhi2001 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Dammit I've just realised I'm perpetuating a thread from a few months back originated by that phobic nutter that thinks anything originating from Africa is dirty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie Nazarenie Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 well i gotta say i can't agree with any of that. gibson in 87 were built on the idea they had the best wood and that was why they were gibson and on top. now they won't tell us what wood it is? i have a genuine need here. i want to buy a dc faded and sg faded or get my 87 sg fixed. i can't make thatchoice till i know what i'm paying for etc. or i might lump "new" gibson and buy an oldie but goodie gibson. with some age and charactor. i can not make a choice till i know! i have emailed them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antwhi2001 Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 One final try. "Good" species of wood do not necessarily make a well-performing solid body electric guitar. There are too many other variables, and every batch of wood varies to some degree. There was nothing particularly special about the woods Gibson used in 1987 compared to other years. I don't think the 80s are considered a special period for Gibson quality. From time to time they make claims in their marketing material, including claims about wood. The point of marketing material is not to give you useful information to help you choose a product. The point of Gibson marketing material is to try to make you think their product is in some way better, so that you're willing to pay more to own it. Gibson guitars are usually better than most because of higher specs for all of the materials used, not just the wood. But even Gibsons' quality varies. You can get 2 guitars made on the same day from the same wood and one will sound better than the other. There are so many variables involved in the tone of a solid-body electric that there is not always a direct correlation between different species of mahogany and performance of the instrument. It seems that you're more concerned about the wood than the guitar. That's like choosing a car based on which is made of the best metal, rather than which is the best car overall. It's your perogative. Some of us buy guitars to play them, in which case the materials are irrelevant and it's the relationship between performance and price that counts. Others are more into them as objects of interest. No problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.