Less common woods

[bob123]

I recently built a quasi pensa super strat ish build, and I decided to use a quarter sawn piece of cherry for the neck. The piece was very resonant, had a wonderful tap tone, and felt very good once finish sanded. Cherry isn't more expensive then maple around here, which leads me to wonder why its not used more? It's regarded as a very high stability wood, which would seem to lean itself to the luthier world more then it has. Yes, yes I know a few guitars are made from cherry, but no where near where maple is concerned.

Another curiousity, why is walnut not used for necks much either? Seems to be a strong, dimensionally stable wood with favorable properties, and it frankly just looks gorgeous. And yes, again, I know people DO use it, just wondering why its not more common is all.

Those are the two that really spring to mind. I just really can't think of a great reason, other then tone voodoo. Neither are a pain to finish, especially the cherry. The cherry was an absolute joy to finish. Smooth finish like maple, but doesn't have the tendency to get "dirty" like maple does. Not overly hard but feels great in the hand.

Google isn't shining much light on it, so Im hoping you old tim... I mean you more experienced gentlemen could provide insight to this.

[killemall8]

cherry is a good guitar wood. It is pretty much identical to soft maple, aside from color. Machines the same and is about the same hardness and stiffness.

It is not used probably because of its color... at least on necks. It is usually a very pinkish wood.

People always ask these questions as there is a real, definitive answer, when there really isnt. Its just one of those things. It just isnt used. No real reason.

[bob123]

cherry is a good guitar wood. It is pretty much identical to soft maple, aside from color. Machines the same and is about the same hardness and stiffness.

It is not used probably because of its color... at least on necks. It is usually a very pinkish wood.

People always ask these questions as there is a real, definitive answer, when there really isnt. Its just one of those things. It just isnt used. No real reason.

Thats really what I was assuming.

Shame really, has such a great feel. I really enjoyed making this one. Color doesn't seem distasteful either, but to each their own I guess.

[lunchie]

I am still very much a greenhorn but I am always going to the local mill to see what they got laying around. I havent bought anything for a while, but Id rather go often and leave empty handed then miss out on the perfect wood that inspires build #2 which will be coming shortly. If I get a good couple solid days of work on my Tulipcaster I could start making sawdust on #2.

Two things that have me thinking as of lately. First is a Thinline S-style made out of Cedar. I love my cedar classical guitars and a cedar electrics is not something you see very often. Plus it will smell fantastic while building . Probably wont be build #2 because I dont think I will have a drill press that soon.

The second is Sassafras. They always have beautiful Sassafras laying around. However, the one downside is that its typically 4-5" wide and would end up being a 6 piece body if you consider front and back. I know thats not a big deal but it typically has really vibrant grain and I really havent found the right board(s) yet to make the grains look right. I messed up with my current (first) build by not getting wood that matched up right.

There was an older guy there a while back, I think it was when I was picking out the wood for the Catalpa Tele body build my father did for me. I was there for probably an hour digging through all the wonderful wood piles. He asked me "Are you buying wood or are you buying grain." Didn't hesitate for a second and said "grain" .

As for tone voodoo, yes people get crazy ideas in their noggins about EVERYTHING. Really love those 20 page threads on how fret marker material effects tone. IMO there is always an easy fix, an EQ .

[ScottR]

I would expect that the woods used most often are used most often because the big commercial companies use them. And that happened because they made their choices based on sound, cost, machinability and availability.....not necessarily in that order. Then they nailed down sources to ensure they always had the raw materials coming. So the guitars that set the standards......well, set the standard. If it's what Gibson used for 50+ years it must be good- is the thought process for many choosing to build. Plus if you are building to sell, it's an easier sell if the wood you use is already percieved to be good. You don't have to convince a potential customer that the wood you used sounds just as good as mahogany and maple.

Of course there are plenty of other choices that sound good and look great too, and as you said they do get used. But the standard stuff gets used the most because the big names have already created the perception that using mahogany and maple and ash and alder is the way its done if you want it done right.

Check out Orgmorg's stuff to see a bunch of domestic woods done right.

SR

[Prostheta]

I find Cherry to be somewhat fragile and prone to chipping/cracking but good pieces have properties similar to Maples. The trees don't grow to anywhere near the same proportions as Maple so I wouldn't expect much in the way of choice when it comes to straight grain or growth ring orientation.

You're right ScottR about tradition forcing the minds of many people into repeating what is seen as "right". There is a high degree of reasoning behind why Maples, Mahoganys, etc. found their way into luthiery though; one important one being tree size, distribution and timber yield. Growing to stonking proportions yields wood with more opportunity for vertical grain orientation across wider board that runs straight and true for signficant lengths, plus used to be in limitless supply. So there's bob123's "great reason other than just tone voodoo" anyway.

Not so sure about the Walnut thing. I've seen a lot of variability in grain runout and general twisty nonsense. Probably indicates lower yields of good timber for structure-critical work like necks despite the cosmetic benefits. That might affect it. Kind of like saying that panthers looks awesome but I wouldn't trust one to drive my car. Or maybe not.

[ScottR]

There is a high degree of reasoning behind why Maples, Mahoganys, etc. found their way into luthiery though; one important one being tree size, distribution and timber yield. Growing to stonking proportions yields wood with more opportunity for vertical grain orientation across wider board that runs straight and true for signficant lengths, plus used to be in limitless supply.

Exactly. The supply chain of raw materials has to be consistant and reliable if you plan to remain in the manufacturing business. And make no mistake it is definitely business. By now everyone knows that many of the dimensions of Fenders were from Leo designing to make the best use of readily available timber sizes. Efficiency and availability played a huge part in the shape of some of the most recognizable guitars in the world.

SR

[Workingman]

I have a decent amount of walnut growing at our place in Vermont. It branches lower than most maple. The branches are less straight but much bigger. A lot of the walnut harvested in my area comes from farmyard trees which while large tend to grow much less straight than forest trees. This may account for the difficulty finding straight grain on Walnut. Also most people using walnut love the swirly grain so there is no incentive for the mill to cut it with the maximum straight grain.

I have been thinking about birch as a neck wood.

[ScottR]

My dad's got about 6 black walnuts in his front yard that have 20 to 30 inch diameter trunks and nearly 20' of straight boles before the major branches start. I think that is pretty typical in the midwest.

I'm pretty sure I remember some builds with birch necks......

SR

[Prostheta]

I have been thinking about birch as a neck wood.

Birch is good however doesn't grow as large or straight as Maple. I recommend laminating it in order to achieve the best control over growth ring orientation.

[westhemann]

I'll just say one thing on this oft discussed topic which has been beaten to death over the years...

Guitar building is woodworking.No more,no less.Identifying suitable woods for your purposes and knowing how to make "less ideal" woods work for you is the most important part of woodworking IMO.Nobody can give you the "easy answer" and nobody can hold your hand over the internet until you learn to cross the road by yourself.

Until you learn through EXPERIENCE gained by DOING,you would do well to stick with the easy woods...the ones with which many world famous musicians use to record their art.

If you want to experiment and blaze a trail for yourself instead of following the main highways already cleared for you,then why would you ever expect to find all of the answers on the internet?

"I want to do use woods that other people don't use because I don't care what everyone else uses....so what do you guys use?" seems a little bit strange to me.

Edited November 12, 2013 by westhemann

[westhemann]

And by the way,Mahogany and Maple are two of the easiest to find and some of the most modestly priced woods in existence and have been used over and over and over to create great guitars.

So that is the obvious answer to the original question.

[bob123]

Well wes, I've built a cherry neck, worked great. I've built a few walnut necks, worked great. I've built an oak and maple neck, worked great. I've built an ash and jatoba neck, worked great. Ive also built the prototypical maple necks, which of course work great.

All of these are uncommon for neck woods. In my experience using them, I can't understand why. Some builders will not use Walnut for a neck, and I can't get a straight answer. So in my experience, asking those with MORE experience usually solicits suitable information so I can add their experience to my repetoire. Since I've done researching online, its not this "beaten to death topic" that you claim it to be. I've never seen it on this site, although it may be holed up in the trenches somewhere. In fact, "cherry guitar neck" provides almost nothing on google. I apologize for being so heinous as to ask another seemingly innocuous question that assaults your honor wes.

Ash, walnut, cherry, whatever, are NOT expensive hardwoods. Mahogany is NOT more plentiful in CONUS then those listed, and are not "easier and modestly priced to find" in the midwest. I would pay 30-50$ a board foot for a nice mahogany blank up here.

"I want to do use woods that other people don't use because I don't care what everyone else uses....so what do you guys use?" seems a little bit strange to me.

I also don't recall mentioning that anywhere. Thanks for putting words in my mouth... again...

Edited November 12, 2013 by bob123

[Prostheta]

If you're not understanding, then you're not reading. Works great. Wes is probably referring to the inconsistency in what you say, especially when you talk from an assumed standpoint of knowledge and then prove your ignorance in the same stroke. I can't put words in his mouth though but I have a good idea.

Your research online must be cursory at best since there is more or less all the knowledge and experience out there that is needed, and plenty of people have asked this in both guitar, other instrument and fine woodworking fora. If you'd have done this you might have answers to your own questions a little better than "oh it must be just tone voodoo", or at least better questions. Wes is right. This subject HAS been done to death however unless you actually search around for this subject you just repeat it.

http://bit.ly/1cRZa1o

Whilst you might have had what an amateur would call "worked great" results, a professional luthier or a manufacturer would have an entirely different view. It just depends on what you call "worked great". Your random Home Depot woodpile might "work great" but a luthier whose output depends on control over material quality and an understanding predicting exactly how that material works in service wouldn't touch or advocate it or certain materials. This is not a huge leap of understanding.

This insight you are asking for is somewhat unformed. With the best will in the world people are very forthcoming with information, however you need to understand where the line is drawn between genuine productive inquiry/discussion and spoonfeeding.

[bob123]

Here we go again... You guys take a simple question and turn it into a battle field, using your wanton accusations and assumptions to put words in my mouth, and twist what I have stated to your own malignance.

Lets get this straight

1) you and wes are HOBBYISTS. You two are NOT professional builders. Why are you two the ones always defining the lines? You do great work, sure, but you are still just hobbyists.

2) You and wes are the only ones that get pissy whenever I ask a question. EDIT: since one of you will say it, I don't care if everyone on the internet agrees with you two. They at least have the common decency and maturity to keep their opinions to themselves.

3) You and wes are the only ones that make these wild assumptions. "You asked about a pot, so you must not know how to solder". "you asked about wood, so you must know nothing about wood". "you want to use a non common wood, so you must be trail blazing". "you have never built a guitar before, so your wood must be home depot lumber"

4) you and wes are the only ones that cause problems when I ask a simple question. Don't like my question? Heres an idea, don't answer it/ignore it. Public beratement is a POOR and immature route to go.

5) How much experience is required to "have experience"? 1 build? 5 builds? 10 builds? Rhetorical question, but Im sure you and wes have a smart-aleck answer.

6) While this may have been a "beaten to death topic" ten years ago, there is NOTHING on this forum that discusses this topic. NOTHING. I apologize if Im asking a question that was asked a decade ago. My 'cursory at best' research? Why don't you show me topics discussing this then if you're so much better at it.

Sick of this crap every time I ask a simple question. Why is it that Scott, KEA, and working man were able to answer the question asked, but you two have to drag it out to the fields to whip it out? Ridiculous... LOL.

yet again.

I really can't understand why all the fuzz.Bob is simply stating a different way of making a guitar neck.I don't know the guy but he makes a fair point.I don't get why Prostheta and Wes are getting so 'jumpy' and disrespecting.People should challenge tradition in order to evolve their craft (as Fender,Les Paul, Steinberger ,Floyd Rose tand many more did in their time even if at times it came back to bit some of them).Also as i recall there is someone here who makes one piece builds, to my knowledge a big no no for 'traditional' luthiers.With respect to everyone from a zero experienced builder to be.

P.S you do know that wheel is not the best way of transport.I believe there are some trains gliding on magnetic fields that are way faster from the traditional wheel trains

Edited November 12, 2013 by bob123

[Prostheta]

After vitriolic and inane posts there was little doubt that bob123 was but a troll under the bridge. His witless remarks and the ugliness of his discourse has sealed his fate.

[westhemann]

Have to correct an erroneous assertion made by Bob...Trying to correct all of these false assertions can be almost impossible,which is why we always suggest research so that you can make your own informed decisions.

Plain straight grained Mahoganies of the "suitable for necks" variety average about $8-$9 BF...all over the United States..if someone tries to charge $30-$50 BF then you need to shop elsewhere unless it is a very unusual and ornamental piece.

Sometimes to get good prices on wood you need to buy it at 12% moisture content or even higher and store it properly for a couple of years.Your average woodworker will have a revolving stash of lumber.

If you try to find cherry at 8% moisture already cut and prepped for guitar blanks you will pay more than the same mahogany most likely.Comparing the price of 12% cherry lumber to 8% mahogany prepped blanks is not a proper comparison.

Obviously,they have charts on most hardwoods that list neat little things like hardness,stability,workability,and how well it takes glue.These charts will tell you everything you need to know about woods you are unfamiliar with if you compare the stability and hardness to woods you know are proper for certain uses

Sites like these can be quite handy,especially the last link

http://www.highlandhardwoods.com/chart.html

http://cfchardwoodfloors.com/wood-floor-stability-by-species/

http://www.hardwoodinfo.com/articles/view/pro/24/267

Edited November 15, 2013 by westhemann

[acpken]

Plain straight grained Mahoganies of the "suitable for necks" variety average about $8-$9 BF...all over the United States..if someone tries to charge $30-$50 BF then you need to shop elsewhere unless it is a very unusual and ornamental piece.

Sometimes to get good prices on wood you need to buy it at 12% moisture content or even higher and store it properly for a couple of years.Your average woodworker will have a revolving stash of lumber.

If you try to find cherry at 8% moisture already cut and prepped for guitar blanks you will pay more than the same mahogany most likely.Comparing the price of 12% cherry lumber to 8% mahogany prepped blanks is not a proper comparison.

Obviously,they have charts on most hardwoods that list neat little things like hardness,stability,workability,and how well it takes glue.These charts will tell you everything you need to know about woods you are unfamiliar with if you compare the stability and hardness to woods you know are proper for certain uses

Sites like these can be quite handy,especially the last link

http://www.highlandh....com/chart.html

http://cfchardwoodfl...ity-by-species/

http://www.hardwoodi...view/pro/24/267

Thank you for the great advice. I was just about to ask the forum where to find some nice mahogany too.

Well wes, I've built a cherry neck, worked great. I've built a few walnut necks, worked great. I've built an oak and maple neck, worked great. I've built an ash and jatoba neck, worked great. Ive also built the prototypical maple necks, which of course work great. All of these are uncommon for neck woods. In my experience using them, I can't understand why.

I was wondering 'why' this is myself, especially after looking through piles of some very interesting 'nonguitar' woods in millyards all summer. I guess part of this is difficulty in finding mass quantities of good quality wood, and part simple tradition... 'Leo or Ted didn't use that wood, so I won't either'. Frankly, for some buyers traditionalism sells.

ken

Edited November 15, 2013 by ken5881

[Prostheta]

It genuinely depends on your perspective. A larger scale builder buys say, neck woods in large unsorted quantities so needs to guarantee a productive percentage yield from the pallet. If on the other hand the wood is bought to spec, each board is generally inspected prior to sale.

It isn't difficult to search through the local lumber merchant's stock and find examples of non-Maple/non-Mahogany woods that possess the same characteristics as those that would make a good instrument, but for many species the pallet yield would be far lower. Whilst a boutique, small-scale or weekend luthier is able to buy woods that are not high-yield, the simple logic is that a lot of people will go with what is known to be predictable and good; Maples and Mahoganies. The additional benefits of this is that they can be relatively cheap because of the quantities they are available in and sell at.

Yeah, I do think that a lot of people have that "tradition" thought in the back of their mind which is both a pressure and an easy escape route. There's nothing wrong with that because at the very least the end product will be quite predictable from how well-proven the use of "common" woods is. That's not to say that a well-chosen (grain straightness, growth ring orientation, knot-free, pitchless, moisture content) piece of a non-common wood will not work as well. There is just a bit more of a thought process that has to go on to ensure the correct choices.

The wood species specs that Wes referred to can be useful in weeding out the less unstable and physically inappropriate woods as a starting point. Experience with specific woods can bolster that....Sapele is a really annoying wood that likes to move when worked for example.

So yes, you're right Ken. Tradition is an easy sell because it reduces the amount of work required in choice. Going off the beaten path with less common woods is not as much of an elementary-school simple choice as bob123 would have had you believe though.

[orgmorg]

Walnut is a wonderful wood for necks.
It is not as strong as maple, but stronger than mahogany, so that is not really an issue.

It is expensive compared to other american hardwoods, but not so much compared to exotics

The bulk of the good clear straight grained logs go to veneer manufacture, since that is where the money is for the logger, so it is not as easy to find suitable stock for necks in the lumber market, at least not for production.

It does give a notably less bright tone, which I find useful for when I am using hard, dense body woods like beech or oak.

[Micter]

I'm one to use somewhat non-traditional wood combinations. I have made necks from Peruvian Walnut, Koa, various Rosewoods, Black Walnut, etc. Some of my best necks have been Peruvian Walnut which has a very straight grain when compared to Black Walnut etc. Koa is by far my favorite. I wish I would have purchased a lot of it before the prices skyrocketed. Granted Koa is in the mahogany vein but it has some qualities that I haven't found in other close relatives. Even when it comes to bodies I use a variety of woods that aren't in the tradition of guitar building. Different is good!

[Prostheta]

Totally. The fundamental importance of knowing suitable from unsuitable is key. I got some "English" Walnut in way-back-when and found it was like flexible like rubber!