Is this Madagascan Rosewood quartersawn?

[Ovation1]

Looks like a 4 piece back.

[Wade Hampton]

I think both the top and back are gorgeous, and both are well-quartered. What some in this thread have described as "runout" in the top looks more like medullary ray silking to me, and that's very desirable.

In terms of the woods used, there is absolutely no reason to look down on this guitar. It has the appearance of an exceptionally fine guitar, in my opinion.


Wade Hampton Miller

[Wade Hampton]

PS: If the appearance of the wood bothers you, if you buy this guitar you can always cover up the offending wood grain with some trusty RUST-OLEUM® brand satin black paint:

Trusty Old RUST-OLEUM® Brand Paint

This offers the additional advantage of letting you be lazy on those evenings when you'd rather leave the guitar outdoors on rainy nights.....

Just a thought


Wade Hampton "RUST-OLEUM® Always Adds Elegance!" Miller

[StevenL]

The top and back both look beautiful to me.

[stringjunky]

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

PS: If the appearance of the wood bothers you, if you buy this guitar you can always cover up the offending wood grain with some trusty RUST-OLEUM® brand satin black paint:

Trusty Old RUST-OLEUM® Brand Paint

This offers the additional advantage of letting you be lazy on those evenings when you'd rather leave the guitar outdoors on rainy nights.....

Just a thought


Wade Hampton "RUST-OLEUM® Always Adds Elegance!" Miller

Could you live with the lack of an intonated saddle? Mine's not intonated.

[Montesdad]

Originally Posted by Ovation1

Looks like a 4 piece back.

I was thinking the same with my earlier comment - hard to tell tho.

There's a couple of lines at the edge of that darker band that would need closer inspection or a very high res photo.
Nothing really wrong with a 4 piece tho if it is as Bourgeois, Goodall and such have used them.

So, to answer your question, the best way to tell would be to contact the luthier and ask -

[Ernesto]

A well known luthier told me with regard to Madagascar that, in order for the black lines and spider webbing that the market prefers to come out, the wood needs to be cut off quarter, that is, cannot be quartersawn. Even so, this one has at least straight running grain, and it sure looks beautiful. My guess is, as has already been said, that Froggy Bottom uses 4 piece backs in order to achieve this (not a bad thing, but a 2 piece back is usually preferable). And in my opinion they charge too much for their AAAAA and AAAA sets. I played an AAAA Madi at Rudy's a few weeks ago, and the upcharge was 5000,00. That's really a lot, especially if it's a 4 piece back. The guitar sounded great, but so did the EIR model that costed 5000,00 less and had a quartersawn 2 piece back.

[strobeone]

You can look up the exact description of each type of sawn wood, but basically, here's the scoop. Quarter sawn appears more of a straight line pattern....kind of up and down. Plain sawn wood appears more like consecutive pyramids stacked upon each other. Most of the 2/4's at your hardware are plain sawn. Quarter sawn resists cupping or warping and therefore is used in guitar backs, etc. The actual lines do vary according to different species of wood, but the above is the most common explanation. The pic you have is definitely quarter sawn....and gorgeous!!!

[FormerFoodie]

I have a Froggy Bottom P12 with an asymmetrical streak on the adirondack top. I am sure many purists would gasp in disapproval over its cosmetic qualities. There's nothing wrong with holding out for cosmetically 'perfect' tops. But what I can tell you about this guitar is that the tone is ABSOLUTELY SPECTACULAR. I judged it by its sound and I am glad I did as it really changed my expectations of what I should expect from a boutique guitar.

Bottom line is that if Michael Millard selected that top for one of his guitars, he deemed it to be worthy. At the end of the day, I would say judge it based on how it sounds to your ears and how it feels in your hands. If those cosmetic nuances are important to you, that's cool too, to each their own.

All we ask is that you post a NGD thread if you end up buying it!

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by strobeone

You can look up the exact description of each type of sawn wood, but basically, here's the scoop. Quarter sawn appears more of a straight line pattern....kind of up and down. Plain sawn wood appears more like consecutive pyramids stacked upon each other. Most of the 2/4's at your hardware are plain sawn. Quarter sawn resists cupping or warping and therefore is used in guitar backs, etc. The actual lines do vary according to different species of wood, but the above is the most common explanation. The pic you have is definitely quarter sawn....and gorgeous!!!

You left out “rift” sawn, neither flat dawn nor quarte sawn. Rift can also be straight grained and it is often difficult to distinguish between rift and quart sawn without seeing the end grain. The exception is in woods with an identifiable “silk”, which is visible only in perfectly quartersawn wood.

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by ChuckS

That top looks great, as does the rosewood. The Adirondack looks to have some striping, alternating bands such as mahogany often has. There are builders that feel that is a good sign of the top’s potential.

Thankfully we don't have to agree -- and I certainly don't intend to debate preferences.

At this point in my "guitar buying career" all of the guitars that I buy are "lifetime guitars" so I need to be fully satisfied with them -- sound, looks, playability, builder reputation, long term value, everything.

I actually don't like those "alternating bands" on mahogany either -- and even less so when those bands are oblique. I mean no disrespect but I can't change the way I perceive things.

FWIW FB offer several grades of tonewoods for back and sides (presumably based on looks and rarity). I've yet to figure out why discussing the looks of the top (which is most important IMHO) remains so taboo.

For full disclosure, I would absolutely love a K Deluxe and came close to ordering one on several occasions. Just not one with a top like this one.

My perception of a lifetime guitar (and at $12,500 one could certainly expect a lifetime guitar) aligns with Andy Powers' -- true mastergrade woods all around with no runout or other visual flaws.

[Zigeuner]

No doubt about the back being quartersawn. Rift or plain sawn would be much different. Also, the builder says it's quartersawn so I would agree with him.

The top is good enough for me. Wood has natural variations, people need to get used to that.

Altogether that's a lovely guitar and well built!

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

FWIW FB offer several grades of tonewoods for back and sides (presumably based on looks and rarity). I've yet to figure out why discussing the looks of the top (which is most important IMHO) remains so taboo.

It doesn't bother me at all. When it's is your money, you need to be satisfied. Simple!

That said, my perspective on tops is different. I don't mind the look of that FB top at all. It has what is called interlocking grain, and I've often seen that in red spruce tops on GREAT sounding guitars. Of course it does not guarantee great sound any more than any other single feature. So in that respect I have no problem with MM choosing it for a $12k plus guitar. When the guitar is built to spec and put up for sale, anyone can buy it, or not. When it is a custom build, it's the responsibility of both builder and buyer to communicate what is acceptable and available.

[Mycroft]

One of the best sounding guitars that I've ever played was a Froggy H-14 with Madagascar back and sides and the ugliest Adirondack top that you have ever seen. Wandering grain lines, almost a knot in the upper bout. Proof that Michael Millard builds for tone above all else. If I had not just bought a guitar the week before. I should put it on the card and started selling guitars.

It haunts me still.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

Thankfully we don't have to agree -- and I certainly don't intend to debate preferences.

At this point in my "guitar buying career" all of the guitars that I buy are "lifetime guitars" so I need to be fully satisfied with them -- sound, looks, playability, builder reputation, long term value, everything.

I actually don't like those "alternating bands" on mahogany either -- and even less so when those bands are oblique. I mean no disrespect but I can't change the way I perceive things.

FWIW FB offer several grades of tonewoods for back and sides (presumably based on looks and rarity). I've yet to figure out why discussing the looks of the top (which is most important IMHO) remains so taboo.

For full disclosure, I would absolutely love a K Deluxe and came close to ordering one on several occasions. Just not one with a top like this one.

My perception of a lifetime guitar (and at $12,500 one could certainly expect a lifetime guitar) aligns with Andy Powers' -- true mastergrade woods all around with no runout or other visual flaws.

Not everyone buys first and foremost with their eyes, Joe. Your mileage may vary.