Muttley/Light...

[TelePaul]

Saw a new Martin reviewed in a recent issue of guitar buyer using alternative woods - ovangkol was mentioned, and I think the fingerboard and sides were also other alt. woods. The overall result was pretty good and the thing goes for over $2K, but the review mentioned that overall it wasn't as loud as some dreads. What is ovangkol anyway?

 

[Light]

I'm not completely sure. I know Taylor has been using it a lot, and I believe it is a type of Rosewood, or something similar.

I guess not. I looked it up on the US Forest Service Forest Products Lab site, and it is at the least not an actual "rosewood," in that it is not in the Dalbergia genus, so I guess I'm just not sure. Perhaps Muttley has used it.

I really hope they (Martin), along with Taylor and other larger builders can turn peoples impressions around on this stuff. There was a great line in some article I recently read about alternative woods in guitar building, I believe it was from Dick Boak at Martin, "Guitar players are mostly very big on environmentalism, right up until they buy their guitars. Then, its 'I want Brazilian rosewood!'" It is all but impossible to sell most alternative wood guitars, but we really need to start doing so.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

 

[TelePaul]

I'm not completely sure. I know Taylor has been using it a lot, and I believe it is a type of Rosewood, or something similar.

I guess not. I looked it up on the US Forest Service Forest Products Lab site, and it is at the least not an actual "rosewood," in that it is not in the Dalbergia genus, so I guess I'm just not sure. Perhaps Muttley has used it.

I really hope they (Martin), along with Taylor and other larger builders can turn peoples impressions around on this stuff. There was a great line in some article I recently read about alternative woods in guitar building, I believe it was from Dick Boak at Martin, "Guitar players are mostly very big on environmentalism, right up until they buy their guitars. Then, its 'I want Brazilian rosewood!'" It is all but impossible to sell most alternative wood guitars, but we really need to start doing so.


Light

"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi

I'd agree with you, albeit to a point. Now I don't know much about the Martin pricing system, but this thing looked pricey. I hope alt. tone woods aren't commanding a price premium...surely it should be the other way around? I mean, I hear what you're saying and all, but if I'm paying over $2000 for an acoustic, I'm sort of expecting mahogany and spruce, you know? I think they'll have to start obeying the laws of supply and demand and bringing down the prices of alt. wood instruments (provided I havn't overlooked the spec of the guitar in question). Remember Gibson did that Ash LP made from conserved stocks? I seem to recall it came in at a considerably lower cost than the mahogany models.

 

[muttley600]

Yeh, I have used it but only a few times so I can't really comment on it's tone. I have some in my wood shop and am waiting for a chance to get a bit more of a feel for it.

The boring stuff, it mainly comes from West Africa and is pretty good to work with. Machines, cut's and glues well. Seems to have quite a bit of silica in it so it blunts tools fairly quick. It bends easily and looks really nice when finished. It is from a completely different genus and species than rosewood and seems to me to be closer to padauk or satinwood in its feel when working. I can't comment further than that though.

I see no reason why it shouldn't be used more widely on acoustic guitars as long as the supply is sustainable, managed and comes from politically secure sources.

TP, it isn't that cheap either and to a large degree Martins pricing structure has little to do with material costs despite what they say. It has more to do with what they think they can push units out at. They are very aggressive on that one.

More importantly the places that these alternative timbers come from need to make sure they are sustainable and you have to accept that we are going to pay a premium for that. I don't want the timber I use coming from sources that have been either exploited in terms of both resource and population as far as is humanly possible.

 

[muttley600]

I really hope they (Martin), along with Taylor and other larger builders can turn peoples impressions around on this stuff. There was a great line in some article I recently read about alternative woods in guitar building, I believe it was from Dick Boak at Martin, "Guitar players are mostly very big on environmentalism, right up until they buy their guitars. Then, its 'I want Brazilian rosewood!'" It is all but impossible to sell most alternative wood guitars, but we really need to start doing so.

I used to get orders for quite a few alternative wood guitars. Admittedly I don't make half as many acoustics as I used to but there was and is a growing demand for native fruitwoods in the market right now.

The Archtop crowd are pretty fixed on fancy maple though.

On the environmental thing it always used to amaze me that sting could rattle out a couple of albums worth of tunes above saving the rain rain forest done entirely on a guitar made of, yes you guessed it, rain forest.

 

[Sky Blue Lou]

This topic begs the obvious question: How much of the price of a quality instrument is the material and how much the craftsmanship and "name"? My guess is that the actual material is less a factor than the others.


lou

 

[TelePaul]

Yeh, I have used it but only a few times so I can't really comment on it's tone. I have some in my wood shop and am waiting for a chance to get a bit more of a feel for it.

The boring stuff, it mainly comes from West Africa and is pretty good to work with. Machines, cut's and glues well. Seems to have quite a bit of silica in it so it blunts tools fairly quick. It bends easily and looks really nice when finished. It is from a completely different genus and species than rosewood and seems to me to be closer to padauk or satinwood in its feel when working. I can't comment further than that though.

I see no reason why it shouldn't be used more widely on acoustic guitars as long as the supply is sustainable, managed and comes from politically secure sources.

Good to know, sounds promising.

More importantly the places that these alternative timbers come from need to make sure they are sustainable and you have to accept that we are going to pay a premium for that. I don't want the timber I use coming from sources that have been either exploited in terms of both resource and population as far as is humanly possible.

If I'm going to pay a premium, then - all other things being equal - I'd rather it was spent on something I know to be an excellent tone wood (mahogany, rosewood etc). As a customer I don't think I could be faulted for that. If the powers that be at Martin and Taylor are concerned about this then they need to trim their margins on alt. tone-wood models.

 

[TelePaul]

On the environmental thing it always used to amaze me that sting could rattle out a couple of albums worth of tunes above saving the rain rain forest done entirely on a guitar made of, yes you guessed it, rain forest.

Really, that amazes you? Sting is a tool!

 

[TelePaul]

My guess is that the actual material is less a factor than the others.


lou

I'm not so sure Lou. I mean, if wood stocks really are in danger, than simple supply-demand decides the price point; if Martin's lumber supplier increases the price for Mahogany, this will be incorporated in the final rrp (from distributor to retailer). I'm not saying that reputation doesn't count for alot, because it does, just that short of vertically integrating their supply chain by growing their own forest, even the big palyers are at the mercy of external contingencies.

 

[RandyW]

As Light pointed out, Taylor has been using it for some time.

I have a 412ce made from it. I don't know where some people are
geting the word inferior confused with alternative.

I would compare it's sound very similar to rose wood, much darker
than mahogany. I know a lot of the sound has to do with the
smaller body of the Taylor but there is a very nice balanced tone
to be had. I would classify the 412 as a finger pickers delight.

 

[Sky Blue Lou]

I'm not so sure Lou. I mean, if wood stocks really are in danger, than simple supply-demand decides the price point...

I know what you're saying but I don't think the cost of material drives the overall price on a 1:1 basis. Mutt will know better but, just for argument's sake, if a $2000 guitar uses $400 worth of wood I'd be surprised. If that $400 becomes $600 the total price will be $2400. If it becomes $300 the price will stay $2000.


lou

 

[TelePaul]

I know what you're saying but I don't think the cost of material drives the overall price on a 1:1 basis. Mutt will know better but, just for argument's sake, if a $2000 guitar uses $400 worth of wood I'd be surprised. If that $400 becomes $600 the total price will be $2400. If it becomes $300 the price will stay $2000.


lou

Sure, I get ya, good point.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

If I'm going to pay a premium, then - all other things being equal - I'd rather it was spent on something I know to be an excellent tone wood (mahogany, rosewood etc). As a customer I don't think I could be faulted for that. If the powers that be at Martin and Taylor are concerned about this then they need to trim their margins on alt. tone-wood models.

While I agree with Mutt's read from a purely economic standpoint (it's more expensive to source sustainably-harvested wood, and therefore it probably should add to the price, just as an "organic" cotton T is more expensive than a normal one), the conservationalist in me agrees with you here. Rosewood and Mahogany are the "traditional" tonewoods, and are in demand by "traditional" players who want "only the best" on their top dollar instruments. If you need to gradually wean guitarists off these woods for ecological reasons, then they need to be made to pay a premium, to provide an economic incentive for guitarists to check out the sustainably produced wood models. All quotation marks for emphasis, generally sarcastic.

The problem, of course, is that this sort of a pricing scheme creates the impression that the "alternatives" aren't as good as the "real thing." So maybe paradoxically the way to go IS to make alternative woods more expensive, then tout them both for their sustainability and their different tonal colors and visual appeal. Who knows... I can see it both ways, but if one company goes one way and another the other, then the non-sustainable woods will win out every time, I'm afraid.

I really like the idea of alternative woods being used in guitar production. I've got a mahogany Martin, but would certainly be very excited to try something new with an alternative to mahogany making the body wood. If I liked how it sounded, then perfect.

 

[Tadpui]

I read an article about sustainable tonewoods in some magazine last year. It had the guy from Martin, the guy from Taylor, and the guy from Gibson all commenting on sustainable tonewoods and the use of alternative tonewoods. There was a funny quote by one of them saying something to this effect:

"You have a room full of guitar players and you tell them that tonewoods are getting more and more scarce, and that before long the supplies will dwindle to the point of being impossible to use for guitar making. So the first thing out of the guitarists' mouths is 'well we'd better go out and buy a guitar now, before they're all gone!'".

So the attitude of the guitar player isn't really grounded in conservation. It's on getting a traditional instrument. It's amazing how traditional the tastes of guitarists are. I was amazed when I really thought about how there are only a handful of guitar styles that make up probably 90% of the guitars sold. And anything that falls outside of this norm doesn't sell well at all.

Personally, I avoided all of the Martin 'X' series that use HPL for the back and sides when I was on the search for my new acoustic. I'm kind of ashamed to admit that I never even picked one up, I was just that turned off by them. Just the look of it isn't natural...they insist on putting a satin finish on them, which basically showcases their un-natural appearance. I'd like to think that if they'd polish the damn things, that they'd be more convincing as "normal" instruments.

 

[32-20-Blues]

I read an article about sustainable tonewoods in some magazine last year. It had the guy from Martin, the guy from Taylor, and the guy from Gibson all commenting on sustainable tonewoods and the use of alternative tonewoods. There was a funny quote by one of them saying something to this effect:

"You have a room full of guitar players and you tell them that tonewoods are getting more and more scarce, and that before long the supplies will dwindle to the point of being impossible to use for guitar making. So the first thing out of the guitarists' mouths is 'well we'd better go out and buy a guitar now, before they're all gone!'".

So the attitude of the guitar player isn't really grounded in conservation. It's on getting a traditional instrument. It's amazing how traditional the tastes of guitarists are. I was amazed when I really thought about how there are only a handful of guitar styles that make up probably 90% of the guitars sold. And anything that falls outside of this norm doesn't sell well at all.

Personally, I avoided all of the Martin 'X' series that use HPL for the back and sides when I was on the search for my new acoustic. I'm kind of ashamed to admit that I never even picked one up, I was just that turned off by them. Just the look of it isn't natural...they insist on putting a satin finish on them, which basically showcases their un-natural appearance. I'd like to think that if they'd polish the damn things, that they'd be more convincing as "normal" instruments.

I did the exact same thing. Then again, I don't feel guilty about it - a thousand dollars is a lot of money for me, and for that price I expect real, solid timber. HPL as a concept is fine, but not for the prices Martin is charging.

 

[Milnoque]

Ovangkol is closely related to bubinga, another fine instrument wood.

Gibson has been producing limited runs of exotic timber for several years. They have made the J-45 in bubinga, zebrawood, cocabolo, ovangkol, and lacewood.

Several makers have used bocote, ziricote, and claro walnut to great success.

I would add that koa would not really have been considered a traditional timber for guitars until relatively recently.

You guys should go out and give some of these options a chance.

 

[ausrock]

I know from hanging around the local luthiers forum http://www.mcguitars.com.au/forum/ that a lot of the guys are using local timbers in their instruments with great success.

Muttley, Light.....you guys might like to stick your noses in sometime, it's a small group but there's a number of active o'seas members.

ChrisO

 

[muttley600]

Ovangkol is closely related to bubinga, another fine instrument wood.

Indeed it is. They are from the same species although they are very different in look and colour they are very similar in working properties and feel. Thanks for that, this morning I couldn't quite put my finger on that comparison. Good call.

I've used a lot of Bubinga over the years and it's very popular these days with bass builders. It's an excellent sounding and looking timber. The wild stuff is know as kevasingo.

Gibson has been producing limited runs of exotic timber for several years. They have made the J-45 in bubinga, zebrawood, cocabolo, ovangkol, and lacewood.

Several makers have used bocote, ziricote, and claro walnut to great success.

Zebrawood or Zebrano is one I tried once and hated it. I believe it makes a good solid body but it wasn't for me. Several species of timber are sold as zebrawood.

Cocobolo is lovely, a supplier phoned me recently to say he has a whole load of it and I'm going to pick some out soon. Its as close to a true rosewood as makes no difference in my eyes and I love the stuff.

What do you guys call lacewood? I've seen different timbers labeled lacewood over the years. Here it refers specifically to the fancy looking London plane timber. Essentially to me it's a maple even though its more closely related to the sycamore..

I would add that koa would not really have been considered a traditional timber for guitars until relatively recently.

Koa has been used as a timber of choice for years on Hawaiian instruments and is brutally expensive for us mere Europeans to get hold of. Love it though. Any of the walnuts are good. I've used a lot of the European Walnut over the years and some American black walnut. Claro Walnut is a great looking timber.

You guys should go out and give some of these options a chance.

Too damn right.

 

[muttley600]

I know from hanging around the local luthiers forum http://www.mcguitars.com.au/forum/ that a lot of the guys are using local timbers in their instruments with great success.

Muttley, Light.....you guys might like to stick your noses in sometime, it's a small group but there's a number of active o'seas members.

ChrisO

I wish I had the time mate. Seriously, I've seen it linked to before and it seems like a cool site. Come to think of it it was you that mentioned it wasn't it.

I'll check it out if I get some time.

 

[YeshuasFan]

Muttley/Light,
Is claro walnut the same as black walnut? I live in the midwest US where black walnut trees are harvested selectively (the trees to be harvested have to be selected by the state dept. of conservation). I know a lot of those trees wind up being used for furniture and rifle stocks.
If claro walnut is not the same, could black walnut be used and what would the properties be in terms of sound in comparison to the more commonly used tonewoods?