Very expensive guitars: should run-out be tolerated?

[peteom]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

I was responding to Bruce's line that "all wood has run out" and simply meant that it is more visually "obvious" when it's not "running out in the same direction".

You don't seem to understand runout- at all.

[dberkowitz]

Will a unbraced, unvoiced top be weaker when it exhibits "excessive" runout versus one that does not, perhaps. But builders do not build in a vacuum. If you're buying a custom guitar, with few exceptions, builders feel, stress, listen to their tops to decide how to get the most out of them and their suitability for a particular project. When the braces go on, and the top is voiced, that "weakness" should be taken into account by the process of voicing, and feeling the stiffness of the braced top. So it being a "weaker" top, may result in it being slightly thicker and heavier than a similar top, with similar density, that does not exhibit "excessive" runout, but in terms of its place within the system that each builder uses, it shouldn't be an issue. The whole purpose of deflection testing is to take the natural variations in top stiffnesses out of the equation. No builder has tops of exactly the same density and stiffness. They all fall within a range. John Gibert was famous for ordering the lowest grades of LMI's top woods, to quote, "If it falls within the range of density and stiffness that I'm looking for, I don't care what grade it is."

[Kent Chasson]

Originally Posted by peteom

You don't seem to understand runout- at all.

I should probably let Joe respond for himself but, based on his posts, it seemed clear to me that he was only talking about bookmatched tops with enough runout to cause visible polarization. Seems to me like he understands that well enough. And from my memory of the thread, he was only talking about the visual effect that he didn't like. It is others who brought structure and tone into the conversation.

I might also point out that many bookmatched tops have no visible runout in the center but twist in the tree causes runout toward the outside that you will likely never see in a finished guitar.

[WaddyT]

It often also is a factor of the light used for the pictures and the angle of reflection. I have seen guitars that you couldn't see the variable in the instrument in person, but when photographed a certain way, there it was.

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by peteom

You don't seem to understand runout- at all.

You can't read.

Sorry.

[mikealpine]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

You can't read.

Sorry.

I'm just sitting here chuckling at this. Very funny, Joe!

[harvl]

To be perfectly honest, when I first started runout wasn’t even a part of the conversation (at least as far as I knew) Over the last 40 years I’ve developed a set of parameters that I use to achieve what I’m trying to accomplish with an individual guitar. Until recently looking for runout wasn’t high on my list... in fact it wasn’t even on there.... I simply didn’t use tops that looked weird or were structurally inferior... run out was a term reserved for my bank account and my gas tank...

I have always based my “vision” on the feedback from customers and to be perfectly honest I never had a single customer even mention it to me until this past year. I guess it’s one of those funny things that didn’t bother me until customers became concerned with the cosmetic appearance. In my mind it’s a cosmetic issue unless you are talking about a really substandard set of spruce where the runout is extreme enough to be a structural liability.

Don’t get me wrong... cosmetics are VERY important and any customer who requests that should be able to get a top with no visible runout... but they should also know that being too tight with regard to cosmetics may (actually, most likely will...) rob them of the chance to have the very best sounding guitar possible. If you’re buying a guitar from me and your #1 concern is runout then it’s my #1 concern as well... and I’ll do my best to get a great sounding top with no runout... but... hopefully you will understand that I will most likely bypass tops that will actually sound better... simple math... if 10% of all tops have no runout then in a stack of 10 tops your odds of getting the best sounding one is 1/10th that of the customer who doesn’t care about cosmetics.

My great concern is that the thinking that all tops with runout are unacceptable in “expensive” or “quality” guitars becomes excepted thinking in the mass market... the most expensive guitar you can imagine buying is “quality” regardless of where that figure is $500.00 or $5000.00...so now it’s difficult to sell a guitar at any price with it. Now only 10% of the already diminishing spruce supply is acceptable and the other 90% gets left behind just like the brown streaked ebony.

Harv

[Tim McKnight]

Originally Posted by harvl

... cosmetics are VERY important ... but they should also know that being too tight with regard to cosmetics may (actually, most likely will...) rob them of the chance to have the very best sounding guitar possible.
Harv

Good point Harv. During the last year I have been selling off quite a bit of my top inventory and culled out tops with any distinguishable RO. It was really difficult to sell some off these tops, many that I have had in inventory for years. All of the tops had phenomenal tap tone but like Matt Mustapick mentioned earlier, cosmetic standards have changed in the market so its just not a wise business decision to sit on an inventory that would likely never move.

[M Sarad]

When I got my Santa Cruz 30 years ago, it had a pronounced two color top. I though it looked pretty cool.my HD 28 didn't have it at all.
Still have the Cruz.

It wasn't until the last dozen years that I became aware of the term runout.
My Brondel, Franklin, Stewart, and Merrill do not show any signs of it at all.

[runamuck]

I'd rather see luthiers setting the standards for quality rather than
a vain customer.

Jim McCarthy

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by mikealpine

I'm just sitting here chuckling at this. Very funny, Joe!

Put "expensive guitars" on the subject line, question the standard practices, and witness a bunch of people (who had no reason to take this matter personally) express their bitterness at the situation. Pathetic.

Thank you to misters Berkowitz, Fay, Klepper, McKnight, Chasson and Leach for actually understanding my question.

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by runamuck

I'd rather see luthiers setting the standards for quality rather than
a vain customer.

Jim McCarthy

Your naivete is as pure and pretty as Taylor Swift's smile.

[kscobie8]

Originally Posted by runamuck

I'd rather see luthiers setting the standards for quality rather than
a vain customer.

Jim McCarthy

But the customers are the ones forking over the money. Perhaps they should at least have a say in what they want?


Bel isi,
-kyle

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by kscobie8

But the customers are the ones forking over the money. Perhaps they should at least have a say in what they want?


Bel isi,
-kyle

Of course they should. But as Harvey points out in his excellent post: there may be ramifications for a focus on a particular element of the equation.

So it really comes down to a question of are the customer's expectations realistic?

TW

[GregB]

As long as it's cosmetic and not structural, it wouldn't bother me. Good to know about, though, and something I'll discuss on upcoming builds.