"Bear Claw"...yay or nay?

[fitness1]

I loved the pattern on my Charis Dread - my SJ has some symmetrical markings to.

I think some of it can be extra stiff, and that needs to be taken into consideration when thickness sanded.

Overall, I really like "busy" symmetrical claw and flamey woods for back and sides.

[Dru Edwards]

Makes no difference to me. I'd buy a guitar with or without bearclaw if it was what I was looking for.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by edward993

I'd personally call wood's figuring "character" ; and we like some folk's character while others we cannot stand. This is fair.

Runout, however, is just bad on a pricey guitar. On a budget guit, fine. But if one is shelling our serious dough (you decide that sum), runout on a top is simply inexcusable in my book. Cut it properly if you're gonna charge that!

Edward

Actually runout usually occurs because the tree has not grown perfectly straight, so there is a slight twist in the grain lines, NOT because of improper cutting.

And most guitars actually have at least slight runout, given the organic material being used, but it is often not readily apparent. It often will not show up if the light source is directly facing the top, but it will if there is a strong light source to the side it may become visible. For example, in my living room there is strong light coming in the windows on one side, to the side of the guitars on stands. With light from the front only one shows the two-tone "runout" top. But with light to the side, all five (a Webber, 55 year old Martin, Froggy Bottom, McAlister and Michael Dunn Weissenborn) all exhibit the two tone top to at least a slight degree. Or more.

So I guess that I should dump them all, given they are all flawed...

[Mycroft]

Bearclaw. Don't really care either way. If the guitar has the tone and play-ability I'm looking for, then it ticks the boxes that I find actually important.

[RP]

Originally Posted by J Patrick

...I don’t mind a few bear claw marks on any fine top....just adds a little character to my aesthetic sensibilities......but I’m not a fan of a heavily bear clawed top...I find that distracting....

I'm just the opposite. I think it looks better to have a lot than a little, kind of a curly maple look...

[edward993]

Mtcroft,

^^^I'll defer to your knowledge of runout as twisting grain, if that is, indeed, the case. But as I understand it, runout is also a result of how the wood has been cut with respect to the grain. I'd personally suspect that both of us are right, at least in some capacity.

And if one needs a strong light and a specific angle to detect runout, I'd say one is trying too hard to find a flaw: clearly that top is nice. Runout that I've seen is immediately obvious as soon as you see it, from this side or that. This obvious visual cue is what I think is inexcusable. And I have not, in my running around, ever seen this in the "higher" priced tiers. Which I suppose says much about builders and the choices they make

Edward

[guitar george]

I pretty much go for all or none. If there is bearclaw I like to see it spread over the whole top as in the beautiful guitar in post #17. If there are just a few bearclaw marks they look more like flaws in the wood rather than being aesthetically appealing.

[AMW]

Originally Posted by Ozarkpicker

I must agree. There is NO excuse for runout on a high end guitar. I don't think anybody buys into the notion of it being for artistic or creative benefit. Nope. I think it's just a builder "getting by", knowing someone will buy the guitar anyway, simply because of the tone or because of the branding on the headstock.

You kinda lost us here... of course, we don't ask for runout when we order a guitar, and we know that most builders share the preference of a visually symmetrical top. But, as with bearclaw, the idea that a builder wouldn't use a well quartered and sonically top-shelf piece of spruce just because of the small appearance of runout, we prefer to leave that choice up the builder, then the buyer, and the quality that we hear and feel from that individual instrument.

No instrument that checks all the boxes on tone and playability should be discounted because of a bit of runout, in our opinion. If it's not affecting the performance or long term stability of the guitar, then it becomes an aesthetic preference.

Where tone is equal, the brand on the headstock should also account for a few things, or possibly everything else. If I got a rare Collings or Bourgeois with light runout, I know that that piece of wood was chosen for how impressive it was, sonically and structurally, because those builders (and their wood suppliers) know that customers generally prefer uniformity in the look of the top of a guitar. The builder did not just say "Eh, whatever" that day! The quality of the build and the integrity of the wood selection process wouldn't be in question at all. Import and mass-manufactured brands, it's par for the course, but like some have said, we would hope that the builders reserved less visually impressive tops for lower-cost models.

It's every customer's right to have their own conditions about how they spend their money, but part of the love of guitars is appreciating the natural and variegated building material that is wood, and to respect the artisans who have learned how to use it.

I usually tell people who are unfamiliar with Wenge that to me it looks like it came off of a 3D printer. Talk about boring and uniform looking! But it sounds great, and a lot of my favorite builders think so, too. My aesthetic preference doesn't guide their instincts about what makes a good guitar, and in the case of Wenge, it's not like we have a choice about how it looks. Gotta just appreciate the sound, which is where all the music lives, after all.

[boneuphtoner]

I prefer either none at all or all over the top. Nothing in between - there was a beautiful Martin I was looking at recently that had perfectly pristine top with no bear claw except concentrated in one area - from a distance, on what is otherwise a perfectly clean top, it looked like an imperfection, without a doubt.

[jrb715]

Once upon a time I recoiled at both bear claw and run-out. After a little, and a Collings CJ35 with bear claw that sounded sensational I decided that bear claw was pretty cool. And then after hearing a Huss & Dalton sinker mahogany dread with some run-out that was the best mahogany dread I'd heard up to then, I decided run-out was, if not cool, certainly acceptable.

So, cool (bear claw); not a problem (some run-out). And doesn't Mary Chapin Carpenter's extraordinary Greven jumbo have major run-out? May I have one of those? Please!
With run-out!

[Alan Carruth]

As has been said, it's common for tops to have some run out. The problem comes in when you have a lot, and it changes across the center line, which is the usual case. Where the grain rises from the tail toward the neck the bridge tends to peel up a little easier. Once it starts on that side of the top the separation goes across until it reaches the other side, where it shifts over to splitting downward into the top. Not good.

Most trees do grow with a little bit of twist. If it's a big tree, and there's not too much twist, it's often possible to more or less follow the split line when resawing, and end up with little or no run out in the top. The problem is that the twist can increase over time, so that the split line is different from one side of the top to the other. Normally the twist increases with age, which means that the there will be more run out on the bark side of the top. Since that's also usually where the tightest grain is, it's generally the side that gets joined. Often enough joining a top like that on the 'heart' side will result in no visible change across the joint line: the twist is still there, it's just more out in the wings of the top.

I have seen spruce, particularly Red ('Adirondack') that has run out that changes periodically, producing a 'stripe' figure. It's not as pronounced or as tight as the stripe you see in tropical woods. I suspect the it's caused by changes in the stress on the growing tree, due, possibly, to thing like logging that alter the light exposure. But I digress.

Curly wood has run out that changes periodically in a regular way. Bear claw is more random localized changes in run out. When I use a bear claw top I try to see to it that the bridge is glued in a spot that has doesn't run out across the center line, to avoid problems down the road.

Run out reduces stiffness along the grain. As it turns out local changes in stiffness can alter the way a top vibrates, and contribute to 'tone color'. I've always rather liked the way bear claw tops sound; they strike me as more 'interesting'. But to each his own.

[MHC]

Back to Bearclaw...

I don't go out of my way to find Bearclaw tops... but these two guitars of mine sounded great, felt great and I think look cool. So heck, why not a little Bearclaw?

Huss & Dalton Custom TOM-M (Italian Spruce) and Eastman E8OM (Sitka Spruce)

[TomB'sox]

I LOVE it, the more the better. I just commissioned a guitar and chose the top with the most bear claw of the bunch. This stuff is amazing, looks like lightening streaks. I love it!

[archerscreek]

I think it looks cool, but I wouldn’t pay a penny more for it. I wish it were discounted, actually.

[TDavis]

Originally Posted by AMW

You kinda lost us here... of course, we don't ask for runout when we order a guitar, and we know that most builders share the preference of a visually symmetrical top. But, as with bearclaw, the idea that a builder wouldn't use a well quartered and sonically top-shelf piece of spruce just because of the small appearance of runout, we prefer to leave that choice up the builder, then the buyer, and the quality that we hear and feel from that individual instrument.

No instrument that checks all the boxes on tone and playability should be discounted because of a bit of runout, in our opinion. If it's not affecting the performance or long term stability of the guitar, then it becomes an aesthetic preference.

Where tone is equal, the brand on the headstock should also account for a few things, or possibly everything else. If I got a rare Collings or Bourgeois with light runout, I know that that piece of wood was chosen for how impressive it was, sonically and structurally, because those builders (and their wood suppliers) know that customers generally prefer uniformity in the look of the top of a guitar. The builder did not just say "Eh, whatever" that day! The quality of the build and the integrity of the wood selection process wouldn't be in question at all. Import and mass-manufactured brands, it's par for the course, but like some have said, we would hope that the builders reserved less visually impressive tops for lower-cost models.

It's every customer's right to have their own conditions about how they spend their money, but part of the love of guitars is appreciating the natural and variegated building material that is wood, and to respect the artisans who have learned how to use it.

I usually tell people who are unfamiliar with Wenge that to me it looks like it came off of a 3D printer. Talk about boring and uniform looking! But it sounds great, and a lot of my favorite builders think so, too. My aesthetic preference doesn't guide their instincts about what makes a good guitar, and in the case of Wenge, it's not like we have a choice about how it looks. Gotta just appreciate the sound, which is where all the music lives, after all.

I tend to be rather opinionated...and that sometimes to a fault. Perhaps I was to that extent on my post. I'm not an expert by any means, but I guess I should have inserted the "in my opinion" as a disclaimer. I don't know how runout effects the tone of a guitar...if at all, but I wouldn't personally buy one purely because I don't like the way it looks. I also wouldn't buy a guitar with random bear claw markings on it...purely because it's not visually attractive to me either. If I'm paying my $2000-5000 for a guitar, I want it to look as good (to me) as it sounds (to me).