Careful or this thread will get shut down.Ah that takes me back to my early married days...
Yes, and the player.& the variable .. Who is doing the work?
+1The best wood for a top is the kind that your builder is most comfortable with. I've played excellent examples of each that I'd be proud to own.
Peter Coombe - mandolins, mandolas and guitars
http://www.petercoombe.com
2005 Rigel G5 #2196
2005 Phoenix Jazz #400
1988 Jeff Traugott Acoustic #4
2012 Eastman 905 Archtop Guitar, BLOND!
Remember to grin while you pick, it throws folks off!
Orcas Island Tonewoods
Free downloads of my mandolin CDs:
"Mandolin Graffiti"
"Mangler Of Bluegrass"
"Overhead At Darrington"
"Electric Mandolin Graffiti"
If it were the best choice then no others would be used.
A few years ago I had an opportunity to hear a Parsons F-5 built w/a red cedar top and walnut sides and back. From evey angle, including playing it I'd be hard pressed to recall ever having heard a 'sweeter' sounding mandolin. It was loud enough and had very understated trim and a sweet, clear tone. Every note was like a caress to the ears. Chords rang out in a shimmer. Like a female who studied ballet as a child/youth. It's impossible for them to not move gracefully. This mandolin had the sound equivilent. Punch, clarity and grace.
I've heard and owned some high quality guitars and mandos over the years, but never heard anything that took my breath like the Parsons.
I would like to see a more variation in the back/sides/neck wood being used. Most builders offer various top woods but how about the backs? A good example of Walnut is just as good if not better than Maple IMO. It's also pretty common... My favorite combination so far that I've tried was Walnut/Sitka. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQMs8...4&feature=plcp http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTB8ponXZcI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5zW8gIS8KE. Here we have a Kimble with Red, then Sitka. A Griffin with Sitka/Walnut and a Parsons with Spruce/ Walnut.
Just take a look at my web site.I would like to see a more variation in the back/sides/neck wood being used.
Peter Coombe - mandolins, mandolas and guitars
http://www.petercoombe.com
You are a diamond in the rough, Peter, and I really like the sound you get from them. I really like that Tasmanian Blackwood and Grevelia Robusta as well. I played a Larrivee D03 with the latter. It sounded and responded a lot like maple with a lot of edge and power but less brightness.
Unfortunately I am allergic to Grevelia robusta dust (otherwise known as silky oak) so have never used it in a mandolin. Beautiful wood, and I did buy some with the intention of using it on a mandolin, but nearly choked when I started to cut it, so stopped and eventually sold it. My current favourite back and side wood is Eucalyptus regnens. Most people associate Eucalyptus with weedy firewood species, not musical instruments, but every single mandolin I have made with this stuff sounds amazing. Beats the best Maple IMHO. It is more difficult to work with, has large pores, and tends to split more easily than Maple, but the sound is something else. Another good one is Tasmanian Myrtle, and that has quite a good following amongst some of the guitar builders. Blackwood is very similar to Koa, and that is a well respected tonewood.
Peter Coombe - mandolins, mandolas and guitars
http://www.petercoombe.com
Orcas Island Tonewoods
Free downloads of my mandolin CDs:
"Mandolin Graffiti"
"Mangler Of Bluegrass"
"Overhead At Darrington"
"Electric Mandolin Graffiti"
Yes, but did you use the same hammer?
so the term Rubinesque , applies to tone-wood, as well as body shape in Women?4. Red Spruce (Picea rubens)
writing about music
is like dancing,
about architecture
Last time I was in contact with Steve Gilchrist (The man) he said he was using red spruce for his tops so having him use it does say quite a lot. Don't need to say much more.
Jimmy
UK
Why would the opinion of someone who gets lots of money for his/her instruments have any more value than the opinions of builders who's prices are more moderate?
I'm actually not asking you that question personally, Jimmy, it's just something I've thought of more than once, especially when wood vendors on the phone try to sell me the wood they have rather than the wood I want, saying something like "Steve Gilchrist loves this stuff! He bought all I had last time..."
My brain automatically says; "So? Steve Gilchrist can use what he wants, do you have what I want?" but of coarse I'm more polite than that when I continue to ask if they have the wood I'm in search of.
John Hamlett
www.hamlettinstruments.com
[QUOTE=jimmy powells;1095463]Last time I was in contact with Steve Gilchrist (The man) he said he was using red spruce for his tops so having him use it does say quite a lot. Don't need to say much more
Thanks for the comment, Jimmy. But lets face it, Gilchrist mandolins sound so much different from the Gibson Master Models Loar and recent), that the choice of wood should mean next to nothing. (Just like the catch phrase "hand made"; oh man, you can really screw up with hands.)
I try to find out, who makes the mandolin I want to hear and play, and then I decide what to buy. Another thought, whenever builders copy a detail of a much praised instrument, they can't be sure, whether they captured the idea behind it. I'm sure Martin started using Sitka mostly because it was available in high quantities, and maybe because it was cheap. But then again, to my taste, the best mandolins I ever played had Red Spruce tops - except maybe for Darryl Wolfe's Loar. Best thing is a builder with lots of experience on one species, or moreover, one tree. However, the most talented and experienced builders could even work with most any spruce.
Regards,
Henry
If I try to analyze the statement regarding who uses what and how much he gets for the result, I come up with this:
1) many customers with much money (and therefore presumably able to gather dollars together, and therefore presumably intelligent and discerning, not to mention beautiful or married to the beautiful) buy this maker's wares
2) the materials must then not be intrinsically flawed, and are probably beautiful, as well
3) if you buy them, then your spouse will also
... a) be beautiful, or
... b) will hook up with someone who -is- beautiful, for a change, and abandon you as you deserve for even thinking along these lines.
Of course, not every one gets beyond 3a before shelling out his hard-earned cash. That's the power of modern marketing.
You live and you learn (if you're awake)
... but some folks get by just making stuff up.
Michael T.
2005 Rigel G5 #2196
2005 Phoenix Jazz #400
1988 Jeff Traugott Acoustic #4
2012 Eastman 905 Archtop Guitar, BLOND!
Remember to grin while you pick, it throws folks off!
No you don't need to say anything more because it doesn't mean anything. All it means is that Steve gets the sound he wants from red spruce using the techniques he uses. Lots of people like the sound he gets and are willing to pay lots of money for that sound and the Gilchrist logo on the headstock (including me in 2000, but mine has an Engelmann top!). If you or I use exactly the same woods Steve uses, we won't get the same sound! I would put just as much weight on the fact that Lawrence Smart mostly uses Engelmann, and there are plenty of other examples. I like the sounds that both Steve and Lawrence get from their instruments. Personally I prefer to use Red, European or Engelmann Spruce, or King Billy Pine, depending on what I am trying to achieve or what the customer desires. For example, for someone who has a very light touch and wants a delicate sweet sound for playing at home, I would probably not use Red Spruce. I have plenty of these sorts of customers, not everyone plays bluegrass with guitars fiddles and banjos. I play one of my red spruce mandolins in the band I play in, but it seldom gets played at home. I always tend to pick up something else that does not cut it in very noisy environments. There is no "best" species of wood, any more than there is any one "best" maker for everyone.Last time I was in contact with Steve Gilchrist (The man) he said he was using red spruce for his tops so having him use it does say quite a lot. Don't need to say much more.
Peter Coombe - mandolins, mandolas and guitars
http://www.petercoombe.com
Gibson F5 'Harvey' Fern, Gibson F5 'Derrington' Fern
Distressed Silverangel F 'Esmerelda' aka 'Maxx'
Northfield Big Mon #127
Ellis F5 Special #288
'39 & '45 D-18's, 1950 D-28.
[QUOTE=dcoventry;1095592]I'm not quite sure. But at some point in this forum (guess it was in the Loar picture of the day thread), if I'm not mistaken, he mentioned that the top wood of his July 9th '23 Loar had ultra-narrow grain, which doesn't look like Red Spruce. And I also remembered that (in '92) I Liked the sound a lot.
Henry
Ultra narrow grain doesn't mean a thing. Just take a look at my wood pile and I can show you some red spruce mando tops with grain so fine you can barely see the grain lines. So ultra fine grain in red spruce is not all that uncommon.
Peter Coombe - mandolins, mandolas and guitars
http://www.petercoombe.com
Bookmarks