View Single Post
  #39  
Old 08-14-2017, 12:12 PM
justonwo's Avatar
justonwo justonwo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 7,120
Default

My experience with back and side woods is that the woods differences are highly nuanced when compared to the difference between builders. I've played guitars by Mike Baranik that use all kinds of woods I've never heard of and are way out of the mainstream. Same with Laurent Brondel. In my experience, they always sound like Baraniks or Brondels and the back and sides are nuanced shades on the fundamental sound the builder produces.

That being said, unless I've sampled a large body of the builders work, the commissioning process is already risky to begin with. I would never commission a guitar from a builder for whom I haven't played at least a couple of samples, but that's another story. I like to use woods I know well, as I've had bad experiences with builders who insist that their "killer set of Bolivian wheatgrass wood" sounds exactly like Brazilian. I know what to expect from rosewood, mahogany, maple, and koa. I always think about the fact that I may not bond with the guitar and may have to sell the guitar down the road. Using an obscure tonewood guarantees this process will be harder and more costly.

About the only circumstance in which I'd be willing to use an alternative tonewood would be if I'd actually played an example of it and knew I was going to love it forever. The guitar would have to really blow my socks off for that to happen. Or I'd have to have extreme confidence in the builder with a lot of experience with their work. There are very few people that qualify for that in my little slice of the luthier world.

So if you have never played these woods or don't have a ton of experience with the builder - if it were me - I would shy away from anything out of the mainstream.
Reply With Quote