Does more bling mean better tone wood

ClydeTower

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
585
Reaction score
7
Location
Montreal
Hey fellow LtGers,

I'm in a heated discussion on another forum about bling vs tone wood. Some folks seem to think that builders such as Guild, Martin or Taylor force you to buy their most ornate models in order to get their best tone wood. So in essence, you have to pay for "bling" to get the best sound. If I were to compare a 1977 Guild D55 to a 1977 D50 (sitka spruce top), minus the bling, are these guitars identical, or did Guild make a point of selecting their best cuts of wood for the D55?

Same argument goes for Taylor 900 series vs 800 series or Martin D-45 vs HD-28...
 
Last edited:

Bonneville88

Senior Member
Gold Supporting
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
2,695
Reaction score
1,255
Location
St. Louis, MO
Guild Total
40
Interesting question. I have similar-era Westerly D50 and D55... woods appear pretty much the same.
I'm more inclined to reach for the D55. I'd have to get scientific to prove differences
in sonic quality - I'd say they're very similar, perhaps a slight edge in volume with the D55.
 
Last edited:

Pike

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
836
Reaction score
33
Among spruce/rosewood dreads, I have owned both a Westerly and a Tacoma D50 and a Westerly and a Tacoma D55. Out of the four I have kept the Westerly D55. The Tacoma D55 sounded better than either D50. The Westerly D50 sounded better than the Tacoma D50. I also owned a Gruhn/Walker D60. It was second in line behind the Westerly D55. I also own a D66 that sounds better than the lot of them, and better even than my Bourgeois built spruce/rosewood dread... All to my ear of course, ymmv...
 

Kitarkus

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
676
Reaction score
15
This is an interesting question. I think that some degree of common sense dictates that there is a strong likelihood that a major guitar manufacturer would reserve the highest quality tone-woods for the more ornate and expensive instruments. This is a huge assumption but a logical one. In my days as a manufacturers representative, however, I can attest that major manufacturers do not often use 'common sense'. The bigger the manufacturer...often less common sense is used (I know that I am generalizing). I've noticed that the tops on the Martin standard series during the last several years look FANTASTIC...and these are their (relatively) low priced instruments. I've also noticed that these newer Martins sound pretty darn good.

My brother in law recently toured the Santa Cruz Guitars manufacturing facility. His tour was given by Richard Hoover (owner) himself. My bro-in-law found the tour so fascinating that he neglected to take the photos that he had intended....he just lost himself in the tour and discussions. One of the more interesting things that he shared with me was that Mr. Hoover demonstrated the varying sounds which emanate from the differing pieces of rough cut wood ready to be shaped, moulded, and sanded into necks, tops, and backs. Mr. Hoover demonstrated that varying bits of seemingly identical wood pieces either had the ability to produce pleasing harmonics.....or they didn't. He knocked, clicked, tapped etc. on these wood pieces. My bro in law was astonished at the clear/obvious differences that these varying bits of wood....which appeared identical....produced.

I find it easy to understand that Santa Cruz, Collings, Bourgeois, Huss & Dalton, and the countless even smaller boutique manufacturers can ween through their wood stocks to create only the best possible instruments that their particular wood stock(s) allow. These folks produce a finite volume of guitars per year and charge accordingly.

Conversely...I find it difficult to believe that Taylor, Martin, Guild, Fender, Gibson and other larger manufacturers can spend the time and produce the waste necessary to manufacture using only their finest woods....and it would make more sense that their 'custom shop' and/or higher end guitars would receive the 'better' or best tone woods. I also believe that 'every dog gets a bone every now and again'. Some guitars magically or mistakenly end up sounding great....while others fall short to varying degrees.

Another interesting bit....just a bit of a veer: I went to look at an old Gibson LG-0 from a local craigslist ad this year. The woman seller had recently been widowed. She and her husband had played bluegrass together...including guitar, banjo, and stand up bass. A local high end guitar shop had already purchased the good bits from her....and she knew the owner of the shop quite well. She was keeping one guitar....her Collings. According to her....one of her husband's dear friends was a 'wood purveyor' and traveled around the world buying high quality tone-woods for 'well known guitar manufacturers'. This purveyor, according to this lady, had a fine reputation among nearly all of the high end manufacturers. Also according to her, her deceased husband had arranged that this purveyor personally select the woods for a custom built Collings for her as a 'parting gift' and for her care during his cancer treatments....a gift that she obviously held dearly.

Obvious to all of us...wood matters. How much time and effort is put forth by varying manufacturers on a per guitar basis certainly varies and may be impacted by cost/waste/bean counters, employee skills/ability, and the availability of high quality woods (among other things). Some of the big guitar manufacturers seem to be doing a good job lately (Martin, Guild).....others not so much imo (Gibson). In this day/age where so many of us buy guitars sight unseen....I know that I won't risk paying a whole lot more money for a 'higher end' guitar simply in hopes that the tone-woods used are better when compared to a more standard line guitar. I've seen very expensive guitars that sound like duds...and I've played very inexpensive guitars that sounded marvelous. YMMV.
 
Last edited:

Brad Little

Senior Member
Gold Supporting
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
4,611
Reaction score
2,001
Location
Connecticut
Back in the sixties, a friend had his guitars worked on by Bozo Padunovac when he had his shop in Chicago. Bozo told him that he put the most ornate decorations on guitars that sounded better to him. May well have been because of better tone wood.
Brad
 

Stuball48

Senior Member
Gold Supporting
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
4,736
Reaction score
2,534
Location
Dickson, TN
Kitarkus:
Loved the story about lady keeping her Collings. By the way, did you buy the Gibson LG-0?
 

Kitarkus

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
676
Reaction score
15
Kitarkus:
Loved the story about lady keeping her Collings. By the way, did you buy the Gibson LG-0?

Thanks. No I did not buy the LG-0. She was a VERY sweet and interesting lady. She had just moved into a new house and still had boxes and personal property which had yet to find its place. The LG-0 looked great....but it needed a neck reset. I know how these LG-0's sound...and I have VERY limited use for one of those ladder braced thud machines....but I thought it might be fun to kick around and the price was right. She had been using the thing as a plunker and for slide and had no idea that the geometry was out of whack. I spent 30 minutes attempting to inform her that she (a single elderly female) cannot allow any Joe from Craigslist into her home to look at her property while telling them that she has a Collings in the bedroom....it isn't a smart/safe thing to do. I hope she took my words to heart.
 

Stuball48

Senior Member
Gold Supporting
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
4,736
Reaction score
2,534
Location
Dickson, TN
Hopefully, the high end guitar shop didn't take advantage of her. I agree with your advice to her about keeping the Collings unannounced when lookets come.
 

ClydeTower

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
585
Reaction score
7
Location
Montreal
This is an interesting question. I think that some degree of common sense dictates that there is a strong likelihood that a major guitar manufacturer would reserve the highest quality tone-woods for the more ornate and expensive instruments. This is a huge assumption but a logical one. In my days as a manufacturers representative, however, I can attest that major manufacturers do not often use 'common sense'. The bigger the manufacturer...often less common sense is used (I know that I am generalizing). I've noticed that the tops on the Martin standard series during the last several years look FANTASTIC...and these are their (relatively) low priced instruments. I've also noticed that these newer Martins sound pretty darn good.

My brother in law recently toured the Santa Cruz Guitars manufacturing facility. His tour was given by Richard Hoover (owner) himself. My bro-in-law found the tour so fascinating that he neglected to take the photos that he had intended....he just lost himself in the tour and discussions. One of the more interesting things that he shared with me was that Mr. Hoover demonstrated the varying sounds which emanate from the differing pieces of rough cut wood ready to be shaped, moulded, and sanded into necks, tops, and backs. Mr. Hoover demonstrated that varying bits of seemingly identical wood pieces either had the ability to produce pleasing harmonics.....or they didn't. He knocked, clicked, tapped etc. on these wood pieces. My bro in law was astonished at the clear/obvious differences that these varying bits of wood....which appeared identical....produced.

I find it easy to understand that Santa Cruz, Collings, Bourgeois, Huss & Dalton, and the countless even smaller boutique manufacturers can ween through their wood stocks to create only the best possible instruments that their particular wood stock(s) allow. These folks produce a finite volume of guitars per year and charge accordingly.

Conversely...I find it difficult to believe that Taylor, Martin, Guild, Fender, Gibson and other larger manufacturers can spend the time and produce the waste necessary to manufacture using only their finest woods....and it would make more sense that their 'custom shop' and/or higher end guitars would receive the 'better' or best tone woods. I also believe that 'every dog gets a bone every now and again'. Some guitars magically or mistakenly end up sounding great....while others fall short to varying degrees.

Another interesting bit....just a bit of a veer: I went to look at an old Gibson LG-0 from a local craigslist ad this year. The woman seller had recently been widowed. She and her husband had played bluegrass together...including guitar, banjo, and stand up bass. A local high end guitar shop had already purchased the good bits from her....and she knew the owner of the shop quite well. She was keeping one guitar....her Collings. According to her....one of her husband's dear friends was a 'wood purveyor' and traveled around the world buying high quality tone-woods for 'well known guitar manufacturers'. This purveyor, according to this lady, had a fine reputation among nearly all of the high end manufacturers. Also according to her, her deceased husband had arranged that this purveyor personally select the woods for a custom built Collings for her as a 'parting gift' and for her care during his cancer treatments....a gift that she obviously held dearly.

Obvious to all of us...wood matters. How much time and effort is put forth by varying manufacturers on a per guitar basis certainly varies and may be impacted by cost/waste/bean counters, employee skills/ability, and the availability of high quality woods (among other things). Some of the big guitar manufacturers seem to be doing a good job lately (Martin, Guild).....others not so much imo (Gibson). In this day/age where so many of us buy guitars sight unseen....I know that I won't risk paying a whole lot more money for a 'higher end' guitar simply in hopes that the tone-woods used are better when compared to a more standard line guitar. I've seen very expensive guitars that sound like duds...and I've played very inexpensive guitars that sounded marvelous. YMMV.

Makes total sense :)
Great story Kitarkus!
 

Kitarkus

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
676
Reaction score
15
Hopefully, the high end guitar shop didn't take advantage of her. I agree with your advice to her about keeping the Collings unannounced when lookets come.

Ha....yes. I told her to meet people at a nearby coffee shop or similar...and not to allow anyone into her home. I am in people's homes every day (appraiser) and I see both the best and the worst of humanity. I'm not entirely cynical....but humans can be dangerous....and being naive only once can be costly.

The guitar shop who purchased her good bits is https://massstreetmusic.com/ . I went to college in Lawrence and know this shop...and I have interacted with Jim Baggett the shop's owner. You likely have seen him on Antiques Roadshow as he is their 'go to' guy when they have vintage (Martin) guitars. Jim also supplied Martin with at least one of his pre-war Martin's and consulted with Martin when they made one of their vintage re-issues. This is the shop that I SHOULD HAVE ponied up to have my M-20 neck reset......but I'm too cheap....I digress. Jim is a capitalist and has overhead....but I would bet that he treated this lady honestly and fairly. Mass Street Music is our "Gruhn" or "Elderly"....there is no more credible place in this region in my opinion. Jim was also quoted in that recent article about guitar retailers which was posted on this forum in the last couple of weeks.

Some folks would rather sell at a discount to a known/credible retailer than deal with the marketing/transaction themselves.....I think this was the case here.
 

mavuser

Enlightened Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
8,128
Reaction score
2,637
Location
New York
I cannot speak for other guitar companies, and I did not read all the replies to this thread, but for Guild simply put, I would say it is false to think they were building a guitar that would "sound better just because it looks better" in the case of D-50 vs. D-55, perhaps a select cut of wood is chosen (or not chosen) for a D-55 based on figuring, book matching etc. maybe that D-55 got "pick of the litter" for a spruce top over the D-50 based on grain pattern aesthetics...but the only way to hear how they sound, is after it is done, and its too late to take the top off anyway...even if u could, tone is objective, subject to opinion, depends on the player, etc...

one of which is Slash, and the other guys from Gund n Roses- who could have played any Guild he/they wanted. (leaving out the double neck custom shop crossroads which came later...) Slash played a JF-50 and JF-30 which had RW and dot markers, not ebony and block inlays. also had snake headstock, not paddle/55 headstock. and the rest of the band had GF-25s, GF-30s, D-30s and such. no real bling. now every single player in GNR had a non-bling Guild and every single song on the acoustic album (Lies) sounds like some pretty killer tone to my ears.

plus i know from personal experience, simply stated, some of the best sounding Guilds ever made are also the least expensive with no inlays or bindings at all- in the case of the M-20 it is actually called the "Economy" model.

I don't believe Guild ever set out to build a guitar that "does not sound as good as out flagship fleet." they all sound wonderful across the entire spectrum.
 

Rayk

Enlightened Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2015
Messages
5,769
Reaction score
1,173
Prettier wood but looks and sound are not necessarily the same. Wood grading is mostly about appearance.

I agree , upper end models get higher graded woods be it AA (or no grade wood ) to AAA to AAAA

Unless it’s a special run I find it rare that tone wise there all hand selected/ tone tapped that’s time consuming for production guitars and one main reason custom builders rule the roust .

We all or should I say many of use have heard very high end production guitars that sound like a 1950’s libby’s Tomato can so AAAA top and side woods means nothing other then it’s visual effects on on our eyes which we have been brainwashed into thinking , oh my God it must be good look at it !

Anyway my most recent unfortunately returned guitar was the NH F30 I guess it’s called a standard . No bling just a guitar that said play me ding me up that’s what I’m her for.

It was the best sounding model I heard to date in all my travels . Was it just a lucky model blessed with one good set of lumber ? I doubt it no more then the upper models go through I feel.
 

Kitarkus

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
676
Reaction score
15
plus i know from personal experience, simply stated, some of the best sounding Guilds ever made are also the least expensive with no inlays or bindings at all- in the case of the M-20 it is actually called the "Economy" model.

Yes yes yes. I think about that 'economy' designation every time that I pick up my M-20. If 20% of the small bodies that I'd picked up over the years sounded 50% this good...I'd have bought them. I marvel at the simplicity of the old M-20....complete lack of bling, binding, purfling, barely any markers....and I try to understand why/how it sounds so darn good. The only thing that I can think of is the 'old wood'.

Similarly....those old Les Paul Jr.'s with the old P-90's that just scream....those were 'student' guitars. Check out this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vi7F4JOsUE Hilarious...he says it's like "giving a student a flame thrower" or some such...made me chuckle. If you don't watch these Norm's guitar videos....you're missing out.
 

mavuser

Enlightened Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
8,128
Reaction score
2,637
Location
New York
...I marvel at the simplicity of the old M-20....complete lack of bling, binding, purfling, barely any markers....and I try to understand why/how it sounds so darn good. The only thing that I can think of is the 'old wood'.


have to be perfectly honest, the brand new ones sound exactly the same, to my ears at least. thats when i stopped asking questions (seems the key ingredient is mahogany top, and design of internal/bracing etc that Guild came up with). and yes some high quality mahogany. the wood (guitar) may be new, but none of us can say how old (or young) any given tree may have been, from any decade really...or how long since it was harvested, etc...

Martin mahogany tops sound super sweet as well (albeit, different from any Guild), and they are among the lowest price Martins, by a very wide margin (in some cases by about 50 grand!)

also those Les Paul Jrs (and Melody Makers) are gold, I own a couple. all mahogany, all day, bay bee!
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,791
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
Hey fellow LtGers,
I'm in a heated discussion on another forum about bling vs tone wood. Some folks seem to think that builders such as Guild, Martin or Taylor force you to buy their most ornate models in order to get their best tone wood.
Sounds like typical price resentment to me based purely on cost without considering the whole picture.
I agree with Kitarkus and Brad Little.
I think the real issue is that they put the bling on the highest-end guitars so that folks will be able to recognize 'em as high-end models at a glance.
It's been said here before as well that nobody does "bling" like Guild.
As for topwoods, it IS true that their top-level guitars got the AAA spruce, (but I've only seen that specifically mentioned on the '01 price list, don't know when they actually started stating it).. And usually ebony boards and bridges. And 3-pc necks (resist twisting).
And we've talked before about whether a D55 might get a little bit better attention while being made, and I'm sure that during certain periods, the best-sounding tops, at least, were probably reserved for 'em.
And F50's.

So in essence, you have to pay for "bling" to get the best sound. If I were to compare a 1977 Guild D55 to a 1977 D50 (sitka spruce top), minus the bling, are these guitars identical, or did Guild make a point of selecting their best cuts of wood for the D55?
For Guild specifically, there's a common perception that the "blinged down" models of higher-end guitars are simply that: Equal except for the "bling", but in almost every case that's not quite true.
Differences in fretboard/bridge woods and neck construction are 2 of the most common subtle differences. Bracing and bridgeplate woods would count, too, and there's very little documentation about that stuff anywhere, even in Hans' book.
Owner reports here seem to indicate that Guild would change these (bridgeplates, at least) at whim.
Another thing is that between D55 and D50 it depends a lot on which period they're from.
The original D55's were actually "D50 Specials" ordered by Tommy Smothers even when they first came out: D50's with F50 necks. HE wanted that bling!
It became its own special order model in '68 and finally became a regular production model in '74.
What we don't know is if they started paying more attention to D55s when they were special-order instruments (seems likely) and whether subtle tweaks like bracing difference were incorporated into it.
I can't remember exactly when but I'm pretty sure I recall that at some point (early '90's), D55's graduated from shaved to scalloped bracing.
We've also seen over time that D55's were developed to have a more balanced voice than D50's, better suited for vocal accompaniment (maybe because of Smothers?), whereas the D50 was "voiced" to be the cannon between the 2, true to its original "Bluegrass Special" name.
Last but not least, Guild actually spent time developing a model that was supposed to sound like a vintage guitar right out of the box, and it was a "blinged-down" guitar, at least a mid-range model, by their standards:
The DV-52, which traced it roots to the D50.
According to the '97 catalog, the DV formula include sanded backs and sides (for lightness/resonance) scalloped braces (on the '52, they were shaved on the hog-bodied DV-6) , yet they only got Chesterfields, plain fretboards, and Hand-Rubbed ("satin") finishes and when introduced.
And while it's tempting to assume they did sort for the best-sounding tops for these guitars (and D55's and F50's), and/or perhaps even tap-tuned 'em, I can't ever remember a reference to Guild actually doing this during regular Westerly production.
And you'd think if they did they would have proudly mentioned that in their summary of the DV build techniques.
Maybe they didn't need to, because it's also been frequently mentioned here that their topwoods always seemed to be a cut above the big makers' stuff anyway, largely due to the special skills and efforts of their wood selector, Willie Fritscher:
http://www.westerlyguildguitars.com/articles/woodselection.pdf
Just take a look at the tops of 99.9% of the Westerly era flattops pictured here and on eBAy and Reverb and you start to see not only are the gorgeous but usually perfectly bookmatched and with such nice grain they're occasionally assumed to be Adi. (Never used in Westerly as far as we know)
Anyway, toss the DV-52 grenade at 'em (and Tommy Smothers special ordering the extra bling on what was already their top-of-the-line dread) over at that other place and see who runs for cover.
:glee:
 
Last edited:

Kitarkus

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
Messages
676
Reaction score
15
have to be perfectly honest, the brand new ones sound exactly the same, to my ears at least.

That's great to hear. I guess I'll have to wait til my next trip to Chicago or St. Louis to check one out. I can't find them here in KC. That said...the 1 3/4" nut is a deal breaker for me on those. I had (perhaps falsely) assumed that these could not possibly sound as good as the Hoboken or old Westerlies.

My wife wants me to pipe down about my M-20....first the neck saga....now the ooooohhh's and ahhhhhh's. I'm in love with the thing.
 
Last edited:

Br1ck

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2014
Messages
1,672
Reaction score
1,414
Location
San Jose, Ca
The D 50 vs D 55 comparisons in this case aren't that valid. You are looking at the two top models in the dread line. Now take my D 35 vs a D 55 and it is a different story. Back in 70 when it was made, anything that wasn't close grained and perfect was a flawed piece of wood. My D 35 has grain variance and a good deal of bearclaw. I have no doubt the top wood was thrown into the build a cheapie pile, while a nice tight straight grained piece went to the D 55 pile.

Now you will get a bunch of opinions that it doesn't make a bit of difference sound wise, and that great looking wood can be so so and visa versa, but in 1970 they could not have sold a D 55 with the top wood on my D 35, just like today they wouldn't put a top with a great deal of varience in grain on a Martin D 45, at least I've never seen one.

It makes perfect sense to me that the higher model, visuals being equal, would get the wood with the most sonic potential.
 
Last edited:

ClydeTower

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
585
Reaction score
7
Location
Montreal
Sounds like typical price resentment to me based purely on cost without considering the whole picture.
I agree with Kitarkus and Brad Little.
I think the real issue is that they put the bling on the highest-end guitars so that folks will be able to recognize 'em as high-end models at a glance.
It's been said here before as well that nobody does "bling" like Guild.
As for topwoods, it IS true that their top-level guitars got the AAA spruce, (but I've only seen that specifically mentioned on the '01 price list, don't know when they actually started stating it).. And usually ebony boards and bridges. And 3-pc necks (resist twisting).
And we've talked before about whether a D55 might get a little bit better attention while being made, and I'm sure that during certain periods, the best-sounding tops, at least, were probably reserved for 'em.
And F50's.


For Guild specifically, there's a common perception that the "blinged down" models of higher-end guitars are simply that: Equal except for the "bling", but in almost every case that's not quite true.
Differences in fretboard/bridge woods and neck construction are 2 of the most common subtle differences. Bracing and bridgeplate woods would count, too, and there's very little documentation about that stuff anywhere, even in Hans' book.
Owner reports here seem to indicate that Guild would change these (bridgeplates, at least) at whim.
Another thing is that between D55 and D50 it depends a lot on which period they're from.
The original D55's were actually "D50 Specials" ordered by Tommy Smothers even when they first came out: D50's with F50 necks. HE wanted that bling!
It became its own special order model in '68 and finally became a regular production model in '74.
What we don't know is if they started paying more attention to D55s when they were special-order instruments (seems likely) and whether subtle tweaks like bracing difference were incorporated into it.
I can't remember exactly when but I'm pretty sure I recall that at some point (early '90's), D55's graduated from shaved to scalloped bracing.
We've also seen over time that D55's were developed to have a more balanced voice than D50's, better suited for vocal accompaniment (maybe because of Smothers?), whereas the D50 was "voiced" to be the cannon between the 2, true to its original "Bluegrass Special" name.
Last but not least, Guild actually spent time developing a model that was supposed to sound like a vintage guitar right out of the box, and it was a "blinged-down" guitar, at least a mid-range model, by their standards:
The DV-52, which traced it roots to the D50.
According to the '97 catalog, the DV formula include sanded backs and sides (for lightness/resonance) scalloped braces (on the '52, they were shaved on the hog-bodied DV-6) , yet they only got Chesterfields, plain fretboards, and Hand-Rubbed ("satin") finishes and when introduced.
And while it's tempting to assume they did sort for the best-sounding tops for these guitars (and D55's and F50's), and/or perhaps even tap-tuned 'em, I can't ever remember a reference to Guild actually doing this during regular Westerly production.
And you'd think if they did they would have proudly mentioned that in their summary of the DV build techniques.
Maybe they didn't need to, because it's also been frequently mentioned here that their topwoods always seemed to be a cut above the big makers' stuff anyway, largely due to the special skills and efforts of their wood selector, Willie Fritscher:
http://www.westerlyguildguitars.com/articles/woodselection.pdf
Just take a look at the tops of 99.9% of the Westerly era flattops pictured here and on eBAy and Reverb and you start to see not only are the gorgeous but usually perfectly bookmatched and with such nice grain they're occasionally assumed to be Adi. (Never used in Westerly as far as we know)
Anyway, toss the DV-52 grenade at 'em (and Tommy Smothers special ordering the extra bling on what was already their top-of-the-line dread) over at that other place and see who runs for cover.
:glee:

Adorshki, I haven't been here long, but you are obviously the resident Guild Guru here at LTG. How do you know all this stuff?... I am but a mere peasant :)
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,791
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
The D 50 vs D 55 comparisons in this case aren't that valid. You are looking at the two top models in the dread line. Now take my D 35 vs a D 55 and it is a different story. Back in 70 when it was made, anything that wasn't close grained and perfect was a flawed piece of wood. My D 35 has grain variance and a good deal of bearclaw. I have no doubt the top wood was thrown into the build a cheapie pile, while a nice tight straight grained piece went to the D 55 pile.
Well basically yes because as Mario1956 pointed out grading is largely aesthetic and there aren't even any real "Standards".
It's been asserted here in past that what Willie Fritscher might call AA other makers would probably call AAA or even" Master-grade".
Now you will get a bunch of opinions that it doesn't make a bit of difference sound wise, and that great looking wood can be so so and visa versa, but in 1970 they could not have sold a D 55 with the top wood on my D 35, just like today they wouldn't put a top with a great deal of varience in grain on a Martin D 45, at least I've never seen one.
There is supposed to be some correlation between grain closeness/straightness and tone but as already mentioned several times it ain't no guaranteed thing.
And talk about pulling a full 180, whereas bearclaw was seen as "flawed" in the '70's, now it's suspected of having potentially superior sound due to being denser.
I suspect ol' Willie tapped that block before he decided to take it and said, "Yep, it'll do, And I can get a deal on it besides"

It makes perfect sense to me that the higher model, visuals being equal, would get the wood with the most sonic potential.
And with Willie selecting the wood they probably didn't have to do that much sorting.
:friendly_wink:
 
Top