"Tree" talk

[JoeCharter]

Whether it's guitars, music, photos, ideas or simply the pride and joy of owning a fine guitar, we're all on the AGF to "promote" something, aren't we?

Congrats to Jay for being able to move so many sets of "Tree". I saw one of Michael Greenfield's sets (truly spectacular) and Jim Olson told me he grabbed a really fine set as well. Now I'm a bit bummed out because he'll probably come up with a "better" "Tree" SJ than mine... LOL

To me, it's a good thing that folks can sell their wood at a premium, and it's a good thing that luthiers are able to make a profit on it as well. We are not talking about jacking up the price of bread and milk -- we're talking about fancy guitars, aka toys for grown ups, in very limited numbers... Expensive guitars that actually sell are a sign of a healthy industry.

In the proper hands, "Tree" mahogany makes fine sounding guitars -- as much as non-Tree mahogany and sapele. Some luthiers claim it sounds "better" (whatever that means) than other mahoganies/sapele while others wouldn't make such definite statements. I can relate better with the latter group.

I personally like the "Tree" because it looks so darn good (to me) and also because it's well known enough that it'll be an asset if I need to sell my guitar one day. For the time being, I like looking at my guitar and I like playing it -- so to me it's worth whatever premium I paid for it.

[ZekeM]

^^^^exactly

[BBWW]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

Whether it's guitars, music, photos, ideas or simply the pride and joy of owning a fine guitar, we're all on the AGF to "promote" something, aren't we?

Congrats to Jay for being able to move so many sets of "Tree". I saw one of Michael Greenfield's sets (truly spectacular) and Jim Olson told me he grabbed a really fine set as well. Now I'm a bit bummed out because he'll probably come up with a "better" "Tree" SJ than mine... LOL

Joe has it right and yes, I shamelessly promote this wood. It's been an obsession of mine since 1992. Like any obsession it grows. I love guitars made from it. I think it is a stellar wood. I don't care who has it, I want to see it, hear it and play a guitar out of it. I fall in the line that it DOES sound much different from Sapele or other Honduran Big Leaf mahoganies. Better? That is subjective. I have heard some other mahogany that doesn't sound like mahogany either.

Yes, I have made a little money on it, I've been lucky or blessed. Like collecting coins or baseball cards or old cars, things that are worth only what people will pay. If you like it, you want to have it. If you can't afford it you complain about it. I'm the same way.

I'm not a wood reseller. I'm a singer songwriter and I shamelessly promote that more. The only wood in my garage is Tree and LS Redwood. I'm a musician and wood and guitar freak. I think the price is stupidly high and I've been happy to have ONE guitar out of it for 20+ years. That guitar I paid $350 for the set used for it in 1992. For the same price I could have gotten some very sweet old Brazilian Rosewood, I just wanted "The Tree."

Now, to be in full disclosure: I have 3 Tree Guitars coming in the future. A 1929 Santa Cruz OO, A one piece back Harvey Leach "Cremona" and a Michael Greenfield G1.2. That pretty much takes my profit. I am not a wise man.

Thanks Joe your "Tree" set is in the mail.

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by BBWW

I fall in the line that it DOES sound much different from Sapele or other Honduran Big Leaf mahoganies.

I hope to own enough Olson SJ flavours one day to challenge this... LOL

Originally Posted by BBWW

Now, to be in full disclosure: I have 3 Tree Guitars coming in the future. A 1929 Santa Cruz OO, A one piece back Harvey Leach "Cremona" and a Michael Greenfield G1.2. That pretty much takes my profit. I am not a wise man.

Thanks Joe your "Tree" set is in the mail.

That's a very classy gesture from a breathtakingly tasteful man -- thank you.

Only on the AGF do you find such kindness and generosity...

[harvl]

This summer I had the opportunity to build nearly identical guitars from LS and Brazilian and LS and the Tree... they had different rosettes and obviously different back and sides but otherwise the same, even built them in the same batch using sequential bracewood (not as a test but because that's just the way it worked out) since they were done at the same time I was able to play them side by side... there is the "mahogany" sound and the Brazilian" sound and I think we all can separate the 2 quite easily... these 2 were very close to the same but ironically, I'd bet in a blind test most would have picked the Tree as the one made from Brazilian... I've probably built more guitars from it than most (couple dozen) and it is definitely not like any other mahogany including sapele ...it's a LOT denser. You don't need to like it but unless you have built with it I'm not sure you can judge it. I've built over 400 guitars and it's what I'd build myself a guitar from... or Brazilian (I just love the smell )

Harv

[BBWW]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

I hope to own enough Olson SJ flavours one day to challenge this... LOL

I really liked meeting Jim, I'm hoping to talk him in to building me something, (If I don't buy that 1967 TR-4 I've been eyeing. LOL)

He has a set of Tiger Myrtle to die for.

[Clydeslide]

Originally Posted by BBWW

I really liked meeting Jim, I'm hoping to talk him in to building me something, (If I don't buy that 1967 TR-4 I've been eyeing. LOL)

He has a set of Tiger Myrtle to die for.

My brother has a GT6 and had a Spitfire. My parents have been eyeing a TR-4 for a while now, maybe when they both retire and sell off the A4 or A6.

I, on the other hand, only want a car that gets me from A to B and can fit at least two mountain bikes and camping gear in the back



The Tree looks very nice and I'm sure it sounds great. I'm not sure I'd be willing to pay more for it than any other highly figured wood, but then I'm not in the position where I can

[Hambone]

Make lemonade from lemons. Claim you have come up with a new tone enhancer, mini soundports on the sides AND back. You'll be recognized on these boards as the true visionary you are and you can optimize the value of exotic tone woods worldwide that have spent the early part of their lives as kitchen cabinetry.

That wood would bother me. I've also heard (either here or on the Martin board) the guitars made from "The Tree" are great to look at, but don't necessarily share sonic greatness equal to the physical beauty.

[JoeCharter]

Not sure if it's here or on the UMGF but I hear that Martin grade their wood on the basis of aesthetics.

I also read somewhere that the D100 isn't ten times better than the D45, which in turn isn't twice as good sounding as the D42.

Crazy how people are ready to invest a lot of money for features that in reality don't do much to the sound.

[stringjunky]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

Crazy how people are ready to invest a lot of money for features that in reality don't do much to the sound.

Yes you are crazy Mau. It's what one likes and that's all that matters.

I think you have a good idea where utility ends and aesthetics begin, I bet quite a few inexperienced people who go custom and spend loads on a very visually beautiful guitar are a bit disappointed when the sound doesn't match the spectacular looks as though they should.

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by stringjunky

Yes you are crazy Mau. It's what one likes and that's all that matters.

I think you have a good idea where utility ends and aesthetics begin, I bet quite a few inexperienced people who go custom and spend loads on a very visually beautiful guitar are a bit disappointed when the sound doesn't match the spectacular looks as though they should.

If I'm hungry one day, each of my Olsons would sell quickly and feed an entire family for a year or two. So crazy, yes -- but still a calculated move...

If people want a guitar that sounds like rosewood, they should go with EIR.

If they want a guitar that looks like a million bucks, has the heritage and prestige of a "true" mahogany, and like the idea of a tone wood that is more dense than "regular" mahogany -- then the "Tree" is a fantastic option.

There's plenty of cheap woods that sound somewhere in between rosewood and mahogany. Sound alone is no reason to pay thousands for the "Tree" -- or ANY premium tonewood for that matter.

Bring in prestige, looks, resale value -- and to a certain extent, branding -- and now you have many arguments in favour of the "Tree".

[Bruce Sexauer]

With all due respect, the previous Mau post makes a couple of broad statements about highly complex issues of tone, and I do not agree. The statements are presented as facts, not the opinions they actually are. Thanks.

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by Bruce Sexauer

With all due respect, the previous Mau post make a couple of broad statements about highly complex issues of tone, and I do not agree. I am not going to argue about it, but I think it is very important to remember that his is one man's opinion, and that man is not technically grounded, he is a player. The statements are presented as facts, not the opinions they actually are. Thanks.

Not sure why you felt the urge to remind the AGF community that I'm not a builder (surprise!!!) but I merely used the verb "should" and provided my personal analysis of tonewoods and the guitar market in general. Where do you read any hard facts, anyway?

Besides, I don't need to build a guitar to hear and analyze the impact of tone woods on the instruments that I play -- and share my thoughts with others on the forum.

And for the benefit of the AGF community, there are plenty of really good builders (with no overstock) who share my general views about tonewoods. I assume those guys are technically grounded enough to have an opinion.

[Bruce Sexauer]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

If people want a guitar that sounds like rosewood, they should go with EIR.

Sound alone is no reason to pay thousands for the "Tree" -- or ANY premium tonewood for that matter.

The above, for instance.

Of all the rosewood I have used, EIR sounds the least like one IMO. Yet, since there are more of them, one could argue that it is the quintessentially rosewood sound and they'd be statistically correct. But this does NOT make the statement true because BRW is the wood that created the Rosewood sound. And PLEASE do not say that EIR is a tonal substitute for BRW, that is uninformed. It is also false IMO.

I have not built with the Tree, but if and when I do, I truly believe I am going to get exceptional results. This is because the wood is harder, heavier, and from at least one point of view stronger than any other Mahogany I've seen. The caveat is that in order to harvest this potential, I believe the resulting guitar is going to be relatively fragile. Not everyone is going to have the knowledge and skill to keep such a guitar's integrity intact, but for the one who can I expect it will be incomparable. Or maybe I'm just bragging . . so test me.


Then:
I have removed some things I said in this post, not because they don't represent my thinking, but because they were misinterpreted and some offense was taken. The words did not serve my purpose, they made trouble instead. I did not intend for that to happen, and I apologize for the fact that it did.

[ecguitar44]

Originally Posted by Bruce Sexauer

The above, for instance.

Of all the rosewood I have used, EIR sounds the least like one IMO. Yet, since there are more of them, one could argue that it is the quintessentially rosewood sound and they'd be statistically correct. But this does NOT make the statement true because BRW is the wood that created the Rosewood sound. And PLEASE do not say that EIR is a tonal substitute for BRW, that is uninformed. It is also false IMO.

I have not built with the Tree, but if and when I do, I truly believe I am going to get exceptional results. This is because the wood is harder, heavier, and from at least one point of view stronger than any other Mahogany I've seen. The caveat is that in order to harvest this potential, I believe the resulting guitar is going to be relatively fragile. Not everyone is going to have the knowledge and skill to keep such a guitar's integrity intact, but for the one who can I expect it will be incomparable. Or maybe I'm just bragging . . so test me.


Then:
I am having increasing trouble with seeing "expert" opinions offered as facts in the forum, and in particular in this thread. I started this thread with an agenda, certainly, and that is to get a sense of the viability of the Tree in the market for its tonal qualities when disassociated from Collectible Perfection.
I personally am generally quite careful to make my statements clearly labeled as opinion, not that I have never failed to do so.

As it happens, I do value my opinion much more highly than I do that of many others, and that is because I generally am quite knowledgeable on the subjects where I am willing to hazard an opinion. Many people do not know my qualifications, and please feel free to doubt, for you mine is just an opinion. But it does drive me nuts when I see others whose knowledge is obviously (to me) more modest gain a reputation so powerful that many of the readers here seem to tremble before them. And the luthiers who do have some actual knowledge are mostly unwilling to speak up for fear of losing business. That's an opinion, by the way, but I do have some inside knowledge.

The high end guitar market has increasing become driven by the lay customer, who has in many cases become the wood supplier, and with the advent of the internet has taken an increasing control of aesthetics and the increasing bells and whistles of the genre. This is not all good, and for those of us who have spent a lifetime actually studying and perhaps even understanding the instrument, it can be a professional affront. Perhaps it is how a qualified doctor feels when a patient comes in having self-diagnosed with only a couple of the facts.

In with the new and out with the old, certainly, but I believe there is something being lost in the bathwater.