Sapele vs African Mahogany

[Jim]

Originally Posted by scottishrogue

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

You are not reading the chart fully. Yes, sapele is wider but mahogany has that arch in the middle which makes it more complex while sapele is flat. They are different woods. Pick the one that has the sound that you want and chose it. If you want the sound that you grew up hearing from guys who played mahogany guitars - one of the traditional acoustic guitar woods going all the way back - then you really do need to choose mahogany to get that sound. If this is not important to you and you prefer the different sound you get from sapele, then go with sapele. It is a fine tonewood in its own right and fortunately for those who prefer it or who can not hear the nuanced differences the good thing is that it is very plentiful and inexpensive compared to mahogany.

[joe tone]

It would seem to me that a good builder would want a flat wood so as to temper the instrument with his design and building rather than have a variable that is not controllable.

Originally Posted by Jim

You are not reading the chart fully. Yes, sapele is wider but mahogany has that arch in the middle which makes it more complex while sapele is flat. They are different woods. Pick the one that has the sound that you want and chose it. If you want the sound that you grew up hearing from guys who played mahogany guitars - one of the traditional acoustic guitar woods going all the way back - then you really do need to choose mahogany to get that sound. If this is not important to you and you prefer the different sound you get from sapele, then go with sapele. It is a fine tonewood in its own right and fortunately for those who prefer it or who can not hear the nuanced differences the good thing is that it is very plentiful and inexpensive compared to mahogany.

[Yggdrasil]

My Froggy H12 is "60 year old quilted sapele".
Far from being a downgrade, it's a $4500 upcharge from their standard mahogany and $2500 over their figured mahogany. Not saying that's reasonable, but obviously their is no linear opinion re. sapele being a downgrade from mahogany.

[GuitarDogs62]

I curretnly own two hogs, one a D-15M all Hog and two a D-17M Hog back and sides with Sitka Spruce top. They play and sound great. Now I have played a Martin that was all solid sapele and sounded truly amazing. I truly feel it comes down to the sound you love and are striving for. Enough has been said on this forum about differance between the two woods, but I feel you need to be the judge and decide which wood is best for you. Try them both out see if you like one over the other. To me that is what is most important. Now on the Taylor side take a look at a DN3 or their new 320 line or in Martin the DRS1 or D-1GT.

[John Arnold]

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

Not in my world. Mahogany has increased in price over the last 20 years, but it still costs about 1/2 as much as Indian RW.
The average price for straight-grained sets of backs and sides:
Mahogany = $50
Rosewood = $100
The average price for 4/4 lumber:
Mahogany = $8 to $10
Rosewood = $15 to $25

[email4eric]

Originally Posted by Jim

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.

Excellent post, Jim. To speak to wood is a species-specific endeavor. We can pontificate about tone and nomenclature but really the discussion of wood refers to the species of tree.

That said, how does one figure-out what species is used on their "mahogany' guitar? I just picked-up an Ibanez AC240 Artwood with "solid mahogany top and mahogany laminate back and sides..." So what species is this? Clearly, the back and sides are Sapele but the top looks nothing like Sapele and more like lightly quilted...mahogany...but what kind??

Online photos of the AC240 show tops that look like Sapele though mine looks nothing like that. Is it possible the top is a different "mahogany" than the back/sides on this guitar?

[Jim]

Originally Posted by email4eric

Excellent post, Jim. To speak to wood is a species-specific endeavor. We can pontificate about tone and nomenclature but really the discussion of wood refers to the species of tree.

That said, how does one figure-out what species is used on their "mahogany' guitar? I just picked-up an Ibanez AC240 Artwood with "solid mahogany top and mahogany laminate back and sides..." So what species is this? Clearly, the back and sides are Sapele but the top looks nothing like Sapele and more like lightly quilted...mahogany...but what kind??

Online photos of the AC240 show tops that look like Sapele though mine looks nothing like that. Is it possible the top is a different "mahogany" than the back/sides on this guitar?

Without access to a decent wood laboratory, it is difficult to say with certainty whether one board is one species or another. It is easy if you can see the whole tree, but by the time you get some lumber you are basically going on the honesty of the wood dealer. Of course experienced experts can normally tell one species from another, but it can get very tricky when there are species that look and smell similar to each other. You cannot go only by grain and color and feel. Rosewood can be almost any color from very dark and reddish brown to very light tan to having green or purple or yellow streaks etc. Guitar makers and buyers want the nice dark rosewood and that is what they buy, but there are other colors and they can even be in the same tree.

So, what this means is you need to look at the technical specs that the manufacturer puts on their websites and on their advertising and hope they are not trying to trick buyers. Whenever you see a phrase like African mahogany or Asian Mahogany you can be 99.9 percent sure that it is not real mahogany and it is something like sapele or khaya or something else. The reason is mahogany is not native to anywere but the western hemisphere. Of course there are some people trying to plant real mahogany in other parts of the world, but at this point those plantations do not have trees of commericial size. Mahogany takes about 80 years to get to a decent size and most of the real mahogany that you see being used by the high end makers comes from trees that are 100 to 150 years old. It is like Rocky Mountain Oysters. If you go into a bar and someone offers you those my recommendation is to decline. Anytime you see a modifier on the name of something other than what you expect, it is not likely to be what you expect.

[email4eric]

Originally Posted by Jim

Without access to a decent wood laboratory, it is difficult to say with certainty whether one board is one species or another. It is easy if you can see the whole tree, but by the time you get some lumber you are basically going on the honesty of the wood dealer. Of course experienced experts can normally tell one species from another, but it can get very tricky when there are species that look and smell similar to each other. You cannot go only by grain and color and feel. Rosewood can be almost any color from very dark and reddish brown to very light tan to having green or purple or yellow streaks etc. Guitar makers and buyers want the nice dark rosewood and that is what they buy, but there are other colors and they can even be in the same tree.

So, what this means is you need to look at the technical specs that the manufacturer puts on their websites and on their advertising and hope they are not trying to trick buyers. Whenever you see a phrase like African mahogany or Asian Mahogany you can be 99.9 percent sure that it is not real mahogany and it is something like sapele or khaya or something else. The reason is mahogany is not native to anywere but the western hemisphere. Of course there are some people trying to plant real mahogany in other parts of the world, but at this point those plantations do not have trees of commericial size. Mahogany takes about 80 years to get to a decent size and most of the real mahogany that you see being used by the high end makers comes from trees that are 100 to 150 years old. It is like Rocky Mountain Oysters. If you go into a bar and someone offers you those my recommendation is to decline. Anytime you see a modifier on the name of something other than what you expect, it is not likely to be what you expect.

Right off the Ibanez website:

AC240
Finishes OPN Open Pore Natural

Specification
body shape Grand Concert body
top Solid Mahogany top
back & sides Mahogany back & sides
neck Mahogany neck
tuning machine Chrome Grover® tuners
nut & saddles Bone nut and saddle
bridge pins Ibanez Advantage™ bridge pins
rosette Abalone rosette
bridge & fretboard Rosewood bridge and fretboard
string D'Addario® EXP™ strings
Neck Dimensions

Scale 634mm
a : Width at Nut 45mm
b : Width at 14th Fret 57mm
c: Thickness at 1st 22mm
d : Thickness at 7th 24mm
Radius 400mmR
Body Dimensions

a : Length 19 1/2"
b : Width 15 1/4"
c : Max Depth 4 1/4"

Well, according to Ibanez, it's obviously "mahogany!" The photos of sapele look so similar to those of Khaya. When I look at photos of the Ibanez, I lean toward Sapele. When I look at mine, I lean heavily toward Khaya. Regardless, mine's very beautiful!

Thanks -- your posts were immensely helpful and nearly scholarly!

Cheers

[Wade Hampton]

I think that sapele is an absolutely superb tonewood, as is khaya. I've heard magnificent musical instruments made from both.

Sapele is not a terribly expensive tropical hardwood on the world hardwood market right now, so many players confuse that lower board foot cost with lower quality.

But that's just human nature in action. I have difficulty believing that anyone who played a succession of sapele guitars, then a succession of khaya guitars, then a succession of Honduran mahogany guitars, all in a pitch-black room where the darkness prevented them from seeing the wood grain and color, would possibly come out emphatically against any of the three as tonewoods.

Quite honestly, I think the sapele that's being used on guitars today is typically of better quality than most of the Honduran mahogany on all but the most expensive instruments. I don't see any glaring deficiencies in sapele when compared directly to khaya, either.

I think sapele is wonderful, frankly, and find Internet sapele-bashing to be a sign of inexperience on the part of whoever's doing the bashing. Because if you actually played a bunch of sapele guitars and listened to them without prejudice, you'd find that it's a fine wood for building acoustic guitars.


Wade Hampton Miller

[email4eric]

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

I think that sapele is an absolutely superb tonewood, as is khaya. I've heard magnificent musical instruments made from both.

Sapele is not a terribly expensive tropical hardwood on the world hardwood market right now, so many players confuse that lower board foot cost with lower quality.

But that's just human nature in action. I have difficulty believing that anyone who played a succession of sapele guitars, then a succession of khaya guitars, then a succession of Honduran mahogany guitars, all in a pitch-black room where the darkness prevented them from seeing the wood grain and color, would possibly come out emphatically against any of the three as tonewoods.

Quite honestly, I think the sapele that's being used on guitars today is typically of better quality than most of the Honduran mahogany on all but the most expensive instruments. I don't see any glaring deficiencies in sapele when compared directly to khaya, either.

I think sapele is wonderful, frankly, and find Internet sapele-bashing to be a sign of inexperience on the part of whoever's doing the bashing. Because if you actually played a bunch of sapele guitars and listened to them without prejudice, you'd find that it's a fine wood for building acoustic guitars.


Wade Hampton Miller

Agree entirely, Wade. I think that Sapele is greatly responsible for the vast quantity of excellent guitar choices at the most affordable prices probably ever seen. Makes one wonder how many other superb tone woods are out there that simply haven't been considered due to tradition or simply not yet being "discovered" for that purpose.

I can't say I've seen the Sapele bashing that you seemingly have but knowing human nature, I'm sure it's out there. People seem to devalue that which is ubiquitous or common.

[RP]

In Volume 76 Summer 2013 of Wood & Steel, Andy Powers noted the following:

The lower cost [of mahogany] wasn't due to it being an inferior wood," explains Taylor luthier Andy Powers. "It was just that you could get more boards out of a mahogany tree than a rosewood tree because the trees grew bigger. It was also more stable than rosewood when you dried it."

The article goes on to say, "The African sapele used for backs and sides [of the Taylor 320, 322 and 324] shares many of mahogany's tonal properties, with slightly less midrange punch and an extra splash of treble brightness."

[AZLiberty]

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

I think sapele is wonderful, frankly, and find Internet sapele-bashing to be a sign of inexperience on the part of whoever's doing the bashing.

Wade Hampton Miller

Honestly Wade I hardly every see anyone bashing Sapele as a tonewood. What I do see, and agree with, is folks voicing frustration over Guitar Manufacturers being less than honest about what wood they are using.

[Jim]

Originally Posted by AZLiberty

Honestly Wade I hardly every see anyone bashing Sapele as a tonewood. What I do see, and agree with, is folks voicing frustration over Guitar Manufacturers being less than honest about what wood they are using.

Exactly. I have said in all of my posts that sapele and khaya are fine alternative tonewoods. My posts are aimed at the handful of makers who are not honest about what woods they are using on their guitars in what I think is a mistaken belief that they can get a better price by deceiving buyers by using made-up names for woods they use (African mahogany, Asian mahogany, etc.). This is also a part of what I see as deception by some of the same makers when they avoid using the term 'laminated' when they say what wood their guitars are made with. Instead they say something like 'rosewood back and sides' and then defend themselves when they are called on it by saying they never said it was 'solid' rosewood back and sides and when they make guitars with 'solid' rosewood or mahogany or whatever back and sides they market it as 'solid rosewood' back and sides.

[RP]

Jim, I largely agree with you but want to point out that those "made up" popular names are both a blessing and a curse. They save us from using the trees true identification based on Latin names for genus and species while introducing a bit of inaccuracy. An example are the commonplace (at least here in Virginia) cedar trees which are actually junipers or Juniperus virginiana...

[SausageCreature]

Originally Posted by GuitarLight

Sapele, in my view is superior to Mahogany. Better tone, clearer and more articulated. It's one of the industry's best kept secrets. Expect the price to double when the mass population of Guitarists discover this. Many already have. I prefer my Sapele guitars over my Premium Honduran Mahogany guitar. In fact the Honduran Mahogany I have sold off. The Sapele is just so much better sounding...and looking.

I've played a Martin D-15M back to back with a DRS1, the latter being an all sapele version of the former, as I understand it. I consistently prefer the tone of the sapele DRS1. But of course, that's just personal preference, and it doesn't hurt the DRS1 costs about 1/3 less. The other major difference was weight. The DRS1 is much heavier, but that's less of a concern to me as I almost always sit when I play.