"The Tree" Mahogany - It doesn't get better than this.

[Guitars44me]

R.Taylor was a COMPLETELY SEPARATE COMPANY from Taylor guitars.

Bob Taylor selected Head Luthier Tim Luranc, and the half dozen luthiers of RT to show what they could do in a small shop.
Think Bourgeois, Santa Cruz, Goodall, or maybe the Martin Custom Shop, etc! I toured the shop on the edge of the enormous Taylor campus in El Cajon, when custom ordering, and it was about the size of a four car garage.

R.T guitars took about three times longer to make than ANY Taylor, due to extensive individual voicing, tap tuning, and A LOT of handwork. Unfortunately they turned out to be in competition with Taylor's Build To Order and custom guitar programs. They ceased production at the end of 2011. I have it on good authority from the folks I know who worked at R.T. that if they ever start up production again the guitars will be a lot more expensive!

R.Taylor only made about 200 guitars a year for six years. In contrast the two Taylor factories turn out about 400 guitars per day!

R.T.s have significant structural differences from any other Taylors. Among them, solid Kerfing resulting in extremely rigid sides, which allowed the top to be made lighter and braced lighter. That needs to be done by hand, resulting in more volume, and better tone!
Also, the "snake head" headstock yields smoother tuning due to a straighter string angle over the nut. The different bridge design has quite a bit less mass. And the Gotoh 510 tuners cannot be beat!

They just sound better to me, and a bunch of folks who have actually PLAYED THEM.

CHEERS

Paul

[nootis]

Beautiful wood indeed! Not that the top is too horrible, but I agree with Mau that they should have used a more impressive piece. Also, IMHO, they should have put an overlay on the back of the headstock. To me, it makes the whole guitar more complete.

Still super nice though!

Lastly, there is no question that R.Taylors are more superior than the garden variety Taylor brand. Like Taylors on steroids!

[Bruce Sexauer]

The worst of the tree is very attractive mahogany IMO, and the best of it is really a matter of taste, also IMO. I, for instance find the quartered stuff as intriguing as the slabsawn blister figure everyone is obsesses with.

I had a chunk come into my shop a couple of months ago on which I got to test my resaw skills. I expected 4 guitar B & S sets, and one all mahogany Uke set, and that is what we got. My reward was the worst of the guitar sets and a commission to build the Tenor Ukulele. I know, blah blah blah, but here's a picture of the top, joined today, with some turpentine on it:



It's all one color, I have it too near a light bulb. Yes, this is the slab sawn blister figure, it's what we have.

[ChuckS]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

......[snip].......

Too bad the top isn't up to par...

I guess some people have different priorities and/or preferences.

While this thread was posted to show the aesthetics of this guitar, I'm surprised nobody is asking about or providing their experience of the tonal contributions of The Tree. So, I'd be interested in that if anyone could share.

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by ChuckS

I guess some people have different priorities and/or preferences.

While this thread was posted to show the aesthetics of this guitar, I'm surprised nobody is asking about or providing their experience of the tonal contributions of The Tree. So, I'd be interested in that if anyone could share.

I think it's reasonably safe to say that those who are into the Tree have looks pretty high on their priority list. It's a multi thousand dollar back -- and a rather common and inexpensive top.

There's also a cool series of videos where Andy Powers documents the build of a special Taylor -- and he specifically mentions selecting a top with no run-out:

https://youtu.be/O3ORfBDsuRs?t=2m7s

As for the tonal contributions of the Tree, I think no one really cared to comment because a lot has already been said. Some builders go as far as claiming that it sounds like BRW. Others, like Michael Greenfield, say it's mahogany and sounds like it. Based on my limited but intimate personal experience, I'm most definitely with Mike G on this one.

[Bruce Sexauer]

If I thought the "tree" sounded like Brazilian Rosewood I would be a LOT less likely to be building an all "tree" Uke from it.

[JoeCharter]

Bruce, have you ever built an all-rosewood guitar?

I saw an all-cocobolo Martin OM a few months ago. It was outrageously beautiful and sold very quickly -- but no idea about the sound.

[MikeD]

I purchased an OM built by Leonardo Buendia with "The Tree" back & sides and an Adi top last year at the Woodstock guitar show. I purchased it mainly based on the tone and playability, but I'd be lying if I said the visual aspects didn't push me over the top to buy it. It's quite a remarkable guitar, both sonically and visually.

[Bruce Sexauer]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

Bruce, have you ever built an all-rosewood guitar?

I saw an all-cocobolo Martin OM a few months ago. It was outrageously beautiful and sold very quickly -- but no idea about the sound.

I have not, and I would not expect great acoustic results due to the weight of the top plate even thinned to the minimum structurally possible. Also, I would expect it to be unpleasantly thin tonally. I have seen a few carved BRW back and side instruments, and they have all had a thin bright aspect. Mario Beauregard has recently made an all carved BRW top/back which he is currently trying to place, I'm told, and perhaps he has succeeded in escaping this seeming limitation. Not unlike "the tree", a carved BRW instrument can be very emotionally compelling visually.

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by MikeD

I purchased an OM built by Leonardo Buendia with "The Tree" back & sides and an Adi top last year at the Woodstock guitar show. I purchased it mainly based on the tone and playability, but I'd be lying if I said the visual aspects didn't push me over the top to buy it. It's quite a remarkable guitar, both sonically and visually.

I also have a Tree SJ which I bought several years ago. At the time the premium was far more reasonable.

It's one of my favourite guitars for sure. I think it sounds great and plays great -- but I could've had an equally great sounding and playing guitar from Jim for far less if I didn't care for a fancy looking back.

That's essentially the point I was trying to get across. Tree or no Tree, I don't think anyone would be unreasonable enough to buy a pretty guitar that doesn't sound/play nice.

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by Bruce Sexauer

I have not, and I would not expect great acoustic results due to the weight of the top plate even thinned to the minimum structurally possible. Also, I would expect it to be unpleasantly thin tonally. I have seen a few carved BRW back and side instruments, and they have all had a thin bright aspect. Mario Beauregard has recently made an all carved BRW top/back which he is currently trying to place, I'm told, and perhaps he has succeeded in escaping this seeming limitation. Not unlike "the tree", a carved BRW instrument can be very emotionally compelling visually.

Thanks for your answer, Bruce.

I'd be curious to play one for sure.

[redir]

I don't see anything wrong with the top on that guitar personally. A little runout doesn't bother me at all. I've got several groups of tops cut from the same board and while they don't look AAAA perfect I know what to expect from them and they sound great. My guess is the builder chose that top for a reason.

[ToTheEar]

That is one of the best looking B/S I've seen on a guitar. Crazy. I don't know about the quality of the top, but something about the color contrast between the top and sides isn't ideal to my eye. But then again maybe it will darken over time and age to perfection.

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by redir

I don't see anything wrong with the top on that guitar personally. A little runout doesn't bother me at all. I've got several groups of tops cut from the same board and while they don't look AAAA perfect I know what to expect from them and they sound great. My guess is the builder chose that top for a reason.

I don't disagree with your post -- but I also know of plenty of builders who've got piles of mahogany and while they don't look like the Tree they do sound great.

However that's not the rationale that goes through the mind of someone who's willing to spend thousands for a pretty back, is it?

The criteria that are important to those folks aren't the same as those who are looking for a good, functional guitar. Nothing wrong with either approach, just different strokes for different folks.

As evidenced by Martin's numerous anniversary guitars with awful tops, people who work in guitar shops don't always select the best tops for their best guitars.

I think that spending so much money for a nice back (or nice inlays, or nice whatever) and then making a compromise on the cheapest part of the build is really unwise. There are plenty of great sounding, great looking tops out there.

[Glenn23]

Originally Posted by MikeD

I purchased an OM built by Leonardo Buendia with "The Tree" back & sides and an Adi top last year at the Woodstock guitar show. I purchased it mainly based on the tone and playability, but I'd be lying if I said the visual aspects didn't push me over the top to buy it. It's quite a remarkable guitar, both sonically and visually.

I played that guitar at Woodstock and I agree with you completely. As spectacular as "The Tree" was on that guitar, the wood came in about third or fourth on its list of spectacular features. The neck was one of the most perfectly contoured I ever felt.