Is Sapele inferior to Mahogany?

[Erithon]

Originally Posted by stringjunky

It can be top drawer stuff:

Not to rain on the Sapele parade, but that's unmistakably Honduran Mahogany from "The Tree." The quilting of Sapele tends to be tighter, and it won't have those "tortoise shell" veins unique to some sets of "The Tree."

[jaymarsch]

Originally Posted by M Sarad

The first Brondel I played was Sapele. Superb guitar under his capabilities.

Yep, it can be great in the right hands.

Best,
Jayne

[dhockenbury]

A quilted sapele back on my H&D.

[Kitkatjoe]

Originally Posted by cu4life7

I think generally the stripped look of Sapele is less appealing to some, but sound wise it is fantastic. Like others have said, I think lack of tradition and history make some look down upon tone woods like sapele and others. But like anything else, if you like it than who cares.

The most desired mahogany in the 18th and 19th centuries for high end Empire furniture was made with ribbon mahogany. It reminds me of the sapele you see guitars made out of currently.I’m looking at a 1852 Chickering piano and a 20 foot 1840 Empire table as reference. Both of these examples could be mistaken as made from Sapele today. Mahogany with the ribbons is quite beautiful. Sapele is a mighty fine looking and playing tone wood.

[rwmct]

I have nothing against Sapele. I just object to its being called Mahogany.

[Guitarplayer_PR]

Originally Posted by rwmct

I have nothing against Sapele. I just object to its being called Mahogany.

Marketing stuff. They come from the same family, and Mahogany is a sexier word than Sapele, so there you go.

[fazool]

I prefer the light-weight of mahogany.

I don't like (personal preference only) the striping of Sapele.

I have had several of each woods and liked both equally.

I think real mahogany is desirable because it is rarer and, therefore exotic.

I think Sapele is desirable because is is sustainable and responsible.

I tell myself that Mahogany sounds a little more lush.

[Ncbandit]

I have both but don't have the same tops on each to directly compare. I have sapele/adi, sapele/cedar, and Hog/sitka.

For those who don't like the sapele stripes you can shop around for the ones that are not so pronounced. The sapele on one of my Eastman's is very dark and you can't even see the stripes.

Sapele/adi is a great combo.

[Robin, Wales]

Sapele is not truly 'sustainable'. A good percentage of the wood we get in guitars from the Far East will have been illegally logged or 'legally' logged in an unsustainable way in Africa (ie. not managed and not re-planted). In fact, the Lacy Act could quite probably be applied to very many Sapele guitars today that do not have robust tracible provenance.

The US and Northern Europe do grow some lovely potential tone woods where the provenance and sustainability could be assured. Perhaps, as players, we should be bringing those into fashion for guitar building at all levels of the market?

[Ante]

I bought cheap Eastman E1-OM when I was waiting for my Furch Vintage 3SR. Sapele back and side , Sitka Spruce top. It was just like temporally guitar but now not need to say it's my favorite. I like a sound and playability.

[LAPlayer]

Originally Posted by Erithon

Not to rain on the Sapele parade, but that's unmistakably Honduran Mahogany from "The Tree." The quilting of Sapele tends to be tighter, and it won't have those "tortoise shell" veins unique to some sets of "The Tree."

That may be, I don't know, but this is absolutely figured Sapele. I played it when Bill Wise built it and it still haunts me years later. No, Sapele is not inferior to any other wood. Most quality Sapele, Mahogany, Rosewood vary slightly when you're talking about the amount of wood required for a guitar build.

[Charlie Bernstein]

Pure myth. Sapele guitars can sound great. The price differences between various rosewoods, mahoganies, and other woods are because of price and and looks, not their tonal qualities.

One example is Brazilian rosewood versus other rosewoods. Blindfolded, you won't hear a difference. Eyes wide open, Brazilian wins the pageant every time. So all other things being equal, it costs more.

Different tonewoods have different sounds, but none sounds better or worse than others.

[frankmcr]

I know this is an old thread, just wanted to say

Yowza!

Originally Posted by stringjunky

[67goat]

It's interesting how many of the "lesser" woods used to be the sole domain of custom luthiers and were considered premium until the big makers started using them and they became "lesser" woods.

And other woods used to be more common in use, but got replaced with a cheaper option that became the "good" wood and the original became the "bad" wood. For example, if you go far back enough in instrument building, Indian Laurel was considered to be a great wood to use. But it only grew certain places and was fairly expensive. Rosewood was found to have similar characteristics and grows everywhere. Laurels got replaced with the cheaper Rosewoods. Due to the long history of Rosewood use since, and the prices being driven up by CITES, when builders use Laurel today, people see it as the lesser, cheaper option.

If it sounds good, feels good, and looks good (in order of appearance), I don't really care what it is.

[Charlie Bernstein]

Originally Posted by frankmcr

I know this is an old thread, just wanted to say

Yowza!

Omigosh. Got me again!