Rosewood -- interesting article.

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by ollaimh

i am in canada. so what is the rule is i buy a used guitar from the united states which has indian rosewood back and sides? will i be able to get it shipped to canada?

To do it legally, the seller will need an export permit, per CITIES. My understanding is that costs about $100 but might take some time to procure and requires sufficient documentation/proof that the instrument's construction pre-dates CITIES' inclusion of Indian rosewood.

[Alan Carruth]

More than one person in this thread has stated that domestic woods won't sound as good as the tropical ones they would replace. This is certainly a common opinion, but the evidence I've seen shows that it's not true in any meaningful way.

It's well known that people 'listen with their eyes'. Light colored B&S woods like maple tend to sound 'bright', while dark ones, like walnut, sound 'dark'. The measurements I've made suggest that there is no real difference between soft maple and black walnut in acoustic and mechanical properties: if you don't see them they should sound 'the same'.

There have been very few large 'blind' tests comparing woods. One that is on going in the 'Leonardo Project', in which Classical guitars using various woods for the B&S material are compared in blind listening and playing tests. So far they have not found any difference that can be attributed to the material; the maker has a far larger effect.

'Mystique' is important, of course. Even if it were possible to 'prove' that, say, a particular Osage Orange guitar is exactly the same as another one made of Brazilian rosewood, just knowing that one used the 'Holy Grail' of guitar woods while the other was recycled fence posts would mean that most folks would prefer the BRW one. This, of course, could be seen as an opportunity for those players who are able to look past myth and act rationally. BRW can only become more expensive in the future, while alternatives could well drop in price as suppliers start to come on line.

In the end, though, no matter how much effort we luthiers put in, it all comes down to what happens on the demand side. I can go on all day about how OO is a drop-in replacement for BRW, Black locust is an 'improved' version of IRW, and so on, but until you guys start to actually buy them we won't be able to produce those domestic instruments.

Not to be too snarky, but reading between the lines, the article comes across to me as self-serving, even if some of it is accurate. However, that has been my take on other things he and his company have done, so perhaps I am not unbiased. Doesn't mean I'm wrong though.

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

Where does the author "flat out" state that?

Charles, I realize that wasn't addressed to me, but Bedell states this in the article. Emphasis mine.

"...The guitar industry is not a root cause of the global rosewood crisis, but it is going to have to figure out how to live with the new rules that were necessitated by this crisis..."

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by Todd Yates

That wasn't addressed to me, but Bedell states this in the article. Emphasis mine.

"...The guitar industry is not a root cause of the global rosewood crisis, but it is going to have to figure out how to live with the new rules that were necessitated by this crisis..."

Fair enough. I stand corrected. He did state that is "is not a root cause".

Alan took it where I decided not to go. As long as guitar players demand rosewood, commercial alternative options will be few. Not because there are no viable alternative, but because the buying public wants the "magic wood".

[mercy]

Id be fine with BL but OO really. There is more to a guitar than the sound. Its got to look good too. Heres the opposite, I really like the look of 1/4d oak but it doesnt sound as good as most of the rosewoods. To say I cant tell the difference between guitars defies my long experience of playing guitars. Ive never been prejudiced about the color of guitars, my experience speaks.

[Dwight]

Originally Posted by Authentic

Man, I hate to sound like I'm hating on Breedlove... I don't dislike their guitars, I even owned one of their Mahogany concerts once... But does anyone else feel like it's a bit of a shame that the largest stash of BRW is being used on Breedloves that look like this?

http://breedlovemusic.com/acoustic-g...lass-brazilian

Completely agree. It should have gone to Martin at least!

[Brick is Red]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

Okay, just so we're clear, that he did not, as you put it, "flat out state" the guitar industry did not cause the global rosewood shortage. He actually didn't state anything about what influence the guitar industry has on the world consumption of rosewood or its existing resources. One can imply from his statement, but that isn't "flat out" stating it. You are projecting what you want to believe on his statement.



I make this distinction because guitar players seem to believe that they are not somehow part of the over-consumption of resources. They are.

Go stand in a saw mill that mills lumber for guitar tops, backs, sides and other parts and then tell me the amount of wood being used is insignificant. Look at the numbers of guitars produced annually by large manufacturers, in particular - Martin, Taylor, Eastman... - and tell me they don't use much wood. It's all part of the consumption. It might well not be the primary consumer, but it's part of the consumption. Let's not pretend we aren't.

Why are you responding to me as if I'm the one that wrote that post? I'm not archerscreek. "Flat out state" was his language, not mine.

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by Brick is Red

Why are you responding to me as if I'm the one that wrote that post? I'm not archerscreek. "Flat out state" was his language, not mine.

My mistake. You did, however, respond to my question, hence the response to you.

[redir]

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

More than one person in this thread has stated that domestic woods won't sound as good as the tropical ones they would replace. This is certainly a common opinion, but the evidence I've seen shows that it's not true in any meaningful way.

It's well known that people 'listen with their eyes'. Light colored B&S woods like maple tend to sound 'bright', while dark ones, like walnut, sound 'dark'. The measurements I've made suggest that there is no real difference between soft maple and black walnut in acoustic and mechanical properties: if you don't see them they should sound 'the same'.

There have been very few large 'blind' tests comparing woods. One that is on going in the 'Leonardo Project', in which Classical guitars using various woods for the B&S material are compared in blind listening and playing tests. So far they have not found any difference that can be attributed to the material; the maker has a far larger effect.

'Mystique' is important, of course. Even if it were possible to 'prove' that, say, a particular Osage Orange guitar is exactly the same as another one made of Brazilian rosewood, just knowing that one used the 'Holy Grail' of guitar woods while the other was recycled fence posts would mean that most folks would prefer the BRW one. This, of course, could be seen as an opportunity for those players who are able to look past myth and act rationally. BRW can only become more expensive in the future, while alternatives could well drop in price as suppliers start to come on line.

In the end, though, no matter how much effort we luthiers put in, it all comes down to what happens on the demand side. I can go on all day about how OO is a drop-in replacement for BRW, Black locust is an 'improved' version of IRW, and so on, but until you guys start to actually buy them we won't be able to produce those domestic instruments.

I'm always happy to see you chime in on threads like this. Keep up the good fight, maybe some day the rest will see the light

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

More than one person in this thread has stated that domestic woods won't sound as good as the tropical ones they would replace...

I wonder if it would be better to replace the word "replace"? Nothing may exactly replace a particular wood. Maybe it would be better if we could just steer the conversation toward the positive attributes of domestic woods. For example, we don't normally talk about how mahogany is like some other tone wood. We talk about the positive, useful attributes of mahogany. Just a thought.

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

...In the end, though, no matter how much effort we luthiers put in, it all comes down to what happens on the demand side. I can go on all day about how OO is a drop-in replacement for BRW, Black locust is an 'improved' version of IRW, and so on, but until you guys start to actually buy them we won't be able to produce those domestic instruments.

When I approached Howard Klepper about building me a guitar walnut was not even on my radar. While Howard offered me lots of options, probably half a dozen woods that were in the tonal direction I wanted, he really encouraged me to consider walnut. He persuaded me that it was at least a very good choice, if not the best choice for what I wanted. We settled on the SSD body, curly claro walnut, and red spruce for the top. I can honestly say I do not own a finer sounding guitar. I'm glad I listened to Howard.

Just one guy doing his part.

[jaybones]

Good reading article!

Really enjoyed the comparison between rosewood and blood diamonds.

Made a perfect linked argument between the 2 of them.

And as far as domestically sourced woods, what about sycamore?

I've seen really nicely figured sycamore topped solid body electrics. From what I understand the grain is pretty random, which is why its used in cutting boards mostly, but I have seen some really expensive Italian furniture made from it.

I also have a nice walking stick made from it.

[gitarro]

Apart from the mystique, there is the appearance of the wood concerned. Its got to look nice to sell unfortunately. Sadly, osage orange is too...orange...it doesnt look vry special compared even to.the most common rosewood.

How about another approach? Can a double back design like some classocal guitars and tim mcknight's design be employed wherebh the tonally significant and active back wood be it osage orange or black locuat etc is on the inside but on the outside the cosmetic external.layer can be a nice looking wood like flamed maple etc.? Then yoi can have the rosewood like sound and the product will still look very attractive.

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

More than one person in this thread has stated that domestic woods won't sound as good as the tropical ones they would replace. This is certainly a common opinion, but the evidence I've seen shows that it's not true in any meaningful way.

It's well known that people 'listen with their eyes'. Light colored B&S woods like maple tend to sound 'bright', while dark ones, like walnut, sound 'dark'. The measurements I've made suggest that there is no real difference between soft maple and black walnut in acoustic and mechanical properties: if you don't see them they should sound 'the same'.

There have been very few large 'blind' tests comparing woods. One that is on going in the 'Leonardo Project', in which Classical guitars using various woods for the B&S material are compared in blind listening and playing tests. So far they have not found any difference that can be attributed to the material; the maker has a far larger effect.

'Mystique' is important, of course. Even if it were possible to 'prove' that, say, a particular Osage Orange guitar is exactly the same as another one made of Brazilian rosewood, just knowing that one used the 'Holy Grail' of guitar woods while the other was recycled fence posts would mean that most folks would prefer the BRW one. This, of course, could be seen as an opportunity for those players who are able to look past myth and act rationally. BRW can only become more expensive in the future, while alternatives could well drop in price as suppliers start to come on line.

In the end, though, no matter how much effort we luthiers put in, it all comes down to what happens on the demand side. I can go on all day about how OO is a drop-in replacement for BRW, Black locust is an 'improved' version of IRW, and so on, but until you guys start to actually buy them we won't be able to produce those domestic instruments.

[Authentic]

Originally Posted by Dwight

Completely agree. It should have gone to Martin at least!

Not sure if I particularly think Martin's inlays are any better than Breedlove's to be honest... Given the monstrosities they've been releasing over the past few years (2 millionth guitar... I love Satan guitar... Etc).

[brianmay]

Must confess my take on it was 'self serving' too.

Glad I have my EIR guitars already, I wouldn't want them any other way . . .

[mercy]

I like the double back/sides idea though Ive not tried a guitar done that way. Still it would solve the looks and tone issue for you tree huggers.