Taylor BT2 (Mahogany top) Baby Taylor

[naolslager]

Any reason to seriously consider the mahogany top variant of the BT? I owned and or played the Spruce top version, the GS Mini, all of the Little Martins, and the Art & Lutherie "Ami". The latter was by far my favorite especially when considering price, the fact it is actually made of wood, and sound. Ignoring price I might have to give the nod to the GS Mini but the (spruce top) BT and the Martins were underwhelming...very underwhelming.

Of course the first thing that comes to mind is my lack of talent.

However I LOVE the look, feel, and sound of mahogany and cannot ignore specimen when I see one. Any thoughts?

Please, let's not get wrapped around the axel regarding mahogany versus sapele or the fact it is a SMALL "travel" guitar. I know what that means.

Is the mahogany-top version notably better (in any respect) to the spruce top version? I know, dumb question, but I must ask.

[naolslager]

I think silence speaks louder than words! Thanks.

[Dru Edwards]

Hi naolslager. Don't be surprised when this thread gets moved to the "Taylor" discussion forum. And no, your question is not a dumb one.

As far as the Baby Taylor goes, you'll hear a difference in the tone between the Mahogany and Spruce versions; however, neither is a better guitar. Only the top is different and that would depend upon whether you like the more mellow tone of mahogany or not.

The GS Mini, as you noted, is a 'nod' about the others; however, it's also a larger size guitar.

I find the Big Baby has a better tone than the Baby Taylor, and of course the GS Mini the best of the three. Do you have the opportunity to buy all three? It really depends upon how small your travel guitar needs to be.

[naolslager]

Dru,
thanks for the tip on Taylor forum. I'm not a big Taylor fan so I hadn't even noticed that it existed.

I have played all three Taylors you mentioned. Each has its trade-offs. 2/3 of my "full-size" guitars are small-bodied and only slightly larger than the BBT so it nor worth considering as it would duplicate something else.

I like the Baby and Little sized guitars because it enables me to carry them onto commercial airliners - my home away from home. But I am usually disenchanted with the tone.

I just sold my A&L Ami which I really liked and found to be a better choice for me than either the Martin or Taylor offerings and much more affordable. The Ami was sacrificed so I could chase a Larrivee OM-02 which I hope to catch tomorrow.

I may resort to traveling with a full-size guitar and just endure the pain of checked baggage. Although I've read of many carrying-on their 00 and 000-sized guitars. Well see.

Oh, and the Mahogany BT? I love mahogany-tops!

[Howard Cash]

Originally Posted by naolslager

Any reason to seriously consider the mahogany top variant of the BT? I owned and or played the Spruce top version, the GS Mini, all of the Little Martins, and the Art & Lutherie "Ami". The latter was by far my favorite especially when considering price, the fact it is actually made of wood, and sound. Ignoring price I might have to give the nod to the GS Mini but the (spruce top) BT and the Martins were underwhelming...very underwhelming.

Of course the first thing that comes to mind is my lack of talent.

However I LOVE the look, feel, and sound of mahogany and cannot ignore specimen when I see one. Any thoughts?

Please, let's not get wrapped around the axel regarding mahogany versus sapele or the fact it is a SMALL "travel" guitar. I know what that means.

Is the mahogany-top version notably better (in any respect) to the spruce top version? I know, dumb question, but I must ask.

Not A dumb question. I actually tried both of these models Sunday, this last weekend. I want to say first
i like the little Martins ect. All the little guitars are what
they are.. i think they are all enjoyable. As for the Baby
Taylors is the Mahogany top better than the spruce??
It depends. What do your ears tell YOU.. if you mean better sound wise... thatssubjective to your own taste.
I enjoyed them both equally. Nice sound, great for sitting
in the recliner ect, play nice ect. In the end.. its up to you.
Either would be a nice choice... just dont discount the Little Martins either, i like their nice "punch" but thats me. Theres no better than or worse than.. theres just is. As for the Gs Mini.. Its a little bigger
so its gonna sound fuller as is the Ami.

[naolslager]

Howard,
I owned a Little Martin LXK2. Nice Koa-esque appearance but I couldn't be satisfied with body materials. It sounded as good as any travel guitar but I wanted something made of wood (or at least a wood derivative) especially for the price I paid.

I ended up returning it and buying a used A&L Ami (the cherry all-laminate version) which I really enjoyed. As I said above it was sacrificed to raise money for another guitar. I would seriously consider another Ami.
dj

[Jeff M]

No.
Bob Taylor noted on the forum some years ago that there is no difference in tone attributable to woods in Baby Taylor line as they are all built from laminate woods.

Also...
Have you ever played a Baby Taylor?
If not, do before you buy.
I purchased one in a moment of madness on a trip many years ago.
Sounds and feels like a toy guitar.
e string so close to the edge of the fretboard it falls off if I just look at it hard.
Could have spent the money much better elsewhere.

[riorider]

I tried both and liked the mahogany top better - although that could have been very subjective because I liked the mahogany top! I do think there's a bit less "chirp" and more "chomp" to the top.

While I agree with the concerns about play one first, I "discovered" my BT (had it since 2002) just after trying the Martin Backpacker. And that was a huge step up in tone. Now, the 11/16 fretboard cramps my hand a bit, and my tastes have changed, so I'm willing to pack a slightly larger guitar, and have gone to a Rainsong to be able to ignore the heat, cold, damp, and humidity completely.

But I've used the BT to lead songs outside with a group of 50 people, and I was quite happy with the tone and projection overall.

Best,

Phil

"busking" (not really) at a trail ride in Fall 2010

[cpmusic]

Originally Posted by Jeff M

No.
Bob Taylor noted on the forum some years ago that there is no difference in tone attributable to woods in Baby Taylor line as they are all built from laminate woods.

That's the back and side woods. The tops of all Babys are solid wood, whether spruce or mahogany.

[cpmusic]

Originally Posted by naolslager

Is the mahogany-top version notably better (in any respect) to the spruce top version? I know, dumb question, but I must ask.

As other have noted, "better" is a subjective term. However, I have a Baby M and I'm very happy with it.

I must note, though, that Martin SP light-medium PBs made a big difference. They seem to be ideally suited to the Baby.

[Tony]

I have a Baby Hog and it's a nice little guitar.
I've never played a spruce-topped Baby, so I have nothing to compare to.

Thanks for the string suggestion, cpmusic.
I currently have some ball-end nylons on mine to give it a different sound.

[naolslager]

I own (only) three acoustic guitars and I have little talent. Maybe I should worry about improving my playing.

If I purchase the BT(M), what's the worst thing that can happen? I hate it? And have to sell it? I think I can live with that.

Still thinking.

[cpmusic]

Originally Posted by Tony

Thanks for the string suggestion, cpmusic.
I currently have some ball-end nylons on mine to give it a different sound.

You're welcome. I once tried mediums, but that was back around the time Taylor started saying not to use them because of the extra tension. That Martin set splits the tension difference between lights and mediums, and while I expect Taylor would recommend against them (and possibly not honor the warranty if needed), after 3-4 years tuned to concert pitch, I haven't noticed any problems. They make a remarkable difference in feel and tone.

[Howard Cash]

Originally Posted by naolslager

Howard,
I owned a Little Martin LXK2. Nice Koa-esque appearance but I couldn't be satisfied with body materials. It sounded as good as any travel guitar but I wanted something made of wood (or at least a wood derivative) especially for the price I paid.

I ended up returning it and buying a used A&L Ami (the cherry all-laminate version) which I really enjoyed. As I said above it was sacrificed to raise money for another guitar. I would seriously consider another Ami.
dj

Im glad you found the AMi to suit you. Those are enjoyable. I just wanted to say about the Little Martin,
they Are a wood derivitive. The back and sides are Hpl
Which is High Pressured Brown Craft Paper, defineitley
from wood. Admitedly its not "Wood" but its not plastic
ect. I like them all with the exception of the Yamaha Jr
its the only one i fund "Toy like". The Bts are quite fun
isnt that what they are supposed to be? Enjoy the Ami
Id like one myself.

[naolslager]

Still GASSING. Weekend bump for more sage advice, nudges (in either direction). thanks