The Guitar that nearly converted me from Rosewood to Mahogany

[AcousticDreams]

I visited Larry at Organic Sounds Select Guitars yesterday.

Had absolutely no intention of looking at another guitar. Larry was showing me his new Midea dehumidifier when he pointed to a Custom Shop Martin D14. The guitar Immediately caught my attention with its beautiful Macassar Ebony headstock overlay. Pristine mahogany back and sides. With a profound nod he noted that this was an exceptional guitar.

So I made a huge mistake and gave it a strum. Instantly I was totally captivated. Could not stop playing that guitar for the next hour. Believe me when I say, that last thing I want to do right now is buy another guitar. But I was taken by surprise by how incredibly smooth, big & open sounding this guitar is. And I am a rosewood man....so this Mahogany back and sides guitar shocked me at its stunning tone.

Larry generously let me keep playing it while he worked on shop business with his laptop. This Martin Mahogany has the same lushness that I love about Rosewoods...but of course with a more fundamental nature. For the first time I finally understood the word that so many have used before...."Growl". Smooth, full, but big and bold.

One of the things I really love about Larry, is that he is all about what is best for each of us. No sales pressure. While this guitar is Truly Astounding...he helped me understand that for my particular style of playing, Rosewood Back and sides suits me best. And that is really quite something as Larry himself is a Mahogany back and sides man. Yet he was smart enough to realize that what is ultimately best for one person, may not be best for another.

Boy, but what a nice guitar! When I got home I looked up that guitar...and he also made a nice video on it. Never have I been so temped. Check it out.

https://organicsoundsguitars.com/col...-mahogany-2020

[BlueBowman]

Come on over to the hog-side, AD! We're always welcoming former rosewood players

On a slightly more serious note, the density of the back (per Michael Greenfield) has some impact on whether the guitar is more rosewood or more mahogany sounding. And the density of each individual set can vary greatly, so it's very possible to end top with a denser set of mahogany (more akin to the rosewoods), as I understand it. (And if I have that wrong, someone please feel free to correct me.) Could be what drew you in to that lovely Martin. Or maybe you're just developing an ear for mahogany, which is by far one of my faves.

And I hear you on not needing to buy another guitar. My leash is taut at the moment!

[Dok]

man... that is a beautiful guitar. now I'M tempted...

[Glennwillow]

What a nice guitar! WOW!

- Glenn

[LAPlayer]

This is why I strongly advocate leaving all the preconceptions and concern over all the minutiae in the car when playing guitars. Don't worry (or even think about) woods, nuts, bracing, scale, glue ...... just play. When you find one that's great - buy it. THEN go home (if you must) and measure, calculate, inquire, notate.... everything you want to know about your most-recent favorite guitar. If people would do this routinely it might decrease their need to continuously sell newly-acquired instruments that only work on paper but not in practice. One of my favorite guitars, a D45, would never satisfy me on paper. However, in hand it's a majestic creation that fits my every need.

[Charlie Bernstein]

Sounds sweet. A great guitar is a great guitar, regardless of wood flavor.

[mr. beaumont]

I say cave into the temptation. I think the idea of being bound to a particular wood based on playing style is really silly. Or maybe it just allows me to own more guitars. It's one of those.

[Joseph Hanna]

Beautiful guitar. Everything about it. However, I'm kinda with LAPlayer, all the talk about hog-guys/gals (and for the record, it pains me to the end of the Universe to use the word "hog" while talkin' about guitars) vs Rosewood guys/gals are inflated beyond reason. A guitar's sonics are a compilation of so many components that reducing the sound of any guitar to its back and sides seems wholey nut-so to me. I have hog guitars (there's that word again) and I have rosewood guitars. I'm a really picky listener as I do that (or did that) for a living. I'll be danged if I can't assign a single traditionalist hog-vs-rosewood descriptor to any of my guitars. Comparitively they sound the way they do and they are without a hint of what back and or side they're constructed with.

[KevWind]

The Demo sounded pretty good. I have never been much a Martin Fan.. But if I were not in midst of a major Master Bath remodel $$ I would consider that Martin

[Br1ck]

SCGC can work wonders with mahogany too. But I'm glad to also have my drier 70 Guild D 35. And I have a token rosewood Martin D 35 Custom that is on the dry side of the rosewood spectrum. You can't say rosewood is this and mahogany is that. Too many variables. All I can say is I lean mahogany.

[Bowie]

It's still strange to me that people define guitars by their back woods, which is one of the least important features on the acoustic. No offense intended.
To me, the maker, the top, the body size, bracing style, etc have far more influence than the back and slight changes in those do far more than switching the back from rosewood to mahogany.

[RJVB]

Originally Posted by Bowie

It's still strange to me that people define guitars by their back woods, which is one of the least important features on the acoustic. .

True, but isn't the saying that they account for up to 20% or even 25% of the "final tone" (in solid wood guitars)? Even 15% would be enough to take the sound of the rest to a next level, or on the contrary, make that it just doesn't work out for you.

I have that every time I listen critically to a demo of a rosewood or comparable guitar, i.e. the way I'd listen to my own instruments. They can sound great, enticing, "like a real guitar" etc. but I always end up thinking they have a dose of flavour enhancers in their sound, something not entirely natural that I find ... fatigueing. And that makes me think it'd me more difficult to modulate the sound as much as you can as with, say, a maple guitar. I have a pretty good idea why and have no doubt that others can have similar reactions to subtle qualities introduced by other woods.

[Bowie]

Originally Posted by RJVB

True, but isn't the saying that they account for up to 20% or even 25% of the "final tone" (in solid wood guitars)? Even 15% would be enough to take the sound of the rest to a next level, or on the contrary, make that it just doesn't work out for you.

I have that every time I listen critically to a demo of a rosewood or comparable guitar, i.e. the way I'd listen to my own instruments. They can sound great, enticing, "like a real guitar" etc. but I always end up thinking they have a dose of flavour enhancers in their sound, something not entirely natural that I find ... fatigueing. And that makes me think it'd me more difficult to modulate the sound as much as you can as with, say, a maple guitar. I have a pretty good idea why and have no doubt that others can have similar reactions to subtle qualities introduced by other woods.

No, not even close. When all other things are equal, it's definitely impactful. But, switching brands absolutely dwarfs the % contribution the back wood makes. When you're dealing with different makers, or different body sizes within the same maker, it's no where close to 25%. Example; my mahogany Collings DS is far heavier in overtones than the same sized guitar in Brazilian rosewood by Bourgeois. It makes the idea of a "mahogany guitar" seem silly. The maker, bracing, etc are far more important. Shopping for back woods is a mistake. The are the last choice that should be made after the builder, body size, model, top.

I think people are just trained that you get a spruce top and either rosewood or mahogany. They were starved for choice for so many years that the importance of the back wood became a marketing tool. How do you sell a player another guitar without making them feel like they're taking a risk? Offer them the same guitar with a different back wood.

[FingahPickah]

I was late to the dance regarding mahogany.

My dreads were rosewood, maple and black walnut. I thought I had the tone(s) I preferred basically covered.

My Sitka/Mahogany Larrivee 000-40 has tonal characteristics of all of my dreads.

While just poking around a shop (not looking for another guitar), I played a 2022 (Sitka/Mahogany) Martin D18 (1935 Sunburst) and was immediately struck by the thunderbolt.

Balance, projection, volume; beautifully voiced.

[Mandobart]

I believe it's theoretically possible to own and enjoy instruments with a wide range of tonewoods. I personally have back/sides of rosewood, maple, walnut, ovangkol, koa, sapele and mahogany. These are paired with tops of spruce, western red cedar and redwood.

I'm just a single crazy statistically insignificant individual though. I wouldn't jump to any conclusions based on my experience alone.