Interesting Opinion by Paul Woolson Re: BRW

[cpabolting]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

Good analogy--since it's pretty obvious that chocolate is in another, higher league than butterscotch.

This has been on Paul's website for about 8 years, speaking of conversations with zombies. Paul has also said, "The way I build, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between any two "rosewood-sounding" guitars." That could be taken in different ways. And I think Paul has never built a guitar from Brazilian, which may also have some relevance.

But the thing I want to address is cracks. Sure, Brazilian rosewood often cracks with age; after 50 or 60 years, most BRW guitars will have a crack or two. Quite a few will have one after 20 years. So will those made from cocobolo, bloodwood, ziricote, or, for that matter, cedar or spruce.

SO WHAT???

After 50 or 60 years, most guitars will have a crack or two. Particularly if they were made with wood. It doesn't matter. Repair the crack and they are good to go. I've noticed that there is a divide among guitar players between those who have owned vintage guitars and those who have never bought a used guitar or owned a guitar that was older than 15 years or so. The latter group tend to think of a crack as "Omigod! It's BROKEN!!!" The former just ask, "has it been repaired?" A tight, repaired crack makes no difference to the life of an instrument. Cracks relieve stress. Some think they are good for tone. When they are well-repaired, the guitar is better than new structurally and sonically. Even if Paul's bit of hyperbole (that every BRW guitar will crack) were true, that is not a reason to avoid BRW. Cracks per se are No Big Deal.

Paul's saying that he would have to exclude BRW cracks from his warranty is a bit off the point, since he won't build with it (and remember, this was several years ago). I'll fix them under warranty if the guitar has been well cared for. If attended to promptly, crack repair is easy.

I always appreciate Howard's insight... and diplomacy too LOL

[Alan Carruth]

My experience suggests that BRW is a less stable wood than many. IRW, on the other hand, seems to be one of the most stable. In terms of crack resistance, then, BRW will always come off worse in that comparison. Now, if you compared BRW with Birdseye maple......

As has been pointed out, guitar makers do things that cabinet makers know are 'wrong', and this leads to problems. Wood undergoes 'shrinkage hysteresis' over time. When the humidity falls it shrinks, and when the humidity rises it swells, but it doesn't quite swell as much for a given rise in humidity as it shrinks when the humidity falls. Over time, with repeated cycles in humidity, it gets smaller, particularly across the grain, and most especially tangential to the annual ring lines. Flat cut wood tends to shrink more than quartered, and there's very little shrinkage along the grain. That's one reason quartered wood can be a bit more resistant to cracking than flat cut wood, and why wood that shows large changes in grain orientation from one side to the other tends to warp and crack more.

With players willing to pay outrageous sums for BRW, makers often use wood that they might not otherwise. 'Stump' wood, with it's wild changes in grain direction, and frequently high built-in stress, is just a bad bet for a guitar IMO, even if it's a really stable species. For that matter, if you're re-sawing a plank of BRW, and notice a small surface check, you might be tempted to just flood it with CA and use it, rather than planing down past the check as you might on a less valuable wood. That little defect is bound to come back and haunt you.

Although all woods vary a lot I seldom see IRW that's as dense as BRW. Similarly, most non-stump BRW has much lower damping than most IRW. In theory, at least, those two differences ought to have some effect on the sound of the guitar.

In practice, of course, it's all too easy to make a really bad guitar out of a great set of wood: we've all seen far too many of those. Wood offers possibilities, and sets limits, but it's up to the maker to realize the possibilities and approach the limits.

"All categorical statements are false"

[PWoolson]

Good morning all!
As much as I try, this subject won't die. I guess I've made that proverbial bed, now I get to sleep in it.
On my "tonewoods" section of my website, I go into a bit more detail and have adopted this verbiage rather than my "absolute" language.



And lastly, Brazilian Rosewood is exceptionally prone to severe warping, cracking, and splitting; and at some time over the life of a Brazilian Rosewood guitar, a crack will likely develop and need to be repaired – something that is costly for both the guitar owner and the luthier.



A little history: When I first started building, I simply stated that "I don't work with BRW" and left it at that. From that, I got all sorts of questions asking why. These questions turned to conversations, sometimes heated, about my opinions on the matter. I was even threatened bodily harm once because a gent took my stance on BRW as me saying his guitar was a piece of junk.
That's not the case at all. If you love your BRW guitar, great. If if offers you hours and hours of playing, even better.
Now back to the original question in the post. The cracking. I still believe that BRW has a higher tendency to crack. And yes, I do believe that, left long enough, BRW WILL crack. I know, I know, I'll hear lots of, "but I've had my BRW guitar for 7, 10, (fill in the blank) years and it isn't cracked." To which I think, "YET." Is it POSSIBLE that a BRW guitar will live it's life without a crack? Maybe. But what is a "life" of a guitar? If it's to the point where it is ready for the fire pit, it's probably cracked and falling apart. If you wait long enough, it will crack. I rest my case. I still maintain "YET" when responding to BRW guitars that aren't cracked.
But the point I was making with that original comment was that customers are paying an exorbitant amount of money for a product that is inherently unstable. That lovely "gong" sound you get when tapping it is, in part, because of this brittle nature of BRW. Howard stated very eloquently that a crack really doesn't matter at all. I agree. However, I know there are LOTS of people out there that could never live with a flaw on a guitar. A repaired crack would somehow "devalue" the instrument. With those people in mind I wonder "now what" when it comes to a crack. It's not really a warranty issue because there is no flaw in workmanship. But good luck telling that to a guy that just sunk $10k on this now flawed instrument.
These are my opinions and they represent a career I've made for myself. If a person doesn't agree with me, I have no problem with that. As I state on my site, I have a list of very fine builders that I'm happy to recommend.
I think Stuart had a spot-on post that sums up a lot of what I am thinking.

I would encourage people not to get hung up on the "absolute" tone of the comments. You have to remember, this is on his website. He's probably speaking in more of an absolute tone for a specific reason regarding his business practice than he might in a casual conversation.
I dont know him personally, but I think we all say things a little differently depending on the context and the goal of our statement.

Whats important is the main gist… that the cost to benefit ratio is too high for him to think it's worth it on his instruments.

This by itself may or may not be a good reason to decide never to work with the wood. But when you DO factor in the ethical issues (as it has been requested we ignore here… for some reason) then I think a builder has a pretty compelling reason not to work with the stuff.

I have yet to meet a luthier who, if their being honest, can deny the high cracking rate of BRW with a straight face. One of the reasons BRW hasn't cracked as much on older guitars is because it was straight grained BRW. Most BRW being used today isn't… it's stump wood which is far less stable.

I personally feel very similarly. I wouldn't say I will never work with BRW again. But i've reached the point where I will only work with it for very special projects and for the right clients.

Stuart brings up a very good point about stump wood. It never ceases to amaze me that folks will settle, and even pay extra, for very inferior wood, simply because it's Brazilian. I've seen some absolute junk out there, full of worm holes and voids that is selling for $1000 a set. Ridiculous! But that's for another conversation.

[Howard Klepper]

Originally Posted by PWoolson

But the point I was making with that original comment was that customers are paying an absorbent amount of money for a product that is inherently unstable.

Yeah, but who cares about the absorption of money? I use paper towels instead.

Hi Paul. Good to see you out slumming again. What I'm wondering is this: you say you decided when you started building not to build with BRW. And so far as I know, you have never done repairs in a shop that vintage instruments pass through. So on what do you base your claim about the extreme instability of BRW?

[PWoolson]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

Hi Paul. Good to see you out slumming again. What I'm wondering is this: you say you decided when you started building not to build with BRW. And so far as I know, you have never done repairs in a shop that vintage instruments pass through. So on what do you base your claim about the extreme instability of BRW?

I work very closely with a local repair shop. Though I don't actually work IN the shop, we do a lot of consulting back and forth and I've seen nearly every repair he's done that was of any consequence. I've seen a lot of BRW so I'm not totally naive in my stance here.

[PWoolson]

Originally Posted by Howard Klepper

Yeah, but who cares about the absorption of money? I use paper towels instead.

Typing whilst thinking is not my strong suit.

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by KevinLPederson

why was it "chocolate or butterscotch"? Shouldn't it have been "chocolate or vanilla"?

If you want to make it a HARD choice, it should be "Chocolate Almond or Buttered Pecan".

[Kent Chasson]

Originally Posted by PWoolson

I work very closely with a local repair shop. Though I don't actually work IN the shop, we do a lot of consulting back and forth and I've seen nearly every repair he's done that was of any consequence. I've seen a lot of BRW so I'm not totally naive in my stance here.

Glad you chimed in, Paul. How old are the guitars in question? One big reason that so many old Brazilian guitars have splits is because most old guitars were made with Brazilian. Not much to compare to before the '60's - '70's. I'd also be curious to hear how many guitars with split Brazilian backs also had top splits. In my experience, it's about as likely but I would never suggest avoiding spruce.

Also, I see that you offer Honduran Rosewood and Ziricote. Do you believe they are less likely to split?

[printer2]

Originally Posted by PWoolson

Typing whilst thinking is not my strong suit.

Thinking while typing is not mine.



So are the other hard resonant woods on the BRW scale of the tonal spectrum as likely to split? I guess if we had been using them for 50 years we would see them needing repairs also.

[PWoolson]

Originally Posted by Kent Chasson

Glad you chimed in, Paul. How old are the guitars in question? One big reason that so many old Brazilian guitars have splits is because most old guitars were made with Brazilian. Not much to compare to before the '60's - '70's. I'd also be curious to hear how many guitars with split Brazilian backs also had top splits. In my experience, it's about as likely but I would never suggest avoiding spruce.

Also, I see that you offer Honduran Rosewood and Ziricote. Do you believe they are less likely to split?

The point keeps getting missed here:
I'm not saying that folks should avoid BRW because of its likelihood to split as much as I'm saying that the combination of this likelihood pair with the high price is the reason that I avoid it. Sure other brittle woods can split, and will, but they usually don't cost as much.

Originally Posted by PWoolson

The point keeps getting missed here:
I'm not saying that folks should avoid BRW because of its likelihood to split as much as I'm saying that the combination of this likelihood pair with the high price is the reason that I avoid it. Sure other brittle woods can split, and will, but they usually don't cost as much.

Hi, Paul. I've been following this thread, and just wanted to say your reasoning about this issue as a builder makes perfect sense to me. People tend to not tolerate anything negative said about a wood from which their guitar is made (compare the threads about cedar top guitars), and I notice some of the flack you're getting here (either directly or indirectly) comes from owners or BRW guitars. But to me, it is clear you're not attacking those guitars, but simply explaining your business position as a luthier.

[PWoolson]

Originally Posted by GraceGuitars

Hi, Paul. I've been following this thread, and just wanted to say your reasoning about this issue as a builder makes perfect sense to me. People tend to not tolerate anything negative said about a wood from which their guitar is made (compare the threads about cedar top guitars), and I notice some of the flack you're getting here (either directly or indirectly) comes from owners or BRW guitars. But to me, it is clear you're not attacking those guitars, but simply explaining your business position as a luthier.

Thank you. I'm no so good at conveying my thoughts through the typed word. So it's nice to see that at least one person gets what I'm talking about.
I have absolutely no problem with people that play BRW guitars. I simply choose to not use the wood. (MOST of my reasoning is environmental/political) I wish I could just leave it at that. But I've been pressed and pressed as to WHY I don't use it, so I attempted to explain my logic. Try as I may, it still comes across as if I'm attacking those that play BRW guitars. That's not the case at all.

[Ned Milburn]

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

My experience suggests that BRW is a less stable wood than many. IRW, on the other hand, seems to be one of the most stable. In terms of crack resistance, then, BRW will always come off worse in that comparison. Now, if you compared BRW with Birdseye maple......

As has been pointed out, guitar makers do things that cabinet makers know are 'wrong', and this leads to problems. Wood undergoes 'shrinkage hysteresis' over time. When the humidity falls it shrinks, and when the humidity rises it swells, but it doesn't quite swell as much for a given rise in humidity as it shrinks when the humidity falls. Over time, with repeated cycles in humidity, it gets smaller, particularly across the grain, and most especially tangential to the annual ring lines. Flat cut wood tends to shrink more than quartered, and there's very little shrinkage along the grain. That's one reason quartered wood can be a bit more resistant to cracking than flat cut wood, and why wood that shows large changes in grain orientation from one side to the other tends to warp and crack more.

With players willing to pay outrageous sums for BRW, makers often use wood that they might not otherwise. 'Stump' wood, with it's wild changes in grain direction, and frequently high built-in stress, is just a bad bet for a guitar IMO, even if it's a really stable species. For that matter, if you're re-sawing a plank of BRW, and notice a small surface check, you might be tempted to just flood it with CA and use it, rather than planing down past the check as you might on a less valuable wood. That little defect is bound to come back and haunt you.

Although all woods vary a lot I seldom see IRW that's as dense as BRW. Similarly, most non-stump BRW has much lower damping than most IRW. In theory, at least, those two differences ought to have some effect on the sound of the guitar.

In practice, of course, it's all too easy to make a really bad guitar out of a great set of wood: we've all seen far too many of those. Wood offers possibilities, and sets limits, but it's up to the maker to realize the possibilities and approach the limits.

"All categorical statements are false"

Well stated, Alan. Agreed with your points about the tendencies of BRW and IRW.

[JoeCharter]

Originally Posted by gstar

I've never come across any luthier as well known as him stating that all BRW guitars will eventually crack, although I certainly have read opinions that highly figured examples can be somewhat fragile.

Paul is here to speak for himself but I doubt he meant literally that ALL BRW guitars will crack in a heartbeat. If we are going to speak literally, ALL guitars of any material (including carbon fibre) will eventually crack and turn to dust.

Originally Posted by gstar

Also, although I've read many luthier statements that EIR produces wonderful instruments, I've never come across the opinion that BRW produces no observable improvement in sound.

My first question would be, "what's an IMPROVEMENT in sound"? What is the quality that would make us all agree that the sound has indeed IMPROVED?

There are plenty of builders who think that BRW does not sound significantly different than other rosewoods. Some opinions from established luthiers can even be found on the AGF if you look long enough -- except they usually stay away from such conversations because they don't appreciate unnecessary turmoil.

I'm not going to suggest any names -- but I will say I would never buy a guitar (let alone several) from a luthier who is pro-actively trying to sell me BRW because of its seemingly "superior" tonal merits.

I will also add that I would never trust any business owner (who has a commercial interest in selling me a more expensive item) over my own judgment in any situation -- nor would I expect a business owner to dismiss their own stash for my personal benefit. It's up to the buyer to use their judgment rather than look for absolute answers.

When one sees a bunch of smart and competent individuals argue ad vitam eternam over a topic such as the tonal impact and uniqueness of BRW, one must come to the conclusion that whatever these people are arguing about must not be a significant driver. If it was clear and obvious that BRW sounded noticeably "better" indeed, there would be no debate as all luthiers and all players would be in agreement.

[JamesO]

Mau for the win.