"The Tree"

[PDogg]

I am hardly alone in being attracted to flamed mahogany and being completely mesmerized by quilted mahogany. It is absolutely gorgeous wood and almost incomprehensible how it develops the three dimensional illusion...

So, conversation starter for those more educated on the matter:

While heavily quilted mahogany is more rare than non-figured mahogany, I'm sure that it comes from more than just, "The Tree". The story behind "The Tree" certainly has a level of mystique behind it, and guitars with quilted mahogany "from 'The Tree'" fetch a significantly higher asking price.

However, is there any way to actually determine (and prove) the provenance that any wood has been sourced from "The Tree"? If not, is it ethical to claim that the wood is sourced from "The Tree" simply because it is highly figured? Or, has "The Tree" become simply a descriptor for quilted mahogany?

What are your thoughts?

[Sdrew22]

I have passed on several guitars claiming to be from "The Tree", but they did not have any provenance. There is such an uncharge for guitars made from this wood that I believe documentation is necessary.

[jseth]

I've seen a lot of beautiful mahogany used on guitars, and a lot of lovely figuring, as opposed to the straight grain, "Plain Jane" mahogany...

But I have NEVER seen wood that looks like "The Tree" mahogany from anywhere else... that nearly "tortoise shell" look is distinctive and comes from The Tree, and nowhere else, in my experience. I don't think that anyone could "fake it" with that wood, not a chance.

I had James and Luke Goodall build me a mahogany back and sides guitar, and we chose a unique and wonderful set of "Fiddleback" mahogany for it... absolutely gorgeous, but, not The Tree!

Interesting to note that James Goodall told me that The Tree mahogany was very brittle and difficult to work with - easily cracked or split during construction - which was why he neither had any nor planned on buying any.

So, I think you can be sure it's from The Tree, but, as one reply stated, the upcharge for that wood is SO high that some sort of provenance seems like it would go with the territory. I know that, if I were to own a guitar made with that wood and it came with some sort of provenance, I would certainly include it with the sale, and I would let buyers know that I had it when selling...

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by PDogg

I am hardly alone in being attracted to flamed mahogany and being completely mesmerized by quilted mahogany. It is absolutely gorgeous wood and almost incomprehensible how it develops the three dimensional illusion...

So, conversation starter for those more educated on the matter:

While heavily quilted mahogany is more rare than non-figured mahogany, I'm sure that it comes from more than just, "The Tree". The story behind "The Tree" certainly has a level of mystique behind it, and guitars with quilted mahogany "from 'The Tree'" fetch a significantly higher asking price.

However, is there any way to actually determine (and prove) the provenance that any wood has been sourced from "The Tree"? If not, is it ethical to claim that the wood is sourced from "The Tree" simply because it is highly figured? Or, has "The Tree" become simply a descriptor for quilted mahogany?

What are your thoughts?

I was not even aware of "The Tree" until two nights ago I watched a YouTube video titled " The Most Valuable Woods on Earth " ... Which is actually about the woods that renowned luthier Michael Greenfield uses and why.

He claims to have possession of three sets of backs from "The Tree" all already sold and he is as of the video just starting the first build. Given his base starting price is $19,000 I am guessing (just wild speculation ) the finished "The Tree Guitars " will be north of $25,000 or maybe even $30 k ???


While the entire video is a pretty interesting discussion of "tone wood" from Greenfield's perspective

"The Tree " starts at about 13:20

[gmel555]

Originally Posted by PDogg

While heavily quilted mahogany is more rare than non-figured mahogany, I'm sure that it comes from more than just, "The Tree".

I wouldn't blame anyone for having some healthy skepticism about claims of "The Tree" for heavily quilted mahogany sets. WTS, I think the really premium sets from The Tree are beyond just "heavily quilted", having an additional element referred to as "Tortoise Shell". This pic shows both heavy quilting plus tortoise shell figuring. Does tortoise shell mahogany exist from other trees? I don't know. Maybe another AGF'er in the "business" can say if they've seen such tortoise shell figuring in wood not from The Tree....? I'll add, I have seen guitars claimed as being made from The Tree, which although heavily figured were without the tortoise shell look, and could have come from other stock.

[lowrider]

I just have to ask; are you planning to play your guitar or sit around looking at the back?

[FrankCousins]

I would argue that it should not matter of the provenance of the wood - as all this does is add to the 'cost'... rather focus on what the instrument is worth to you. What does it sound like... what does it it look like, what does it play like and is it worth the asking price to you irrespective of whether its 'The Tree' or 'other' quilted mahogany.

Wood on its own, no matter how spectacular does not make an instrument great or valuable IMHO. Nor does the quality of the build and craftmanship ... the only true test of value is whether the tone its capable of unleashing is worth it to you as a player... otherwise leave it to the collectors.

There are loads of 'valuable' Strats, Teles, '58-60 bursts' and D28s in collections that are awful as instruments... but collectors will buy anything as long as its 'clean'.

Its also rather funny how all the 'great' luthiers would talk of boring quarter sawn straight grainBRW being the holy grail... until it became impossible to find... now wavey grain BRW is sold as 'exhibition grade'... is the Tree upcharge worth it? to collectors for sure, but to a player? Well depends on the instrument...

[FrankCousins]

Originally Posted by lowrider

I just have to ask; are you planning to play your guitar or sit around looking at the back?

This! (extra letters to allow it to be posted)

[hubcapsc]

Originally Posted by lowrider

I just have to ask; are you planning to play your guitar or sit around looking at the back?

I need to make a picture like Brucebub's, using my D-28...





-Mike

[KevWind]

Humm I think no doubt a fair portion of the amount of the cost for a "The Tree" guitar,,, is the rarity of the wood from that specific tree..

But that fact alone does nothing to discount or dismiss what effect the specific figuring from that tree, may have on tonal difference.

As to wether or not that difference is "worth it" is something no one can decide for anyone else ............

[Br1ck]

Let us not forget, the tree wood has been used for what, twenty years now? It is like Martin's BRW from sixty nine vs, the BRW from the thirties and forties. Likely the good stuff that is left was bought early on and goes for a very dear price. When I see the wood sets for sale now, pretty as they may be, they can't match the early stuff.

I remember seeing an early guitar at Gryphon that was mind blowing. I also saw the most intense birdseye maple Collings mandolin, traded because the owner said he kept getting distracted and spent more time looking at than playing the instrument. I was trying it and I too, kept stopping to look at it.

Careful what you wish for.

[FrankCousins]

Originally Posted by hubcapsc

I need to make a picture like Brucebub's, using my D-28...





-Mike

Have to admit, that's a nice BRW D28 back to look at ;-) Lacking a bit of buckle rash mind ;p

[jimmy bookout]

Originally Posted by hubcapsc

I need to make a picture like Brucebub's, using my D-28...





-Mike

Hopefully without the runout that is in that first guitar...

PS. That BRW would never have passed the quality test, visually, at Martin, in the 1930's/1940's

[jimmy bookout]

Originally Posted by FrankCousins

I would argue that it should not matter of the provenance of the wood - as all this does is add to the 'cost'... rather focus on what the instrument is worth to you. What does it sound like... what does it it look like, what does it play like and is it worth the asking price to you irrespective of whether its 'The Tree' or 'other' quilted mahogany.

Wood on its own, no matter how spectacular does not make an instrument great or valuable IMHO. Nor does the quality of the build and craftmanship ... the only true test of value is whether the tone its capable of unleashing is worth it to you as a player... otherwise leave it to the collectors.

There are loads of 'valuable' Strats, Teles, '58-60 bursts' and D28s in collections that are awful as instruments... but collectors will buy anything as long as its 'clean'.

Its also rather funny how all the 'great' luthiers would talk of boring quarter sawn straight grainBRW being the holy grail... until it became impossible to find... now wavey grain BRW is sold as 'exhibition grade'... is the Tree upcharge worth it? to collectors for sure, but to a player? Well depends on the instrument...

Honestly, this is a little naive.
Rockstar wood (like "The Tree") is a value added deal, no question. Is it a better acoustic guitar? Perhaps not, but if you put 2 guitars from the same maker...one made with the "The Tree" mahagany and one with regular old Honduras Mahagany for sale, "The Tree" guitar is worth a LOT more, regardless of which sounds better.
"Valuable" Strats/Teles/other electrics attach their value more to WHO owned them than the woods they're made from.

Is a Stratocaster owned/played by Jimi Hendrix a better SOUNDING guitar than a Stratocaster from the same time owned/played by Joe Schmoe?

[birdsong]

You may have already "done your research" and read the various articles out there, about the salvaging of "The Tree". But just in case..... this is another article from April 2022, that is similar to those published previously.

A good summary of what happened, how it happened, who purchased sets for guitars, who bought some, etc. As I recall, links to other articles. And, as I recall, a few comments about sound.

A lot of the wood went for furniture as well.

I think/hope anyone can access the article (no paywall at this point, I believe):
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-...ree-180979792/