Brondel A-2 Euro and Black Cocobolo

[iim7V7IM7]

Many tropical hardwoods are poorly identified due to supply chain of custody from forest, to harvest, to sawyering/export or export/sayering through distribution to luthiers. There are many woods that are given the same common name. Unless one can see the tree, its foliage or have a specific chemical test, it is difficult to reliably ID tropical hardwoods. That is certainly visually unusual set and will no doubt make a fine guitar in Laurent’s capable hands.

Players/hobbyists tend to place too much faith in homogenious, inherent properties of a species onto the end result of a guitar. The back/side wood does influence the end result to some degree, but to differentiate between dense, stiff and glassy species is likely focused upon a bit too much. I believe builders evaluate the properties individual sets vs. species in the context of a custom project and its goals (both aesthetic and sonic).

My $.02

[TomB'sox]

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7

Many tropical hardwoods are poorly identified due to supply chain of custody from forest, to harvest, to sawyering/export or export/sayering through distribution to luthiers. There are many woods that are given the same common name. Unless one can see the tree, its foliage or have a specific chemical test, it is difficult to reliably ID tropical hardwoods. That is certainly visually unusual set and will no doubt make a fine guitar in Laurent’s capable hands.

Players/hobbyists tend to place too much faith in homogenious, inherent properties of a species onto the end result of a guitar. The back/side wood does influence the end result to some degree, but to differentiate between dense, stiff and glassy species is likely focused upon a bit too much. I believe builders evaluate the properties individual sets vs. species in the context of a custom project and its goals (both aesthetic and sonic).

My $.02

I concur for sure. I think you have general classes....hard glassy woods, ie. the rosewoods and their cousins and softer more woody tones as in the Mahogany and say Walnut (kind of in the middle between the two) maybe. The nuance is there between all of them of course, but even within the same exact species there is no assurance that consistency is present. Each set will tap as an individual.

Therefore, for me, I go with the classes (I like the overtones and volume of the Rosewood families), but at that point, it becomes aesthetics for me. I don't want a cardboard tap sound, but beyond that, I pick the set that appeals to me visually. The the builder mostly and the top are what determines the final outcome.

I would definitely find this Black Coco a positive on both of my checkoffs. It is beautiful and apparently is hard and glassy!!! I am officially very jealous!!!

[Erithon]

Originally Posted by justonwo

That’s interesting. As Mike is using the term, he doesn’t mean a separate species. I’ve talked to him at length about this wood. It’s thought to be regular cocobolo that was darker in appearance because of mineral content. As Laurent uses the term, he probably IS referring to the other species.

Yeah, I think you're right. Thanks for pointing that out!

Originally Posted by iim7V7IM7

Many tropical hardwoods are poorly identified due to supply chain of custody from forest, to harvest, to sawyering/export or export/sayering through distribution to luthiers. There are many woods that are given the same common name. Unless one can see the tree, its foliage or have a specific chemical test, it is difficult to reliably ID tropical hardwoods. That is certainly visually unusual set and will no doubt make a fine guitar in Laurent’s capable hands.

Players/hobbyists tend to place too much faith in homogenious, inherent properties of a species onto the end result of a guitar. The back/side wood does influence the end result to some degree, but to differentiate between dense, stiff and glassy species is likely focused upon a bit too much. I believe builders evaluate the properties individual sets vs. species in the context of a custom project and its goals (both aesthetic and sonic).

My $.02

I don't disagree. My question was about the nomenclature and--as far as that might have been derived from aesthetics--I suppose it was about the visual properties of a set of wood; but I was not making any assertions about any species as a whole, just quoting what I turned up from that CITES proposal and Baranik description.