Sapele vs African Mahogany

[Fstpicker]

It is interesting to note that the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum has had this very same discussion about Sapele vs. Mahogany, ad nauseum, with some of the same arguments on both sides of the issue that I see used here. And with Larrivee discontinuing the use of mahogany on the 03 series, and starting to use Sapele instead, this has been a subject of special interest over on the Larrivee Guitar Forum as well, in recent months.

Personally, and especially after owning a 2001 Taylor 310 with Sapele B&S, I don't have any qualms about owning a Sapele guitar any longer. My 310 sounds absolutely WONDERFUL, with a very woody and full tone, and one would be very hard-pressed to tell the difference in tone between this one and a "true" mahogany guitar, if played side by side. Sapele may possibly have a tad bit more punch in the mids, but that is pretty subjective to the listener's ear.

All of the arguments about Sapele being inferior to mahogany in tone and quality, are simply not true IMO. Sapele is an excellent tone-wood, has been used for many years already, and is here to stay. Thankfully, we have a viable alternative to the diminishing supply of mahogany, and one that is available for us guitarists to enjoy.

Jeff

[rselkirk]

I owned a Martin CEO-5 a number of years ago and it was made with Sapele. Just an amazing guitar. I also own a Martin CEO-4 mahogany sides and back. They were both pretty close in sound. Thats why I sold the CEO-5

[vti814ce]

Originally Posted by woodruff

So, based on the thread of the Taylor 314 for 2007, the entire 300 series is returning to Sapele. This in my mind is a downgrade, not an enhancement. Begs the question for me who was considering another 300 series taylor down the road, how close tonally is Sapele and African Mahogany? I certainly prefer the look of African Hog best, for the orangish hue of the Sapele i find troubling. Is it a cheaper wood, and why would they downgrade then?

thanks!

As enthusiast's we are by nature fickle.we nitpick the differences that define our very specic perception of the values of the acoustic communities perceptions and the performance of the woods we choose.We often buy to please our sense of what we should be represented buy, it can be ego driven or cosmetic and its almost always based on the tonal qualities we are searching for. Most judge a guitars pedigree by its construction and woods chosen. we all want to get a guitar that excites and pleases the mind and senses. We all agree its subtle but there are differences without question.

im with woodruff 100% on this point, im sure there are alot of reasons behind taylor's decision. ( PLEASE...anyone who has a statement fron taylor on this decision, please give me or us the web site adress, i think this is a very good post and one worth really looking into) we love the Taylors.
i would like to give my opinion on my experience with these woods, i owned for a very short time a 2005 314CE That i fell in love with, grain/wood back/sides georgeous! tone IMHO, was really professionall level and versatile, and just plain made me love to plug in finger pick away, i loved to capo the 314ce and just go nuts all over the place, its was like having 5 guitars in one, pretty darn sweet! i really loved the sitka /mahog basic workhoarse that they are!
The 314ce was every bit as fun as my 814ce, DIFFERENT YES... but dang nice! most underated taylor IMO. Sapele, also very very excellent,not as tempermental to changes in temp,in my experience. not as much overtones, less depth to the bottom range, and i agree it typically isnt as stunning or nice to look at. Its a very tight sounding less deep wood, alot of sapele gets the black paint treatment at takamine, but they do sound good! ANY ONE have a post or qoute from Taylor as to why the change and did they lower the price! they will be good with sapele, but not as good as w/ the mahag.
honest opinion, not a fact! but now i would nt be so quick to stay loyal to taylor in that price range, what do you 314 ce mahagony owners say?

good post, who has a statement from taylor on the move? if its truly price and a cost saving factor for Taylor, then they are losing it and my respect.

However, they must have at least a good reason that they state as to why this was a good move with us loyalist's in mind? Otherwise, my eyes are opening up,and that Martin OM line is my next consideration, they arent taking us for granted....are they? i want to, respectfully hear from some of you that we all know and respect here.. ie;wade..cotton..woody b. steve s, rejoice..jeff/nightwatch, you guys have been here the longest , whats your take?
thank you, Sammy

[Herb Hunter]

It is likely that Taylor switched wood species for the 300 series in order to keep the price from going up. The 2007 prices for 3xxCEs remain the same as they were in 2006. As an example, Colonial Tonewoods' current price for a back and sides, African mahogany set is forty one dollars. Their price for a sapele set is 35 dollars. The reduced cost of sapele may offset the cost of neck binding and improved binding material featured on the 2007 300 series.

How would y'all like to be in the guitar making business? It's a constant fight to keep costs down and no matter what you do someone is going to be angry with you. If you increase the price there will be those that will take you to task for it. Keep the same price by switching tone woods and others will have something to say about that.

We all have different priorities. I like the Taylor sound and playability and I'm not about to buy a brand whose tone and action I don't care for simply because Taylor changed the wood species (different genus, same family) of one of their lines.

[Randal_S]

I guess I don't understand all of the questions about price. Taylor had made Sapele 300-Series guitars for years. For 2004, they went to African Mahogany, the ES System, and discontinued the bound fingerboard. Now, they went back to the Sapele and bound the fingerboard again (from what I've heard... haven't seen one yet).

How many of these people who are bemoaning this perceived cost-cutting measure acknowledged the extra cost that's going into the bound fingerboard? None. Why not?

PS: On the subject of tonal differences: Apparently, Martin is comfortable enough with the similarities between S American Mahogany (ie Taylor's 500-Series, not the 300-Series) and Sapele to offer both interchangeably on their 15-Series guitars.

[franchelB]

I have a friend who has a Taylor 510, I have a '96 410E. Every time we practice at his house (for church music), he is always looking to play MY guitar...and I end up playing his. And he's looking to get rid of his 510!
The thing of it is, I DON'T WANT to trade my guitar.

Has my guitar "opened up"? I can't really tell. Does it really sound better than an American Mahogany guitar?? After 6 1/2 years of playing it, I still don't know. I just know I still like its own distinct sound. Both my 410E and my 355CE (which also has Sapele b/s) stand out in an acoustic "jam", soundwise...in a good way.

[woodruff]

well, i appreciate the replies very much. And though i still see sapele visually as a downgrade, i am glad to hear of otheres experiences with enjoying its "punch" as a good, not inferior tonewood. Still, i will have to go and play them, the GA-3 is what I am considering. and no, i never considered that taylor might be cutting the cost a bit to invest into binding, for why would I? my 2006 312-ce has black binding, and it is still african mahogany....but that's ok, i love my 312 and in no hurry to run out and get a new taylor. just a bit disappointed is all, not like my disenchantment is gonna cause bob any concern.

[Big Eric]

Just an opinion -

Have owned a couple of African mahogany guitars in the past (not by Taylor, but hand-made by other builders). They are nice, but seem to be more prone to cracking, especially the sides.

Wonder if the switch is partly because they have run into a batch or two of wood that just cracked easier? Instead of spending a lot for warranty repairs (or incurring ill-will) it was easier and cheaper to just switch back?

Of the two, I prefer the visual of sapele.

Again, just one person's opinion. No other agenda meant or implied.

[SJB]

Check this link to see the many grain variations and colors of Sapele.

http://www.hobbithouseinc.com/person...ics/sapele.htm

[wthurman]

Sapele is wunnerful.

[Kabalan]

Originally Posted by SJB

Check this link to see the many grain variations and colors of Sapele.

http://www.hobbithouseinc.com/person...ics/sapele.htm

that is a sapele colection!!!

[LOTF]

I've never had the opportunity to play khaya extensively but I've been perfectly satisfied with the 2 sapele instruments I've owned. The first was my first Taylor, a 314ce, and I only sold it to recoup some of the money I spent on my 712ce. I still miss that guitar. The second is my Washburn beater, which is one of the most smokin' deals I've ever gotten on a guitar -- solid sapele for a price that will usually only get you a plywood guitar.

Speaking of plywood guitars, the real Taylor downgrade I see in 2007 is in the 200 series, where they've replaced solid sapele with rosewood laminate. Paying the kind of price Taylor wants for 200s for plywood is a travesty, so far as I'm concerned. If I were in the market at that price point, I'd either find another brand that gave me solid wood or save the extra for a 300 series.

[Herb Hunter]

I hated to see the 200 series become a plywood guitar but we'd better get used to it for as the supply of trees diminishes, more and more product lines will switch to plywood.

[Gunny]

Obviously mahogany is a wonderful, stable wood. It's been used for every imaginable purpose we can think of which is why it's disappearing. In laminated form it has been used on millions of inexpensive guitars which is why it was considered by some to be "Plain" or a "lesser" tonewood. Now that it is getting somewhat more rare and more expensive, it's being viewed in a different way. I have no doubt that Sapele is a fine tonewood, but to many it is an alternative tonewood just like EI rosewood might have been considered when the Brazilian started running dry. Folks are going to defend their guitars and their favorite guitar builders no matter what they use and thats O.K. Builders and consumers have to make adjustments or pay a premium. We are seeing a lot of woods out there that a short while a go were not really considered "tonewoods" in a true sense, but seem to work well. Some are obviously beautiful looking yet some are a little finicky.

What are the "original" and some of the oldest known tonewoods used in production building? My guess is:
Cedar
Mahogany
Brazilian Rosewood

[FlashBazbo]

Originally Posted by cpmusic

That's true in the strictest sense, but the term "African mahogany" has been applied to both sapele and khaya for some time, most likely as a marketing tool.

It may be that they are about equal in cost and utility, and that sapele was chosen because it's the better known name. However, even if it was a cost-saving measure, it's nothing to worrry about, as sapele seems to be proving itself as a worthy tonewood.

I live in an area that has a lot of wood sold and traded from all over the world. You are correct. Some wood dealers differentiate between khaya and sapele. Others don't. A lot of wood traders and brokers call them both "African Mahogany." (It is, of course, true that neither is a true mahogany.)