Is this a “good” rosewood back?

[guitar george]

The bookmatching is very well done, but not perfect, and it looks nice. I have heard many times that straight, tight (narrow) grain is considered by some to be the best, for whatever reasons. I presume curved grain would be a lot stronger than straight grain.

[charles Tauber]

Most of the replies thus far have suggested that whether or not a piece of wood is "good" is subjective. There is a subjective component, but there is also an objective one.

The edges of the lower bout of the back pictured in the OP show the characteristic "V" shaped grain indicating that the edges are slab cut. That the grain is straight - no "V" or "cathedral" grain - for most of the width of the back indicates that the back is rift sawn.

Here is why that matters. In many species of wood there is greater movement of the wood with changes in humidity for slab cut wood than for quarter sawn wood. What that means, in practical terms, is that for the same size piece of wood, a slab sawn piece of wood will expand and contract across its width more than quarter sawn piece subject to the same change in humidity. A slab cut piece is more prone to cracking than a quarter sawn piece.

In some pieces of wood with "wild" grain, there can be internal stresses, leading to the finished instrument cracking to relieve those stresses.

If one controls the humidity of the instrument, it probably doesn't matter all that much if one uses slab vs quarter sawn. If one doesn't, it might be the difference between the wood cracking and not.

As far as sound goes, there is no correlation between appearance and sound quality. Quartersawn wood is often, not always, stiffer across the grain than slab cut wood, which might have some implications particularly for guitar tops, though probably none for backs and sides.

[DaveJTR]

Great information there on the objective perspective. I’m very careful with my more expensive guitars (always in their cases when not played). So hopefully it won’t be an issue down the line.

The guitar is a Martin OM standard series that I just pulled the trigger on (for those that are curious).

[wrbriggs]

Originally Posted by DaveJTR

Great information there on the objective perspective. I’m very careful with my more expensive guitars (always in their cases when not played). So hopefully it won’t be an issue down the line.

The guitar is a Martin OM standard series that I just pulled the trigger on (for those that are curious).

I was going to say that I owned a Martin OM-21 that looked very similar to that.

[mcduffnw]

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/#

That appears to be a Brazilian Rosewood back, and yes, that is a very very fine back!

No...it is not vintage 30's Martin perfect straight grain...although not all of the Martin backs and sides even back then, were perfectly straight grain all the time either...but, in todays world, that is just a great back set!!! Very nice color too!

Even if it is EIR, it is still a very nice looking back with great color and visually pleasing grain sweep. If I like the tone of the guitar, I would buy it happily with that back.

duff
Be A Player...Not A Polisher

[DaveJTR]

I WISH it was Brazilian brother!!!
It’s East Indian Rosewood. I’m excited to see her in person in a few days

[redir]

What Charles said above ^

Originally Posted by 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.

Actually that back looks perfect.

[EverettWilliams]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

Most of the replies thus far have suggested that whether or not a piece of wood is "good" is subjective. There is a subjective component, but there is also an objective one.

The edges of the lower bout of the back pictured in the OP show the characteristic "V" shaped grain indicating that the edges are slab cut. That the grain is straight - no "V" or "cathedral" grain - for most of the width of the back indicates that the back is rift sawn.

Here is why that matters. In many species of wood there is greater movement of the wood with changes in humidity for slab cut wood than for quarter sawn wood. What that means, in practical terms, is that for the same size piece of wood, a slab sawn piece of wood will expand and contract across its width more than quarter sawn piece subject to the same change in humidity. A slab cut piece is more prone to cracking than a quarter sawn piece.

In some pieces of wood with "wild" grain, there can be internal stresses, leading to the finished instrument cracking to relieve those stresses.

If one controls the humidity of the instrument, it probably doesn't matter all that much if one uses slab vs quarter sawn. If one doesn't, it might be the difference between the wood cracking and not.

As far as sound goes, there is no correlation between appearance and sound quality. Quartersawn wood is often, not always, stiffer across the grain than slab cut wood, which might have some implications particularly for guitar tops, though probably none for backs and sides.

I agree with what Charles has said -- there is something objective to whether the wood is physically good, but the looks are pretty subjective.

What we expect with Brazilian rosewood (it that's what it looks like to me) has changed a lot. You look at old guitars and Brazilian looked pretty pedestrian -- nice color and grain, but aside from some saw marks or the occasional spider webbing, it was closer to what we expect from Indian rosewood than what we now expect from Brazilian. The reason is that much of the available new wood has come from stumps and a lot of the old supply has been exhausted so that manufacturers are picking through the dregs of their stash (c.f. virtually any recent Brazilian Martin). There are some builders who have great sets available, but there's just not a massive supply of the good old quarter sawn stuff.

This set looks to me to be somewhere in the middle of the pack for the older stuff. The center of it looks old school-Martin but then it gets a bit pale toward the center and then gets well off quarter in the lower bouts. And, while the V-formation doesn't bother me aesthetically, I'd structurally rather have that all be straight -- but the tree was coming to a crotch, so it goes.

From an aesthetic perspective, I'd deem this acceptable. It's close enough to quartered and it's flat sawn in a less structurally vulnerable area where I'd think it would be stable. I think it's also generally pretty. I'm quite picky though. I tend to disfavor flashy figure in rosewood. To me the most attractive Brazilian rosewood is subtle, luminescent, with some color variety and clean and even grain -- in other words, pretty boring by today's standards.

[gfspencer]

That back is terrible! Why don't you box the guitar up and send it to me. I'll get rid of it for you.

But seriously, that's a nice looking guitar. I have all sorts of rosewood back on my guitars. No two look alike and I don't care because I'm more interested in how the guitar sounds.

[DaveJTR]

Great stuff Everett. And yeah, the post with the picture of the HD-28 is what I’ve been told is “good” rosewood.

[Guilty Spark]

I never said it was a "bad" back, just "non-descript" and "boring".

From a purely aesthetic perspective, I much prefer the OP's look. Again, I'm enamored with the sound of my guitar (which will only get better over time), I just wish the back had more character.

[YamahaGuy]

Originally Posted by Birchtop

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

I always love to see where there the subjective topics go...

[mcduffnw]

Originally Posted by DaveJTR

Great stuff Everett. And yeah, the post with the picture of the HD-28 is what I’ve been told is “good” rosewood.

It might be good visually...GREAT really, a terrific looking EIR back...and to some degrees structurally better than non-fully quartered wood...BUT...it does NOT sound any better than the "bad" {;-) wood.

And that's ANY species of back and side wood.


duff
Be A Player...Not A Polisher

[cliff_the_stiff]

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/#

Looks like a Martin to me. Looks like a Grand J12-40 back to me.
If I’m right- it’s good

[Silly Moustache]

Originally Posted by DaveJTR

I WISH it was Brazilian brother!!!
It’s East Indian Rosewood. I’m excited to see her in person in a few days

I believe that it may be an Eastman - E 20/40 OM or some such ?