Quality of woods used in less vs. more expensive guitar models of same brand

[WayneS]

Maybe someone with firsthand knowledge, or something like it, can give us the answer to this one:

Consider a Martin 000-18 vs. a Martin 00028. Or, say, a Guild D-25 vs a D-55, or an F-30 vs. an F-50. (Or a Taylor, or... etc.) Is there any good evidence or indication that the more expensive models in the 000 (or Dreadnaught or etc.) line are built with better woods than the cheaper end of the line? Will a Guild D-25 (or whatever the base model is these days) have woods inferior to a D-55?

Of course, this question is getting at the strong preference people have for the more expensive and decorous models. Does this preference signal a difference in qualities of tone woods, which are a strong contributor to tonal qualities? Should we expect a D-18 to sound pretty much as good as a D-45?

Any info much appreciated. Thanks in advance--

[kydave]

For starters, you should understand that when you're comparing a 000-18 & 000-28, you are comparing apples and oranges or - at least - Granny Smiths and Golden delicious. You're talking about different woods, not different quality (mahogany vs rosewood body) amongst the same line (Standard). The grading of the woods is different, too, but that is cosmetic.

[dneal]

Many (if not most) guitar factories and wood retailers grade wood on visual appearance. Spec a custom Martin and you'll see their grades. 7-8 grade spruce tops (the highest grade in Martin's grading scheme) are used on 42's and 45's. Larrivee uses back and side sets that don't quite match for their 03 series. Stewart Mac charges more for AAAA grade than AA, with "uniform grain" being a criteria.

The problem with your question is defining "better". Visually, it's pretty safe to say the woods are "better". Sonically there's a lot less correlation.

[AZLiberty]

Major guitar manufacturers grade their wood on appearance.

Higher end models will generally have somewhat more visually appealing wood. In general, this means straighter grain, more even grain, or tighter grain.

The appearance generally has little effect on the structural or acoustic properties of the wood.

[fullsmile]

Yes the wood is better that is why it costs more.




Anyone get excited to tell me I'm wrong? Because if you did you should know that I am Kidding.

[MJRB]

It would seem sensible to conclude that you get a better guitar for more money.
Since appearance is what most of the factories seem to use to judge the wood you should get a good looking guitar for more money.
You've only got to visit a large guitar shop to know that they don't all sound the same.
That's why I won't buy a guitars that I haven't played and compared with other guitars. I will admit to being attracted to a guitars appearance, not bling, but good workmanship and nice woods, but unless it sounds at least as good as it looks I don't buy.
When I bought an HD28V I compared it with a D28 and an HD28 side by side. The HD28V blew the other two away, in that case more money did mean a better guitar.
MJRB

[BEBF#BEb-man]

Would it be fair, or even obvious to some, to put an amount of price difference in a single company's ranges down to not just the materials but the tiering of the skill level of the workers involved, in the factory setting? I can see the necessity of having new staff in and their being trained up working on guitars that will be sold. I can think of at least two brands where the guitars are overall great, and the materials also, but things like the placing of the nut and pickguard might make you tut, that sort of thing. I've seen for example a few fingerboards that have skew-whiff ends so that the nut might not be fully flush even if seated as well as could be or where the neck meets the body will make you glad you can appreciate wabi-sabi. The key, precision jobs wouldn't be in the hands of new staff but less critical things. Maybe this is stupidly obvious but I wonder if someone can confirm it. And lucky you if you've not seen such variation...

[Athana]

In a factory (Martin) the 45 does not get a better "tone" wood just at a better cometic version of that wood.

A Luthier may have a way to determine what will have an edge & sound better by handling..flexing..tapping..looking but dont expect that from even a Custom Shop Martin.
Best way to get a great instrument with best sounding tone wood is play whatever you can get your hands on,or someone who may direct you to one he swears by,and find it that way.
If you have an open mind as to what you can end up with the better your chance to land the best available.

[ecguitar44]

Originally Posted by fullsmile

Yes the wood is better that is why it costs more.




Anyone get excited to tell me I'm wrong? Because if you did you should know that I am Kidding.

Well...you're kind of correct. Depends on what the OP means by "better".

The woods used on higher end models is graded higher based on APPEARANCE. So, it's "better" in that it looks "better".

Surely doesn't mean it sounds any better.

[Matt McGriff]

I like the way I have heard Bob Taylor describes it. All of the Taylor guitars have the same build quality, but the woods and appointments are what add cost. Its not that they are "better" but just more rare and more expensive to source. Yes the are better looking, but not specifically better sounding.
I also think it is possible to make cheaper woods sound fantastic and premium grade woods sound dead.

[scottishrogue]

Originally Posted by AZLiberty

Major guitar manufacturers grade their wood on appearance. Higher end models will generally have somewhat more visually appealing wood. In general, this means straighter grain, more even grain, or tighter grain. The appearance generally has little effect on the structural or acoustic properties of the wood.

I agree, but there are several factors that must be considered in the overall cost of a guitar. One of those factors is the cost of materials. The cost of different tonewoods varies due to availability. While a wood that is considered plentiful will cost less to procure, there's no correlation between cost and the sound. A good example is comparing sapele and mahogany. Sapele has a wider tonal response than mahogany, but mahogany guitars generally cost more. Many traditionalists prefer mahogany, which means that popularity or resale value is another factor. Another factor which is often overlooked by many is string selection. If you know enough about strings, you know that will have the greatest effect on the richness of tone. Who knew?

Glen

[Wade Hampton]

Originally Posted by BEBF#BEb-man

Would it be fair, or even obvious to some, to put an amount of price difference in a single company's ranges down to not just the materials but the tiering of the skill level of the workers involved, in the factory setting?

Well, yes and no, All the assembly line guitar factories I've visited have work stations for each step of the guitar's construction. There are some tasks that are definitely require more skill, with the application of the finish being one of the most challenging work stations.

But it's not as though the cheaper instruments get their frets installed and their nuts slotted by novices - typically, all the guitars go through the same stations, regardless of the price of the instrument.

At Martin, for example, there's a lady who has been installing frets for something like 40 years. That was a work station she was assigned to early on in her employment by the company, she found that she liked it, and she's stayed there ever since. As you might expect, she's really REALLY good at her job.

Not every guitar company is going to have a gung-ho frets installer who's been at it for decades, of course, but a lot of these folks get very good at a very narrow set of responsibilities, and that's what they choose to do, day in and day out.

But, no, it's not like the low end guitars get worked on by half-passed employees who haven't quite figured out what they're supposed to be doing quite yet. The whole point of having an assembly line is to break down the guitar-building process into small, simple steps that are easy to learn and easy to teach, precisely so that unskilled new employees can be taught very quickly to do that one task.

Originally Posted by BEBF#BEb-man

I can see the necessity of having new staff in and their being trained up working on guitars that will be sold. I can think of at least two brands where the guitars are overall great, and the materials also, but things like the placing of the nut and pickguard might make you tut, that sort of thing. I've seen for example a few fingerboards that have skew-whiff ends so that the nut might not be fully flush even if seated as well as could be or where the neck meets the body will make you glad you can appreciate wabi-sabi. The key, precision jobs wouldn't be in the hands of new staff but less critical things. Maybe this is stupidly obvious but I wonder if someone can confirm it. And lucky you if you've not seen such variation...

Sometimes the quality control folks miss some instruments. You're correct that more difficult tasks are given to experienced employees who know what they're doing. But sometimes things like sharp fret ends occur in transit or at the dealerships, if the guitars get too dry and the wood of the fretboard shrinks a little bit.

So some of the aberrations are not necessarily things that occur at the factory itself. If you've seen poorly slotted nuts on Martin and Gibson acoustic guitars, as I have on rare occasions, that might be an indication that the folks in the set up room were really slammed the day when that guitar came through.

It's hard to say. But as a general rule, new hires at that guitar factories are typically given the simplest tasks to perform, and work their way up to more critical jobs.

Hope that makes sense.


Wade Hampton Miller

[FrankS]

The costs of the woods do not change that much but the mark ups do. The difference in price between a mediocre set of sitka tops and an outstanding set of Adirondack is less than $200. For the buyer, that number can be $1,000 dollars or more.

For back and sides the mark up is even higher and an $800 set of uniquely figured wood especially of the perceived Holly Grail wood can be as much as $10,000 more.

Frank Sanns

[billgennaro]

Everyone says that the difference in top woods is only visual. But I tend to disagree.

A few things to consider: I think Martin, even though they don't tap tone, would know which tops tend to make a better sounding guitar. I'm sure they've learned a thing or two in their years of building. Also, Martin probably gets different grades of wood from different suppliers (just guessing here). If so, I'm sure that they have more confidence in the top of the line tops they get from one supplier from the lesser woods they get from another.

I worked at Guild for a couple of years when they were in Westerly. Their top of the line D50 almost always sounded noticeably better than the other dreads they produced.

I'm no wood expert, but it seems reasonable that these companies know how to judge the potential of tone woods before they assemble their guitars. They don't always hit the mark but mostly they do.

Bill

[weisser]

Originally Posted by ecguitar44

Well...you're kind of correct. Depends on what the OP means by "better".

The woods used on higher end models is graded higher based on APPEARANCE. So, it's "better" in that it looks "better".

Surely doesn't mean it sounds any better.

A good example, IMO, would be the emergence of "Bear Claw" figure in spruce as a desireable (and more expensive) feature over the past several years. I've seen articles explaining the reasons why this seeming "flaw' actually enhances tone.

As to the truth of this, my ears have never been able to ascertain any appreciable difference. My point is that this feature would have been considered unacceptable for most guitar tops going back forty years ago. One can only imagine the amount of figured spruce that was relegated to the trash heap by Martin over the years. Before I bought my D-18 in '73 I was told to look for a top with the straightest, tightest grain and I had the salesman bring out every one (there had to be four or five) before I selected one.

I bought a Harmony Sovereign H1260 (probably from the early to mid sixties) a few years ago. The top on this guitar has bear claw figure on the upper and lower bouts and would probably be considered a valuable asset today.As we know, this was a budget guitar back in the day....what we bought when we couldn't afford a Martin, Gibson or Guild.