Sipo vs Mahogany

[pszy22]

I sometimes wonder if the same types of discussions would take place if KFC started using the terminology "chicken" and "genuine chicken".

The "chicken" certainly looks and tastes like chicken - would you want to know, or be better off not knowing.

[Mr. Jelly]

Originally Posted by pszy22

I sometimes wonder if the same types of discussions would take place if KFC started using the terminology "chicken" and "genuine chicken".

The "chicken" certainly looks and tastes like chicken - would you want to know, or be better off not knowing.

I want to know. I do know and I'm glad I know. Now I am able to make an informed decision. The same can be said for processed ham and pink slime.

[merlin666]

Originally Posted by Mr Fingers

Decades ago, when I began building, mahogany was the preferred wood of all those listed here. In fact, sapele was in virtually every instance, including laminated wood not intended for instruments, considered as inferior. I believe that this was more related to physical stability and maybe appearance/finishing quality, and since that was the case, it was rarely used and so perhaps did not every establish a known tonal signature. It didn't look as good, and since it was marketed as a cheaper wood that no one really used, we stayed away from it. Now that great mahogany has become rare, whatever gap there may have been is probably closing. That Martin tries to treat them all as being effectively similar seems to me to suggest that the days of great mahogany are over and that what the factories like Martin get, now, is pretty close to sapele. I see this as a step down, though maybe not a big one? and surely unavoidable anyway. Kind of a repeat of the BRE--> EIRW transition.

This is a good summary, though I think that actual Swietenia mahagoni has been quite rare for some time. For the last few decades a substitute of Swietenia macrophylla (also called "Honduran" mahogany) has already been used. Whether this is grown in South America or in Asia is not that important, I think, but labeling distant cousins to Swietenia as Mahogany is quite misleading.

[Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by pszy22

I sometimes wonder if the same types of discussions would take place if KFC started using the terminology "chicken" and "genuine chicken".

The "chicken" certainly looks and tastes like chicken - would you want to know, or be better off not knowing.

I sometimes wonder if many of those on this and other forums that defend Martin's policies in this regard would show equally tolerant opinions if it was Taylor that was using sipo and calling it mahogany.

Originally Posted by Swamp Yankee

I sometimes wonder if many of those on this and other forums that defend Martin's policies in this regard would show equally tolerant opinions if it was Taylor that was using sipo and calling it mahogany.

I sometimes wonder if anyone outside of these forums really cares about any of this. Those of us who do care seem to be able to find out the fine distinctions between the various "mahoganies" without much effort, and the accustions that Martin (or anyone) is being intentionally deceptive seems a bit of a stretch.

For everyone else, I'm guessing the minutiae of wood nomenclature and taxonomy is pretty irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Swamp Yankee

I sometimes wonder if many of those on this and other forums that defend Martin's policies in this regard would show equally tolerant opinions if it was Taylor that was using sipo and calling it mahogany.

I don't think I've been particularly critical of any maker in this regard, nor have I made significant efforts to defend Martin. It's going to bother some people and others don't care. I have pointed out that from a historical perspective this is nothing new to Martin - using various woods without published change. Of course, early on they didn't give much description anyway - rosewood, mahogany, and spruce was about as precise as it got.

In the Pre-WWII period Martin experimented with Sitka in the teens, used Sitka for bracing, red spruce for flattops, and Sitka for carved tops. Switched to Sitka for all guitars beginning in 1945. Used red spruce and German spruce in small quantities in the 1950's and early 1960's, which is now documented and confirmed by archival information. Switched to IRW in late 1969. Used some African mahogany (probably Khaya) in the early 1970's. Used Engelmann and Sitka interchangeably throughout the 1980's. NONE of those things were ever publicized or used in any sort of promotional material.

[Charmed Life Picks]

Excuse me, no time to read the entire thread, but did he mean Sapele? If so, I have several Epiphone Masterbilts that I believe use it back and sides and they are very fine guitars.

sm

[Mr. Jelly]

This thread won't die.

It got me thinking again and you know that ain't good. How does anyone know what mahogany pre-war Martins were/are? If we can agree that a pre-war Martin is a holly grail then we need to know what that mahogany is.

[Goodallboy]

Originally Posted by Charmed Life Picks

Excuse me, no time to read the entire thread, but did he mean Sapele? If so, I have several Epiphone Masterbilts that I believe use it back and sides and they are very fine guitars.

sm

That's been my question for 6 pages.......

[DrewStrummer]

Originally Posted by pszy22

I sometimes wonder if the same types of discussions would take place if KFC started using the terminology "chicken" and "genuine chicken".

The "chicken" certainly looks and tastes like chicken - would you want to know, or be better off not knowing.

LOL... I think Chicken and musical instruments are a big difference... when Certain woods are marketed (and priced $$$$) for years as the reason why one guitar is better than the other tonally...

SIPO may be the next great thing, I hope it is because it seems like "genuine" mahogany is almost gone.

I think people just want to know what they're paying for when they spend thousands of dollars on wood glued together to make vibrations.

[DrewStrummer]

Originally Posted by Charmed Life Picks

Excuse me, no time to read the entire thread, but did he mean Sapele? If so, I have several Epiphone Masterbilts that I believe use it back and sides and they are very fine guitars.

sm

No,,, The thread is SIPO -Vs- Mahogany.... SIPO is an African wood, that is replacing the Mahogany, Known as Genuine South American Mahogany... which is near depleted. Sapele is a completely different wood.

Recently, Martin, with out explanation changed the Genuine Mahogany on their CEO-7 line to SIPO... and some folks, like myself are questioning it, as it is new and priced the same.

SIPO - stains, cuts, sands, looks (doesn't smell) like Mahogany but is technically not Mahogany... But Martin has decided to call it Mahogany.

After reading more about SIPO, Cabinet and fine wood furniture makers love SIPO, because of the reasons listed above... plus it's less expensive.

The question from guitar consumers is, how is it tonally - now and over time......

and why don't guitar manufactures just call it SIPO.

[DrewStrummer]

Originally Posted by Charmed Life Picks

Excuse me, no time to read the entire thread, but did he mean Sapele? If so, I have several Epiphone Masterbilts that I believe use it back and sides and they are very fine guitars.

sm

No,,, The thread is SIPO -Vs- Mahogany.... SIPO is an African wood, that is replacing the Mahogany, Known as Genuine South American Mahogany... which is near depleted. Sapele is a completely different wood.

Recently, Martin, with out explanation changed the Genuine Mahogany on their CEO-7 line to SIPO... and some folks, like myself are questioning it, as it is new and priced the same.

SIPO - stains, cuts, sands, looks (doesn't smell) like Mahogany but is technically not Mahogany... But Martin has decided to call it Mahogany.

After reading more about SIPO, Cabinet and fine wood furniture makers love SIPO, because of the reasons listed above... plus it's less expensive.

The question from guitar consumers is, how is it tonally - now and over time......

and why don't guitar manufactures just call it SIPO.

Originally Posted by DrewStrummer

SIPO - stains, cuts, sands, looks (doesn't smell) like Mahogany but is technically not Mahogany

You forgot "sounds like mahogany." At least until someone who thought they had mahogany learns that it's sipo...

[DrewStrummer]

Originally Posted by Willie Voltaire

You forgot "sounds like mahogany." At least until someone who thought they had mahogany learns that it's sipo...

LOL!!!! You may be right!!!! But I don't have a natural hog so what do I know... just want the specs that are advertised.

[rwmct]

Originally Posted by Willie Voltaire

Yes, it would be great if Martin called each wood exactly what it is, but because supplies ebb and flow, they may not be able to consistently source a given wood for every production run, and so they use substitutes. I imagine that changing the spec sheet whenever that happens would only muddy the waters.

Calling it all mahogany at least distinguishes it from rosewood, which is about as much as the average consumer probably understands or wants to.

You have to be kidding! Martin is trying to finesse the issue of what wood they use because they know that many people do view these other woods as equal to mahogany.