Sitka Spruce Wood Grades

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by latestyle

Like others said in this thread, there's so much subjectivity and arbitrariness in tonewood grading.

I don't see it that way.

There is a near-universal objective basic criteria used to grade instrument woods. The objective criteria includes the following most common factors:

1. closeness of grain
2. evenness of grain across board
3. color of wood
4. evenness of color of wood
5. how well quarter sawn
6. visibility of silk - in woods that have more obvious medullary rays
7. visibility of other figure, such "bear claw", curl, etc.
8. size of wood - if large enough for jumbo/dreadnaught vs. classical or smaller
9. species of wood
10. defects such as knot shadows, knots, pin holes, splits, pitch pockets, mineral deposits, etc.


Determining where in the grading continuum a particular piece of wood fits for each of these criteria does involve subjective evaluation. However, the overall process isn't all that arbitrary or entirely subjective. Note that all of the above are largely visual, cosmetic considerations.

additional considerations can include the following that are largely material properties, rather than cosmetic properties.

11. stiffness of wood
12. amount of runout
13. density

Even a casual poke around most of the builders reveals there's no such explanation on the website. Seems to me like a worthy best practice to adopt, given Goodall's simple and clear disclosure on their website.

Given that so many guitar makers use very much the same criteria to grading, though they may differ on the subjective evaluation, is it really helpful to have every luthier post on his or her website a carbon copy of what is on, say, Goodall's site, that color, stiffness, grain spacing, quarter sawn and runout matter? (I like Goodall's gallery of woods and their descriptions, but don't think it terribly important.)

[asobi]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

I don't see it that way.

There is a near-universal objective basic criteria used to grade instrument woods. The objective criteria includes the following most common factors...

...Determining where in the grading continuum a particular piece of wood fits for each of these criteria does involve subjective evaluation. However, the overall process isn't all that arbitrary or entirely subjective...

...Given that so many guitar makers use very much the same criteria to grading, though they may differ on the subjective evaluation, is it really helpful to have every luthier post on his or her website a carbon copy of what is on, say, Goodall's site, that color, stiffness, grain spacing, quarter sawn and runout matter? (I like Goodall's gallery of woods and their descriptions, but don't think it terribly important.)

Hi, Charles. I think the majority of the opinions by the folks who commented on this thread seems to tend toward the observation that the grading is indeed subjective. I agree with you the visual criteria/cues are "objective" - I mean, it is what it is. But you yourself very articulately comment above that grading that criteria involves a subjective evaluation. I am way newer to this hobby than you or other members, but even in my short time speaking with luthiers on projects and materials, they more often than not DIFFER from each other on their opinions on tonewoods in interesting and meaningful ways.

So, no, I don't believe disclosing that information is going to be a "carbon copy" of what James Goodall says is important to how he views the tonewoods. I for one would sure appreciate that kind of information to learn more about the builder's perspective on materials, how it shapes the philosophy behind the builds.