Learning to identify solid wood vs. laminate

[S_Spruce]

I joined this forum asking the community to take a blind test of solid wood vs. laminate guitars. The test was so decisive that I've become somewhat obsessed with buying various vintage solid-wood guitars.

I now would like to see if I could benefit again from the expertise of the fine musicians and luthiers who frequent this forum. My main problem is that, with older instruments, it's not so obvious to tell what's solid wood, what's plywood, while I can easily spot the modern laminate on the cheap Fenders and Yamahas in the stores.

Below are some close-ups from two of the European vintage guitars that I own. I would love to hear your opinions on whether you think they're solid wood or laminate. I'd also love to read further comments about the quality of these instruments as far as you can tell from the pictures. I'm fascinated by all the research I've been doing to find out what exactly makes a guitar great. This is going to be very educational to me and, I'm sure, many others who might stumble upon this page with similar questions in their heads.


Guitar 1: https://postimg.org/gallery/3iiqpbt7k/

Guitar 2: https://postimg.org/gallery/vdi3fpgg/

[janepaints]

Judging by the soundhole areas on the guitars, both guitars like look laminate tops.

But...laminate guitars can sound very good...solid/laminate alone doesn't determine the sound/quality--there are many other factors at work.

[S_Spruce]

Originally Posted by janepaints

Judging by the soundhole areas on the guitars, both guitars like look laminate tops.

But...laminate guitars can sound very good...solid/laminate alone doesn't determine the sound/quality--there are many other factors at work.

But doesn't laminate automatically mean the guitar is not meant to be professional-grade? I mean do master luthiers ever make laminate guitars by hand and design them for professionals?

[charles Tauber]

First, there is a difference between "vintage" and "old". Not all "old" instruments are "vintage" - that is have some collector value.

At its simplest, the "quality" a guitar has two "components" to it. First, there is the quality of the woodworking and materials. Second, there is the quality of sound and playability.

The quality of the woodworking has to do with the quality of the materials, how well they are joined and assembled and how structurally stable is the way they are put together (i.e. the "design"). Commercial plywoods aren't the best materials for sound quality. "Secondary" woods can be stained to look like "more expensive" woods: maple or fruitwood stained to look like ebony, for example. The "cut" of the materials maters - slab cut versus quartersawn: slab is less desirable and often less expensive. Non-wooden materials matter as well, for example inexpensive, poorly made tuning pegs, versus well-made "precision" ones. The use of an inlaid rosette versus a stick-on decal.

Playability is easily assessed: sound quality is far more subjective. Neither of these can adequately be assessed from photos.


In the two "vintage" instruments you posted, the first has a decal for a rosette, indicating a level of quality. Based on the photos, it appears to be a plywood top. The saddle is too low.

The the second instrument, it has a dyed fingerboard and a decal for a rosette, probably a plywood top. It is difficult to tell for sure from the photos. The fingerboard is quartered rosewood, but appears to be cupped, concave-up, suggesting it needs to be dressed. In both guitars, the soundhole ends of the fingerboards have lifted a little. The bridge is very thick/heavy, likely to the detriment of the sound. The saddle is way too tall and slotted. Edges and corners, in general, are sharp and not rounded.

Based solely on the photos, it would appear that both are plywood-topped, "modest"-quality instruments. In other words, what one can see of the "woodworking" by a quick look at the photos, it appears not top-of the line materials or workmanship. They might both sound great, and play great, but one can't assess that from photos.

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by S_Spruce

But doesn't laminate automatically mean the guitar is not meant to be professional-grade? I mean do master luthiers ever make laminate guitars by hand and design them for professionals?

"Professional-grade" isn't a term that has any meaning. "Professionals" use whatever works for them for their situation. For some, that may be a plywood guitar that is amplified: for others, an un-amplified solid wood instrument.

If one is looking for the best un-amplified sound, in a traditional sounding guitar, that has traditionally been achieved using a solid top, back and sides. In more recent years, some makers use laminated tops - and backs and sides - but these are not like commercial "plywood". It is necessary to distinguish between commercial plywood - used to reduce cost - and luthier made solid wood laminates that are made for a specific structural or tonal goal.

Then there is the use of alternate - non-wood - materials, such as carbon fiber or plastics.

In short, "old" guitars made of commercial plywood were made to be modestly priced": quality was not their primary goal.

[Truckjohn]

From here - in the pix... Both look laminate to me.

The reality is that a good guitar is where you find it. If they play and sound good - then they are good guitars.

Thanks

[dosland]

I agree with the view that these instruments may well sound spectacular, even if they're quite apparently not built using the finest materials available. One detail that I don't think anyone mentioned is the fret markers - when I see dots on what I believe is an oldish classical guitar, I always take this to mean I'm not looking at something "vintage" or particularly valuable. This doesn't mean it won't sound great, just that it wasn't built according to the set of (probably imaginary) values that I believe make for a fancy classical guitar. Anyone else out there have a different perspective on the fret markers? I'm not saying I don't like fret markers, I think they're great, just that traditional classical guitars don't (didn't?) normally have them.

[LSemmens]

If you are purchasing for investment, i.e. to sell, then you must look very closely at all aspects of the build, and the manufacturer.

If you are purchasing to play, which, IMO, is what we all should do, then it matters not if the guitar is made of the highest quality materials or old boot leather, as long as YOU are happy with the playability and the sound as YOU are the one who has to put up with it.

[S_Spruce]

Thank you all for the comments. (Thanks for the in-depth impressions, Charles. The saddle was indeed too high on the first guitar. I sanded it down after taking the pictures, and its action and playability are perfect now.)

Let me reveal the instruments, with some reflections.

The second guitar is a 70's Czechoslovakian inexpensive guitar costing about $400-500 these days. It's called Cremona and it's the one I put against a cheap guitar in an earlier post. It sounds pretty good and always preferable to any modern-day laminate guitar. I always assumed it was solid-top but I wouldn't be surprised if it's weren't. It still sounds great and has been my favorite for well over a year, even though I've heard dozens of other guitars in that time.

But the first guitar is what's really fascinating here. At a glance, it looks little different from the Cremona - exactly the same size, sharing many of the features. But it was reportedly hand-made by a German master named Herbert Schaffner in the 60's (it's called Meifter). Only 200 were ever made and it's a collectible instrument, highly respected and admired for its sound, apparently. Some of the 70's models go for around a $1000 these days. There is one listed for $4000 currently, and I've seen several Russian sites listing a mid-60's version for no less than 10.000. Even though I think this type of cash is insane for this or any guitar, I still have to say that the sound of this is really, really special. I sometimes sit down and look at these two instruments carefully to see what exactly could cause such clear differences of tone and I can't figure out a thing. The Cremona sounds very impressive, as it is... But this 60's Meifter guitar makes it sound like a practice guitar in comparison. It's simply heavenly. Any sound produced by this thing could give you tears as you hear the resonant wood vibrations and the melancholy innate in every note. The sound is so sweet, mellow and deep, putting it down has been the hardest thing ever since I got it. And I got it for $800 from a lady clueless about guitars, selling one of her late fathers guitars.

What's amazing is they are probably both laminate. And judging by your comments, materials used in both don't scream quality and they are both of modest guild quality (pretty sure they were both inexpensive back in the day.) I look at the body with a magnifying glass and the wood seems to be the same... Maybe spruce or some spruce laminate... The only difference seems to be the color of the rosewood used for the fingerboard and bridge. From the inside, the construction seems to be pretty much the same, and I just put the same type of strings on both. And, still, as far as the richness of tone is concerned (as I perceive it) the Cremona still sounds light years behind the German guitar. Light years...

So full of mysteries this hobby...

[Sprikitik]

Those are both laminates

[dosland]

It's a little bit hard to imagine a "German master" guitar builder using stickers for his rosettes, even in the 60s when that was probably something of a novelty. You're more likely to have a factory-made instrument from a place where a master guitar builder was also working, and maybe his name appears on the guitar somewhere. These factories put out many different grades of instrument, so it would make sense to find that some of their guitars are legitimately handmade by a luthier while others are assembled by a team of skilled workers using lower-grade materials. Nothing wrong with factory guitars in my world, that's pretty much all I'll ever be able to afford, and I've been extremely impressed with quite a few of the ones I've had a chance to play over the years. And as we've all been saying, it's far more important that the guitar sounds good (and plays well, I suppose) than that it looks like a million euros!

[S_Spruce]

I agree with that, dosland. This guitar does look like a factory guitar. I just wonder why it's so rare (only about 200 in existence) if it was put out by a factory. Maybe the Herbert Schaffner guy had to do something to it, after all. Either way, it doesn't strike me as a hand-made instrument... A more important question, I guess, is why it's so good. The best I've ever heard, in fact.