Real Wood guitars price escalating

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by Stevien

We should have been exploring renewable woods 50 years ago.
Steve

Some did, but the buying public wasn't willing to.

I made my first black walnut guitar nearly 40 years ago. I was following in the footsteps of those before me. 35 years ago, I used padauk for back, sides and neck. I was following in the footsteps of those before me.

Then there were the guitars in the early 1900's made of birch and maple. And so on.

[jdrnd]

Originally Posted by Scotso

TV and semiconductor and...and...go down. Is that because of less greed and marketing?

These are different types of products.


As for marketing...

Taylor markets many of its newest guitars as better, different etc sometimes based on internal wood placement. Martin's marketing implies that new guitars are as good as vintage guitars. Note the word "implies". They both charge more money.
This forum is a form of marketing. I bought a new guitar, albeit carbon fiber, and I had no intention of buying one. I already have a rosewood (the Taylor) and a Mahogany (The Takamine). They are great guitars. Had I not started posting (again) a few months ago, I would not have bought the Emerald X-30. I am no better than anyone else.

Greed is not bad, it just is. We all have it. The owners of guitar companies will charge what they think the market is willing to pay. If not enough people are willing to drop $3000plus on a Martin, Taylor, or xxxxx there would be a price drop. I know that you already know this.

I don't think a wood shortage is the main reason for the price increases.

To quote one of the more prolific AGF posters.

"Just sayin"

[dnf777]

I bet the Chinese luxury construction industry throws out more Rosewood scraps than luthiers put into guitars. Apparently, construction usage of exotic woods was a major impetus behind CITES regulations.

[jdrnd]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

Some did, but the buying public wasn't willing to.

They won't have to.

They are making meat with microorganisms

The same technology can produce wood. I give it 30 years to happen.

[jdrnd]

Originally Posted by dnf777

I bet the Chinese luxury construction industry throws out more Rosewood scraps than luthiers put into guitars. Apparently, construction usage of exotic woods was a major impetus behind CITES regulations.

agreed....

[SingingSparrow]

I agree that sustainability should have been a matter of foresight, not hindsight. But live and learn, eh. I think furniture has probably made more demands of both rosewood and mahogany than guitars. Nevertheless, there is little difference in the spirit with which our species has, since industrialization, approached natural resources and the spirit that so swiftly pushed the dodo out of existence.

And, then, of course there is stuff like this happening in the world, which probably renders any changes to our general approach to things apparently unnecessary (but not quite):

They won't have to.

They are making meat with microorganisms

The same technology can produce wood. I give it 30 years to happen.

[biotechmgr]

Originally Posted by Rev Roy

You can’t extrapolate based on today’s market. It’s way out of wack because of COVID. High demand + shortages = big time sellers market. It’ll take years to get back to normal pricing...though some predict the old standard discounts will never return. Others say a lot of those COVID-inspired newbies will ultimately give up and flood the used market leading to a major buyers market. Used prices could crash further as baby boom players meet their Maker and heirs sell their high-end guitars.

Truth is, no one knows.

Good points, and nobody knows, but your last two points illuminate strong possibilities ahead

[Robin, Wales]

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

Kmckenna, your idea of what constitutes “real wood” for guitar construction is biased by the mid- to late-20th Century norms that you’re used to. But these have changed many times over the years and over the centuries; up until about the 1950’s birch was extremely common for factory guitar production. In previous centuries pear wood was another tonewood in common use.

So what you’ve posed in your post is a “false dilemma,” seeing a normal turn in the marketplace as an existential crisis.

Which itÂ’s not.

It IS a drag for those who prefer rosewood and mahogany, but itÂ’s not really a major crisis - itÂ’s more like a bump in the road.

Hope that makes sense.


Wade Hampton Miller

A great post as ever Wade.

The mahogany and rosewood "normal" was largely economic. There was literally boat loads of the stuff coming into the US looking for a market. You could waste as much of it as you wanted through inefficient manufacturing. Mahogany was easier to obtain and cheaper than spruce. In fact, it was simpler to use solid mahogany than make plywood.

Remember that a lot of the classic guitars we spend a fortune on buying copies of were cheap "student" guitars of their day. We are paying far too much for the logo on the headstock, but that's the way of the world I'm afraid.

Personally, I'd love to see a few more guitar companies using birch plywood for b/s. The Waterloo range is crying out for a birch plywood model. Their goal was to make guitars like the $15 guitars of the 20s/30s so why not build in birch? Probably because of our misplaced fixation on mahogany and rosewood.

[redir]

Define: Real Wood?

My guess is that you are talking about things like Richlite? Or perhaps plywood constructed guitars?

Richlikte and materials like that are great alternatives to ebony and rosewood which is becoming more scarce and is illegally poached all around the world.

As mentioned local alternatives in pretty much any country can be used to produce the finest of all guitars. In North America we have maple, birch, walnut, osage orange, cherry, oak and plenty of materials to build fine guitars.

[rstaight]

A lot of different woods can made a very fine instrument. My acoustics with mahogany backs and sides are so inexpensive some folks wont' give them a chance.

My more expensive acoustics, one has walnut and maple back with walnut sides, the other has maple back and sides.

I am of the belief that once things open back up a lot of the new players will give it up. The market will then be flooded with good to high quality used instruments.

[Dotneck]

Just curious...as a builder...do you have a stash of mahogany and rosewood or will you be victim to the marketplace for buying material. I spoke with another builder who says he couldn’t possibly use all his mahogany in his lifetime.

I bet it’s the big manufacturers who are hurting...


[/B][/B]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

Some did, but the buying public wasn't willing to.

I made my first black walnut guitar nearly 40 years ago. I was following in the footsteps of those before me. 35 years ago, I used padauk for back, sides and neck. I was following in the footsteps of those before me.

Then there were the guitars in the early 1900's made of birch and maple. And so on.

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by Dotneck

Just curious...as a builder...do you have a stash of mahogany and rosewood or will you be victim to the marketplace for buying material. I spoke with another builder who says he couldn’t possibly use all his mahogany in his lifetime.

My output is small, so I don't use much wood. For most things, I likely have enough to last my lifetime.

I am stunned, however, at some of the current (replacement) prices for some of the woods I have. In one case, the back and sides, untouched, are worth more for me to sell as back and sides than if I were to make a guitar out of that wood and sell the finished instrument made of it.

I bet it’s the big manufacturers who are hurting...

Maybe. More likely it the buyers who are hurting, struggling to chase after specific woods that are increasingly less available.

As long as people want to buy guitars, there will be wood to make them from. It just might not be the specific woods that buyers have previously expected - or at the prices buyers have previously expected. For example, Martin sells guitars made of "select hardwood" - code for mahogany-like woods. Gibson is selling black walnut guitars. Taylor is selling ash guitars. Those alternative woods can be used to make excellent guitars. The only thing wrong with them is that they aren't mahogany, rosewood, and koa.

When I was a kid, my mother used to read to me the short story called Peas, Cheese and Chocolate Pudding. It was about a boy who would eat nothing but peas, cheese and chocolate pudding. One day, he tried eating something else. From that day onward, he tried many different foods, liked most foods and ate them. I expect the same thing will happen to guitar buyers regarding Mahogany, Rosewood and Koa: enough people will one day try other woods and from then on, be quite happy to consume those. There are so many wonderful woods, many of which can be used to make exceptional guitars.

[bufflehead]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

I am stunned, however, at some of the current (replacement) prices for some of the woods I have.

I am similarly stunned at the overall rise in lumber prices in the past year. A year ago I built a 8' x 12' cedar deck that cost half as much as the 10' x 10' cedar deck I just built on my other property. The cost per board foot has doubled in one year.

[redir]

I think the supply of construction grade lumber and woods used for guitars are totally separate. I have not noticed a recent spike in the cost of 'tonewoods' but gradually over time it certainly has gone up. But there has been a huge housing demand this last year which drove the cost of construction lumber up significantly.

When ever I buy new 'tonewood' I mark on it the date, supplier, and the price I paid for it and store it away. So if I am offed tomorrow my wife at least knows what it's worth.

[bufflehead]

Originally Posted by Robin, Wales

Mahogany was easier to obtain and cheaper than spruce. In fact, it was simpler to use solid mahogany than make plywood.

Robin, I'm trying to interpret you benignly here. Having spent three postgraduate years studying in the UK, I'm very much aware of the incongruities between word usage in British English and American English, especially when it comes to slang.

I believe the technical differences between layered wood and plywood have been pointed out before on AGW. In layered wood, the grain of each layer runs in the same direction, while in plywood the grain of each successive layer runs perpendicular to its neighbors.

While this could be seen as a technicality, referencing plywood guitars--to my ears--sounds inflammatory, as if you intend to deride guitars made with layered backs and sides. I'm hoping that this is not the case because it would violate the overall "Be Nice" rule on AGF, a rule that prohibits flaming each other's guitars.

Again, I'm open to the possibility that the term "plywood" is used differently in some parts of the UK. The definitive Oxford English Dictionary, however, defines plywood thus: "Board made of two or more thin layers of wood bonded together with the grain of adjacent layers crosswise to give increased strength and resistance to warping, or sometimes of two series of such layers sandwiching a thicker central core of a different material; an example of this."