Which is the best small bodied Maple back and sides guitar you've played?

Johan Madsen · #1 09-13-2015, 08:06 PM

Which the best small or medium guitar (OM, 000, 00 etc) , with maple back and sides you've played?

aphillips · #2 09-13-2015, 08:30 PM

Mine! I have a sweet little Taylor GC6 natural finish with no cutaway and it has a wonderful, clear voice. It is beautiful and I love it!

virob · #3 09-13-2015, 08:39 PM

Webber OM. Maple back and sides, cedar front. Very comfortable neck. Wonderfully articulate.

Johan Madsen · #4 09-13-2015, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aphillips

Mine! I have a sweet little Taylor GC6 natural finish with no cutaway and it has a wonderful, clear voice. It is beautiful and I love it!

Those old GC series were great, I tried a GC 4 with ovangkol back and sides which was absolutely stunning, I'm sure your GC 4 sounds much better than those new 600 series which just sound fat and unfocused

Johan Madsen · #5 09-13-2015, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by virob

Webber OM. Maple back and sides, cedar front. Very comfortable neck. Wonderfully articulate.

Tell me how does cedar interact with maple? I've never tried this combo

Long Jon · #6 09-13-2015, 08:51 PM

I had a Recording King RNJ.25. Beautiful looking Gibson-style L 00 deep body "Nick Lucas" type. All solid, maple b/s. sitka top, very pretty sunburst nitro finish.

Bit of a plank... Even after about 6 months of playing and Tonerite.

Sold it cheap

(It was still the best (OK, only) one I ever played..

edward993 · #7 09-13-2015, 08:58 PM

I have an R.Taylor style-2 (approximates a Taylor GC body) with an engel top and maple b/s (quilt to die for, but that's a different story) whose tone is deep, almost uncanny in its deep, tight bass notes given its smallish size. But with wonderful "present" mids that are warm and "forward" sounding, and a crisp top end that is nicely defined but zero zinginess. Just a tonally rich and superbly balanced sound that few would ever think was maple. This is another one of those guitars that goes to show that the overall voicing is more about the build than it is about the wood species in itself.

FWIW, I have both owned and tried several maple guits over the years, and this one is an absolute keeper. Maple brings something different to the table, but can easily be used just to prettify, even ending up thin sounding, IMHO. But done well, wow!

Edward

Ed-in-Ohio · #8 09-13-2015, 09:00 PM

The Gibson CJ-165 Maple in my signature. Outstanding (and beautiful) instrument.

Johan Madsen · #9 09-13-2015, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Long Jon

I had a Recording King RNJ.25. Beautiful looking Gibson-style L 00 deep body "Nick Lucas" type. All solid, maple b/s. sitka top, very pretty sunburst nitro finish.

Bit of a plank... Even after about 6 months of playing and Tonerite.

Sold it cheap

(It was still the best (OK, only) one I ever played..

That's too bad, I thought Recording Kings were building pretty good guitars for their price, don't they? Everybody don't like maple b and s anyway, and it needs much playing to open up for sure

Johan Madsen · #10 09-13-2015, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edward993

I have an R.Taylor style-2 (approximates a Taylor GC body) with an engel top and maple b/s (quilt to die for, but that's a different story) whose tone is deep, almost uncanny in its deep, tight bass notes given its smallish size. But with wonderful "present" mids that are warm and "forward" sounding, and a crisp top end that is nicely defined but zero zinginess. Just a tonally rich and superbly balanced sound that few would ever think was maple. This is another one of those guitars that goes to show that the overall voicing is more about the build than it is about the wood species in itself.

Edward

That sounds very appealing, of course maple can sound deep, it's just another kind of deepness than rosewood. I love maple's tight bass, the fact that they don't overwhelm everything, which I dislike with rosewood. I think Taylor has always done some pretty good job with maple, though I don't like their new 600 serie as said before, they don't sound as maple guitar anymore.Doesn't look like maple either by the way. Your appealing description is fueling my GAS !

Johan Madsen · #11 09-13-2015, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed-in-Ohio

The Gibson CJ-165 Maple in my signature. Outstanding (and beautiful) instrument.

It looks great, but we all know that maple works fine with jumbo shape, that's why I was more wondering about some smaller models, but I'm sure it's a wonderful guitar!

Long Jon · #12 09-13-2015, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johan Madsen

That's too bad, I thought Recording Kings were building pretty good guitars for their price, don't they? Everybody don't like maple b and s anyway, and it needs much playing to open up for sure

Time may tell, my good buddy's daughter has it now and she LOVES it !
I bought it, untested, by long distance mail order. It looks great. High spec for the money and is very nicely made. Just never bonded.

My other "best" guitars are Martin dreads so maybe my expectations were all wrong about what it should sound like.

zombywoof · #13 09-13-2015, 09:21 PM

Early 1930s Oahu Jumbo. 00 size, X braced, 12 frets, Grover "clipped plate" tuners, deep "Nick Lucas" maple body. Hey, you said the best and in almost 55 years this remains the best sounding maple body guitar of any size I have ever gotten my hands on.

Ed-in-Ohio · #14 09-13-2015, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johan Madsen

It looks great, but we all know that maple works fine with jumbo shape, that's why I was more wondering about some smaller models, but I'm sure it's a wonderful guitar!

Thanks. CJ = Compact Jumbo. Jumbo shape, but smaller body. I'm pretty sure it's smaller than my 000-15. Lower bout is 14-7/8" and the body depth is 3-1/2" to 4-1/2".

H165 · #15 09-13-2015, 10:13 PM

Easy - a '50s or '60s Guild - model F-40. An arch-back, about SJ size.