Is this a “good” rosewood back?

[DaveJTR]

Not disclosing brand to eliminate bias. I have seen what people consider a “good” rosewood back (straight grains that run up and down), and this is not it. Is this preferred/ not preferred / subjective?

If subjective, what do YOU think?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/187707...hares-omdPj0/#

[YamahaGuy]

From the "better" ones I've seen, the grain is either dead straight, or highly figured with odd twists. I've never seen one with slow curves like that in it, and a few knots. But as you say, it is subjective...just like bearclaw spruce--some argue it is flawed, while others argue it is rare, sounds better, and is stronger. Personally, I think the example shown is unique, but of lower quality. That's my opinion.

[Birchtop]

I don’t think it really matters, just folks preferences.

Either way, that’s a gorgeous rosewood back.

[Rosewood99]

Never understood why it matters. When I play I don't see the back of the guitar and when I hang it on a stand I don't see the back of the guitar. All I care is how it sounds.

[Birchtop]

Originally Posted by YamahaGuy

From the "better" ones I've seen, the grain is either dead straight, or highly figured with odd twists. I've never seen one with slow curves like that in it, and a few knots. But as you say, it is subjective...just like bearclaw spruce--some argue it is flawed, while others argue it is rare, sounds better, and is stronger....

You’re right, it is flawed and does sound better

[Guilty Spark]

It's a helluva lot prettier than the rosewood back of my HD-28, I'll tell you that. Mine is utterly non-descript, plain and............boring.
Sounds nice, though.

[DaveJTR]

I’ve heard that despite the subjectivity of the looks, the grain pattern (i.e., looks) does play a part in the sound production, which in turn makes one back “better” than another. I do think that back is pretty though.

[YamahaGuy]

Originally Posted by Birchtop

You’re right, it is flawed and does sounds better

Not sure if you're questioning my grammar or having fun with the topic. I think my grammar is ok given the sentence structure.

[Birchtop]

Originally Posted by YamahaGuy

Not sure if you're questioning my grammar or having fun with the topic. I think my grammar is ok given the sentence structure.

Oh no, you’re good. I’m just having fun.

[tadol]

It is a very nice rosewood back - not the absolute premium purely straight-grained quartersawn material that would be considered the finest, but you could probably look at a thousand rosewood guitars and not find one better -

[srbell]

If you can "hear" what the grain of a rosewood back guitar looks like then you certainly have better ears than me! I think it looks beautiful! Don't let others tell you what YOU like. It is all subjective - there is no best, only what's the best balance of features for you.

[Dwight]

I think it's fine.

[brianmay]

Originally Posted by DaveJTR

Not disclosing brand to eliminate bias. I have seen what people consider a “good” rosewood back (straight grains that run up and down), and this is not it. Is this preferred/ not preferred / subjective?

If subjective, what do YOU think?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/187707...hares-omdPj0/#

NO, I don't think it's 'Good' . . . I think it's exquisite, beautiful.

[Scolaguitar]

I like the looks of that back. Lots of character.

[darfaz]

I've seen some Martin OM-21s with the slanting grain like that. I've also seen some Martin OMs with "wild grain" rosewood that is considered a premium. My guess is that the look of the grain is pretty irrelevant in terms of the sound properties.