Misleading product specs?

[GlenGurian]

Maybe I'm just getting old but it seems to me that some guitar companies are getting a little creative with their specs...

I'm referring to product descriptions such as "solid sitka and rosewood back and sides," and "warm, rich overtones created by red cedar and East Indian Rosewood Back and Sides," as a means to sell laminate instruments.

I had a student of mine fall for this recently. He believed he was ordering an all wood instrument, in a price range one would associate with wood, only to find himself with a "boxy sounding" instrument that proved to have laminate back and sides.

An email to the company's product manager resulted in nothing more than a "'solid' means solid wood, anything else is laminate" reply.

Is this a thing now?

[TBman]

That's been going on for years.

[Shades of Blue]

There are good sounding laminate boxes out there. I don't think it's the laminates fault for being boxy, but rather the guitar itself.

[1neeto]

Yep if it doesn’t say solid back and sides then it’s laminated. Another word I see being used is “select”. Like “select spruce top with mahogany back and sides”. To me if it doesn’t say solid then it’s laminated.

[jaymarsch]

It definitely seems like you have to read carefully how they describe the woods and the construction. I’ve seen “all solid wood construction” and do notice that many descriptions include solid wood top but do not use the word “solid” when listing back and sides. When in doubt, I guess it is best to call or email for confirmation.

Best,
Jayne

[Steadfastly]

Unless it says solid wood, it is laminate. It is misleading, no doubt about it.

[Tony Done]

Originally Posted by Shades of Blue

There are good sounding laminate boxes out there. I don't think it's the laminates fault for being boxy, but rather the guitar itself.

I agree. I've consistently preferred the laminated series to the solid ones in new Taylors, for example. - Though they might rank differently as they age. My favourite flattop, an old Maton M300, is all-laminate, and not in the least boxy or dull.

[Truckjohn]

Yep.

They are trying to make things as confusing as possible..

I am surprised that their advertising literature can say "Rosewood" when the wood is not all rosewood... AKA - I suppose it could be a laminate - but all the layers would have to be rosewood... And they currently are not.. That seems like a prima facia FTC violation.

But then again - FTC violations require registering a complaint and then filing a lawsuit over deceptive ads.... Somebody has to do it... And this has been going on for a while.. So it must not be a high priority..

[Shades of Blue]

Originally Posted by Tony Done

I agree. I've consistently preferred the laminated series to the solid ones in new Taylors, for example. - Though they might rank differently as they age. My favourite flattop, an old Maton M300, is all-laminate, and not in the least boxy or dull.

I agree on the Taylors. I've owned as many 200 series boxes as I have USA Taylors and I think at this point I've enjoyed the laminates much more.

[devellis]

Originally Posted by Truckjohn

Yep.

They are trying to make things as confusing as possible..

I am surprised that their advertising literature can say "Rosewood" when the wood is not all rosewood... AKA - I suppose it could be a laminate - but all the layers would have to be rosewood... And they currently are not.. That seems like a prima facia FTC violation.

But then again - FTC violations require registering a complaint and then filing a lawsuit over deceptive ads.... Somebody has to do it... And this has been going on for a while.. So it must not be a high priority..

I think in this context "rosewood" essentially describes its appearance, not its construction. Not saying it should, but I think that's what it boils down to.

[Bruce Sexauer]

I don't think I ever use the word "solid", and I sure hope no one thinks I am using laminated top, back, or sides. Since solid is ground zero, IMO the word "laminated" should be required if that is the case, and otherwise the assumption should be normal wood. Sadly, this has somehow been turned around.

[ManyMartinMan]

The practice, decades old, is definitely confusing for the general guitar buyer. That is why it is so important to play a guitar prior to buying it. That way, even if it is laminate, the buyer knows that they like/approve it. Short of that, order from a vendor that has a substantial return/approval period.

[1neeto]

Originally Posted by Tony Done

I agree. I've consistently preferred the laminated series to the solid ones in new Taylors, for example. - Though they might rank differently as they age. My favourite flattop, an old Maton M300, is all-laminate, and not in the least boxy or dull.

Yep. Especially if the top is solid, the back and sides don’t contribute much to the overall tone. A fully laminated guitar will simply sound the same as it ages. If it sounds good, it will always sound good, if it doesn’t, it will never “open up”.

[Athens]

It's everyone. There was a thread here not long ago about Martin's use of the phrase "True Mahogany" vs "Mahogany" in other descriptions.

Can't trust anyone anymore. It's sad.

[amyFB]

Originally Posted by Steadfastly

Unless it says solid wood, it is laminate. It is misleading, no doubt about it.

I have the exact same gripe with signs in the Produce Department that declare "Ripe [Fruit]" when the thing I am holding is anything but ripe.

Apples and Guitars are like comparing Oranges and Pallet Jacks, I know, but, both took common words - wood, ripe - that are associated with centuries-old expectations and redefined the use of those words within their industry/markets.

I think this creates consumer confusion and unhappy buyers.