Sapele vs African Mahogany - Page 4

Jim · #46 01-09-2014, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joe tone

Cocobolo was not a traditional tone wood either but it rocks. I am glad we are getting to see a new variety of woods while old supplies are reforested.

You are both correct and incorrent. Cocobolo is Dalbergia retusa which makes it a real rosewood. Genus Dalbergia is the rosewoods. For example, in addition to Dalbergia retusa, there is Dalbergia nigra which is Brazilian rosewood, Dalbergia latifolia which is Indian rosewood, Dalbergia baronii which is Madagascar rosewood, and so on. I say you are correct in that the D. retusa species is not a traditional tonewood for guitars, but the Dalbergia genus which are the rosewoods is.

On the Mahogonies, there are only three that are real mahogany: Swietenia macrophylla which is what is commonly used today and is commonly marketed as Honduran Mahogany even though it comes from a number of countries in Central America and northwestern South America; Swietenia mahoganii which is where mahogany gets its common name from and which is more of a Caribbean range hence its most common name of Cuban Mahogany and unfortunately has been so logged out there is almost none left other than ornamentals in people's front yards or in botanical gardens; and Swietenia humilus which is commonly called Pacific Coast Mahogany and comes from Central America and Mexico and which is also pretty much logged out even though this species of mahogany is fairly small hence the latin species name humilus which means dwarf.

Yes, sapele is often marketed as 'African Mahogany' but it just is not a mahogany. That marketing is to get people to pay more money for a wood that is what it is - sapele. Or for another wood that is marketed as 'African Mahogany' which is khaya. Sapele is sapele and khaya is kyaya. They are fine, low cost and plenitiful alternatives to the more expensive and difficult to find mahogany but they are not mahoganies.

Yes, you can go up a botanical level from Genus to Family Meliaceae and get a link there as all of the Genera are in Family Meliaceae but that is a huge leap and biologically not very sound. For example, Family Meliaceae has 51 Genera and 575 species. One of these is cedar. Would it raise questions if someone made a guitar out of cigar boxes and tried to sell it as a mahogany guitar since cedar is one of the plants in the Family Meliaceae? It would to me.

piper_guitarist · #47 01-09-2014, 01:34 PM

I love my sitka/sapele Martin. It easily held its own with the 'Hogs that were in my jam circle. Like the others, to my ears I find sapele to have a little more brightness than Mahogany. It's not better per se, but it's defintely not worse. It's just different, and best of all affordable.

As someone mentioned way back in this thread, sapele is like the great equalizer IMO. It makes solid wood guitars within reach of us mere plebians while still offering excellent tonal characteristics. It's a fantastic tonewood, but part of me hopes that players will still reach for Mahogany before it and keep the cost down. Wishful thinking probably. :-P

Jim · #48 01-09-2014, 02:01 PM

I think that both sapele and khaya are excent guitar woods in their own right. And if you have not had the pleasure of trying an ovangkol guitar, it is similar to the rosewoods but is a plentiful supply wood available at a much more affordable price. It is not rosewood, but it is in that general tonal and visual area.

JohnCambo · #49 01-09-2014, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fstpicker

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

I was hoping someone would psot some logic on this thread, thanks.

AndrewG · #50 01-09-2014, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woodruff

well stated. so sapele is a downgrade in quality. i hope the price reflects this, for that would be fair.

No, it's just a different tonewood. Martin considered it good enough for one of their limited editions-the CEO-5, and that was neither a cheap guitar nor was it inferior quality in any respect. I owned one.

sawdustdave · #51 01-09-2014, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woodruff

well stated. so sapele is a downgrade in quality. i hope the price reflects this, for that would be fair.

Not necessarily. Less expensive doesn't mean less quality. Not the same? Yes. But that's all.

Just like Ash is less expensive than oak. Quality? I'd be happy working with Ash.

My 2 cents

joe tone · #52 01-09-2014, 02:40 PM

Rosewood (Indian) guitars generally cost more than Mahogany but the wood it self is about the same price.

Herb Hunter · #53 01-09-2014, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athana

Don't forget the even more real mahogany..Cuban Mahogany. : )

See Post # 7 to this thread:

http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/f...36&postcount=7

RP · #54 01-09-2014, 03:46 PM

I'm much less concerned about the name of the wood than the terrific tone it creates on my hog-topped Taylor 324....

joe tone · #55 01-09-2014, 03:49 PM

so then Sapele guitars aren't "hogs" then, technically..
So are they... "Saps?"

Tony Done · #56 01-09-2014, 04:27 PM

I don't regard sapele as at all inferior to African and central American mahogany. It often looks better and might well have a superior tone for many applications. I'm fairly sure my kona is sapele, and I can't imagine it sounding any better if it was made of mahogany.

I think mahogany became popular because it was freely available as a consequence of the furniture industry, came in large billets of consistent quality, was easy to work, moderately attractive, overall useful physical properties, and last but not least, cheap. Not much to do with acoustic properties, IMO

joe tone · #57 01-09-2014, 04:46 PM

technically you could have a sap on a Sap.

bohemian · #58 01-09-2014, 04:48 PM

"I think mahogany became popular because it was freely available as a consequence of the furniture industry, came in large billets of consistent quality, was easy to work, moderately attractive, overall useful physical properties, and last but not least, cheap."

This also covers the reason for red/appalachian spruce... then sitka. Availability and low cost.

Any "down grading" by a maker has to do with their cost, and no thought of any benefit to the buyer, except possibly blather and a free video to sell you on same.

As mentioned before, there have been reports of Gibson having used sapele in pre war guitars.

scottishrogue · #59 01-09-2014, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woodruff

well stated. so sapele is a downgrade in quality. i hope the price reflects this, for that would be fair.

Sapele actually is an UPGRADE in quality...but cost less because it's more abundant. Mahogany is more expensive ONLY because of it's scarcity. You will see in the chart that sapele has a wider tonal response than mahogany.

Glen

Tony Done · #60 01-09-2014, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bohemian

"I think mahogany became popular because it was freely available as a consequence of the furniture industry, came in large billets of consistent quality, was easy to work, moderately attractive, overall useful physical properties, and last but not least, cheap."

This also covers the reason for red/appalachian spruce... then sitka. Availability and low cost.

Any "down grading" by a maker has to do with their cost, and no thought of any benefit to the buyer, except possibly blather and a free video to sell you on same.

As mentioned before, there have been reports of Gibson having used sapele in pre war guitars.

I also read that Gibson prewar maple was often/sometimes/etc birch.