How did I become such a Sapele snob?

[Robin, Wales]

Originally Posted by TBman

I'm looking at a bunch of guitars and I come across a $8,000+ guitar that has sapele back and sides. My first impulse was to say to myself "No way I'll pay that for sapele."

How did that happen?

I think your impulse happens Barry because we all relate Sapele as being "cheap mahogany". But actually it is nowhere even close to genuine mahogany. On the wood hardness scale genuine mahogany scores 800 but Sapele scores 1400 - that's around or higher than the various hard maples score.

So the builder, in this case, has more than likely chosen the wood for its specific tonal properties, sitting between genuine mahogany and rosewood, and around the same as maple in terms of hardness (but with a different tone).

Regarding it's sustainability; I would expect that it too will be CITES listed as unsustainable quite soon as the loss rate of the tree in Africa is substantial. Folks will then bemoan its loss and the prices will rise (as they already are doing).

Personally, I'm not a fan of Sapele, (I have never liked it on guitar necks either) and would prefer a northern hardwood such a maple on my $8000 guitar. Not that I'm ever going to be buying an $8000 guitar!!!

So I share your snobbery of Sapele, and sort of prefer birch plywood back and sides over it anyway. And no luthier is going to build an $8000 guitar with birch plywood back and sides

[scotchnspeed]

Originally Posted by Robin, Wales

I think your impulse happens Barry because we all relate Sapele as being "cheap mahogany". But actually it is nowhere even close to genuine mahogany. On the wood hardness scale genuine mahogany scores 800 but Sapele scores 1400 - that's around or higher than the various hard maples score.

So the builder, in this case, has more than likely chosen the wood for its specific tonal properties, sitting between genuine mahogany and rosewood, and around the same as maple in terms of hardness (but with a different tone).

Regarding it's sustainability; I would expect that it too will be CITES listed as unsustainable quite soon as the loss rate of the tree in Africa is substantial. Folks will then bemoan its loss and the prices will rise (as they already are doing).

Personally, I'm not a fan of Sapele, (I have never liked it on guitar necks either) and would prefer a northern hardwood such a maple on my $8000 guitar. Not that I'm ever going to be buying an $8000 guitar!!!

So I share your snobbery of Sapele, and sort of prefer birch plywood back and sides over it anyway. And no luthier is going to build an $8000 guitar with birch plywood back and sides

I generally share this opinion, however for the naysayers, I will qualify: GREAT guitars can be made of sapele. SUPERB looks can come from sapele.

But that is not the norm.

It is not a mahogany as some have said, as it is one further rung up the botantic classification scale. Neither should we expect it to sound like 'hog, since the hardness nowhere near mahogany.

The AGF exists for a rollicking good time to discuss and debate the merits of virtually all facets, no matter how minor, of the acoustic guitar and her tone profiles. So I remain perplexed, as I have for years now, as to why certain issues (like sapele v. mahogany) gets such a pass from this. The majority seem to accept what is handed down from lore on high (will not go further to mention brands for the sake of avoiding discussion wars on marketing) that sapele is indeed a *replacement* for mahogany (defined: honduran or cuban).

Truth me told, it sounds like maple (rock maple, highly reflective; not the good stuff). And has so on virtually every guitar I've played. That is NOT a bad thing...just bizarre that we accept lines and looks over ears and definition. I would encourage others to be more critical and let woods be woods with all the intricacies they offer.

On a similar note, I find khaya (also not a true mahogany) to be far closer to honduran. One would expect this as well, since the hardness/density is closer also. Looks great as well, though a bit lighter.

With rare exception, sapele is cardboard.

[koko61]

These are my two main guitars: The Olav Loef in Sapele on the left and the Martin OM-18e in Mahogany on the right.
I'm sorry to say it but if I had to keep only one I'd keep the Loef!

[Mr. Jelly]

I have the same sentiments as the OP. First off, I am not knowledgeable as to how Sapele sounds. I have surprised myself as I have become a fan of Cherry Wood.

[AZLiberty]

Around 10 years ago Matt Larrivee told us that the quality of Sapele they could get (for guitar building) was far superior to the mahogany available.

They stopped using it because it is nasty toxic (like cocobolo), and would have kept using it except they were more concerned about their employee's heath.

[teashea]

It would be interesting to have more double blind tests of similar guitars with different wood. Humans are very prone to being influenced by expectations.

[Wade Hampton]

I love sapele as a tonewood. My sapele Eastman is one of my favorite guitars.


whm

[ataylor]

I prefer my all-solid Sitka/sapele Taylor 210 (from 2005 when they were USA-made and more or less an all-varnish 310) to a friend's 510 with mahogany back/sides from a year or two prior. The 210 is just more dynamic, more versatile, and sounds like the more expensive guitar.

Granted, this is a very small sample size, but at the least it tells me that sapele is plenty capable of holding its own as a tonewood, which seems to echo the experience of most others chiming in here.

[s2y]

I'm more into the rosewood "family" of tonewoods. I was thinking about getting a figured "Treepele" set on a guitar, but I have a history of not liking mahogany.

[beatcomber]

On a related note, I wonder if pao ferro will someday be embraced as a material for fretboards. Right now, it's considered a cost-efficient and less attractive substitute for rosewood.

Pao ferro can be visually very appealing. The fretboard and bridge on the Farida I used to own had some lovely grain and looked very deep and rich:

[IMG][/IMG]



The pao ferro fretboard on my 2021 Fender Vintera '60s Jazzmaster initially looked dull and cocoa-colored, but a little bit of fretboard oil made it pop more.

BEFORE:



AFTER:

[mcduffnw]

Originally Posted by TBman

I'm looking at a bunch of guitars and I come across a $8,000+ guitar that has sapele back and sides. My first impulse was to say to myself "No way I'll pay that for sapele."

How did that happen?

Well Barry...

Since 2009 Ed Gerhard has been playing Breedlove dreadnaughts, a Revival Custom from 2009 to about 2015, and now a Breedlove RD model dread from 2015 forward, and they are both Red Spruce/ Sepele...and IMO, he has tone to die for with those guitars, and each in their own way, tone just as good as he got from his Somogyi and Breedlove German/Brazilian guitars prior to 2009, so the Sepele certainly would not get in your way and stop you from having as good a sound/tone with a guitar as could be.

As always...it's the sum total of how any given guitars soundbox...the top and top bracing/voicing, the sides and side bracing/voicing, and the back and back bracing/voicing goes together, and how well all those components of that soundbox work together to produce tone and dynamic response.

And then, it's really all down to YOU, and how you work with the guitar to produce tone!


duff
Be A Player...Not A Polisher

[fuman]

I blame Taylor. a) They have a 3-series in sapele that is considerably cheaper than the 5-series in mahogany (yes, there are finish and appointment differences, so it's not all about the wood); and b) I own a Taylor as my main guitar, but the only sapele Taylor I've ever truly been impressed by was the original 214, Made-in-the-USA non-cutaway. A lot of that is the GA body style and its attendant "Taylor sound," which I'm not really a fan of. But I have played 315s and 355s and didn't think they were great relative to the competition. I would caution that when you decide something isn't for you, you limit the pool of examples which you might further evaluate, and I could be way off. But it doesn't seem that I'm alone.

[davenumber2]

Originally Posted by beatcomber

On a related note, I wonder if pao ferro will someday be embraced as a material for fretboards. Right now, it's considered a cost-efficient and less attractive substitute for rosewood.

Pao ferro can be visually very appealing. The fretboard and bridge on the Farida I used to own had some lovely grain and looked very deep and rich:

My Washburn RSG200 has Pao Ferro back and sides and I think it is plenty attractive.

[davenumber2]

My Eastman is my only real experience with Sapele and it sounds great on this guitar.

[TBman]

I'm still trying to figure it out. I supposed it comes from reading many threads here about how Sapele isn't a real mahogany. That's true, but what does it sound like in comparison to "real" mahogany and what are the long term ownership issues? Is it prone to cracking? We see a lot of random slaps at things without real backup information and even though we know better, these "slaps" add up and prejudice our opinions in spite of ourselves.