Why Sap wood ?
 

Having worked with wood a lot in Superyacht industry,All owners briefs stated no sapwood ,generally it's quarter sawn in the cabinetry and Crown cut/burrs as a feature wood.So sapwood was cut away and binned. (thats rubbish wise ,not Buy It Now ).Why do you see so much sapwood used as almost a feature.Sapwood in your work in my industry is seen as poor workmanship and the wood is of inferior quality/ and as a back and side of a guitar don't you want consistent quality?.Looking at so many backs and sides in guitars, like Brazilian R/wood or Cocobolo ,Ziricote,so many luthiers use sapwood as a feature in the centre joint .Surely the backs could be turned around making the sapwood to the outer edge,and cut away, and the heart the centre joint?.Am I just being snooby or am I missing something.
Thanks

I suppose enough folks like the appearance of sapwood to warrant it's inclusion into the realm of fine guitars.
I personally don't care for the look, but plenty of folks do.

http://www.acousticgallery.com/taylo...Dennis20-3.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49...y/DSC01049.jpg

Two different guitars I know, but to my eyes Sapwood in the middle looks so much better. I'm sure it isn't a structural issue or the top builders in the world wouldn't build with it. So many do.

I agree with Michael, I find sapwood in the middle attractive. Given the fact that there is, on many, if not most guitars, a large brace running down the middle of the back I'd imagine the impact on tone is limited.

I appreciate the natural and organic look it lends to a guitar but I do not like the aesthetics of sapwood.

My PS-10... I bought it knowing full well there was a section of sapwood on it. The sound of this guitar is really wonderful...

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/h...3/IMG_1631.jpg

Curly maple is commonly cut away or sorted out because it is undesirable in most commercial applications. A consistent uniform look is more desirable in that application. In the guitar world things like sapwood or figure is just another thing that can give an instrument some flair.

Have we now gone fully down the rabbit-hole in regards to expecting a manufactured-precision-look to handcrafted-guitars...?

As I mentioned on the recently-revived runout thread...

From Wiki:

No absolutes in this matter of aesthetics.

True, but there's no reason to not discuss opinions in a discussion forum.

I think it looks better in the center, but opinions vary.

Hemlines. Today's fashion.

When I started making guitars more than 30 years ago, there wasn't anyone using sap wood - it was scrap. Ditto for bear claw. A satin finish wouldn't sell and looked unprofessional. And, almost no one made guitars with back and sides that weren't one of rosewood, mahogany, maple, or koa. Cedar tops on steel string guitars was pushing the envelop.

Now, it often seems like a race to see who can out-wierd the next guy thereby distinguishing oneself in the marketplace. There are more people making acoustic guitars now than ever before. And with that, greater variation in what is available as a guitar. Some of that variation is clearly innovation and improvement, some of it fashion. Time usually sorts out which is which.

Bob Taylor started discussing it around the year 2000, stating that certain types of wood were becoming more and more rare and the result was that smaller trees with more sapwood would have to be used for lower grades of instruments rather than discarded in order to get the sizes of pieces needed.

Bob

Please don't mistake my comments to mean that no-discussion is my preferred perspective on this...

That said, these threads all seem to revolve around the "perfection" of a handcrafted product which is created using extremely variable (oftentimes imperfect) materials, which must possess qualities in two vastly different realms...tonal properties & visual aesthetics.

The whole enterprise revolves around personal taste and personal choice (again, tone and visual aesthetics)...and also the diminishing-availability of most of the most-greatly-desired materials.

Rather than framing such discussions with words such as "poor workmanship" and "the wood is of inferior quality", it should really be presented as what it is; personal preference.

Some people love bear-claw, others detest it...and yes, it used to be thrown away as scrap. Same with sap wood, which IMO can be used to an attractive visual effect. Some love wildly figured stump-wood (customers...not too many builders enjoy using the stuff), and others want backs and sides to be straight-grained/quarter-sawn.

At least the OP (in this case) has the common sense to ask if he might be wrong in his perspective...and in this world of differing aesthetic desires along with diminishing resources, well, it's not hard to figure out where we're headed.

*I'm* headed to the practice-chair!

Straight up aesthetic choice for me...

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7...back_close.jpg

In this case I wanted the back to somewhat mimic a calla lily and the sapwood is a key part of that!

Mike

Some sapwood is not structurally sound, some is. It depends on the species and the particular piece of wood.
If the sapwood in a particular piece is sound then it's a purely aesthetic choice.

I've been building guitars on the side for over 9 years now (mostly classical) and I generally don't care for the look. However there are some exceptions and one of the three instruments I'm working on now does show a touch of sapwood in the back.