Official Luthiers Forum!
http://mowrystrings.luthiersforum.com/forum/

4 piece tops
http://mowrystrings.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=15107		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Doug-Guitar-Buckler [ Sun Dec 23, 2007 5:36 am ]
Post subject: 

Hello everyone- The latest Acoustic Guitar magazine has an interesting article on tonewoods & the scarcity of. The article states that in the near future, 4 piece tops will be the norm, due to the unavailability of lumber large enough for 2 piece tops. Any OLF'ers have experience with 4 piece tops? Will the bracing need to be modified to accomodate 4 pieces?


Happy Holidays! Nice and warm down here in New Orleans!!!
Author:  bob J [ Sun Dec 23, 2007 6:20 am ]
Post subject: 
hey, eat a Muffaletta for me Sorry, no help.
Author:  James Ringelspaugh [ Sun Dec 23, 2007 6:24 am ]
Post subject: 
If the joint is solid, the glue line should as strong as solid wood, if not a little stronger.

I wouldn't expect any difference other than the extra steps to make and glue three joints instead of one.
Author:  David Collins [ Sun Dec 23, 2007 8:05 am ]
Post subject: 
Two piece book matched tops are for aesthetics, and aesthetics only. Three
or four piece tops, choose the best woods, don't even worry about book
matching, and your guitars will sound all the better for it. That's what bursts
are for.
Author:  DP LaPlante [ Sun Dec 23, 2007 8:25 am ]
Post subject: 

I think this is a subject that we as builders will have to promote actively.


Judging from what guitar consumers are posting on various forums, there is still a great concern about the "look" of tops (is it tight narrow grain without run out etc. etc. etc...........) as opposed to what might sound best. Most buyers are miffed if the "look" of the top does not seem appropriate to whatever was paid for the instrument.


One of the most important points that we heard this past summer from Jose' Romanillos was the superiority of aged top wood as well as factors such as stiffness, verticality of grain, medullary rays and the presence of bearclaw being some of the indicators (besides the old "flex" test) of superior top wood.


In addition the use of four piece tops was urged if that was the way to take advantage of the best wood. Personally I've been buying a lot of old yet narrow wood with this in mind..........though I'm not sure if the guitar buying public will accept the notion. 


 
Author:  Howard Klepper [ Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:07 am ]
Post subject: 
Near future? Torres used them. I got a Martin replacement top from the factory in about 1975 that was 4-piece. If the joining is well done, no one who isn't looking for the side joints will see them. Functionally, they give up nothing.
Author:  David Collins [ Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:30 am ]
Post subject: 
Some of the best Gibsons I've ever played from the 30's and 40's had three
and four piece tops.
Author:  Hesh [ Sun Dec 23, 2007 10:03 am ]
Post subject: 
I am going to go against the grain here.... and offer another point of view.

I read that article in my study (bathroom) a few days ago and I think that the message is different then the assumptions made here. 

For factories, who want to pay very little per top and back and side set, alternatives are far more important for them to find then it is for one-of-a-kind, one-at-a-time builders such as I am.

The article indicates that even private research groups credit the guitar industry with less then 1% of the usage of tonewoods.

So when we purchase our back and side sets we currently pay FAR more per set then any major or even minor factory manufacturer.  And I believe, and am willing to bet, that the prices that we pay will not "substantially" increase beyond inflationary rates for at least a decade.  In fact, as the factories morph their systems and methodologies into using cheaper, more widely available 4 piece tops the supply of 2 piece tops, for a price, for us will probably at least in the short term improve.

I also would venture to predict that many of the medium to smaller factories will see NOT using 4 piece tops, pallet wood backs and sides, as an opportunity for them as well.

Our impact on non-renewable resources (not including the factories) is mouse nuts.......

Todd of Allied is quoted as saying that even BRW is available as stump wood, helps the locals economically, has no negative impact on the environment, and we can purchase this wood today and into the foreseeable future for a price.

Personally I am a very green person but I see this issue as much more of an issue for the factories who require excellent quality, multiple sources, and very low price then it is for us or for me.  As the factories manipulate the consumer into justifying the purchases of guitars with lesser performing woods our supply, in my view, will improve.  And again, in no way do I see this as hurting the planet, if I did I would be jumping up and down over it too.  In fact you could not shut me up.
Author:  FishtownMike [ Sun Dec 23, 2007 10:56 am ]
Post subject: 
I don't think weekness would be a problem. Think about furnuture building where multiple pieces are glued up with no problem. The only problem i see is appearance. Matching the grains. If you do it right it can be unnoticeable. I believe Gibson and Martin have used 3 piece tops over the years and still are.
Author:  Howard Klepper [ Sun Dec 23, 2007 1:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
Hesh, does willing to bet mean that you aren't stashing away good wood, because you are betting on being able to get it later?
Author:  David Collins [ Sun Dec 23, 2007 2:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
What I keep thinking is how somebody really needs to alert all these pianists
as to just how crappy their Steinways are.
Author:  Doug-Guitar-Buckler [ Sun Dec 23, 2007 2:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
Thanks for the great responses everyone. Good to hear all of the different opinions and such. Still trying to get some real work done on my 1st guitar. Its hard when I am busy finishing up boat #3 & steadily making nuts & saddles for people, as well as the christmas gifts. Merry Christmas & thanks for all of the help!!
Author:  Hesh [ Sun Dec 23, 2007 2:09 pm ]
Post subject: 

[QUOTE=Howard Klepper]Hesh, does willing to bet mean that you aren't stashing away good wood, because you are betting on being able to get it later? [/QUOTE]

Howard my friend it does now.  Besides, it's going to be harder to tread water trying to hold on to a big stash of wood........

When I started building guitars a little over 3 years ago Adi and BRW were much harder to find, at least for me, then they seem to be now.  Perhaps I didn't know where to look.  Even Allied ran out of public offerings for a while.

Today this stuff is very easy to find and I am speaking of legal stuff - always for me.

I like to keep enough wood around for 3-5 years of building but I also like to try new things too.  A big stash is to much like that "C" word for me (commitment) and turns me off.....

So when I say that I am betting that availability will be around a decade from now what I mean is that for a price, not much more then today's price I believe....., what is becoming scarcer today will be available in the future too.

Luthiers have been squirreling this stuff away for decades and although they have seen their investments appreciate I think that pricing is near the top of what the market will bear.  Remember that guitars are purchased with people's disposable income and are VERY elastic in demand........

I do buy things that are one-offs which I believe will be completely unavailable at some point and have great merit to build with.  Examples are Mahogany from "The Tree" and LS Redwood.  But my thinking has changed over what it was a year ago and I am no longer willing to panic over the idea that at some point Adi, BRW, Honduran Mahogany, are not going to be available. 

And, as pointed out in the article in question, alternatives are available today so it' all good to me.
Author:  Burton LeGeyt [ Sun Dec 23, 2007 3:01 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think that there will always be wood available for making excellent guitars, especially seeing how people can make exellent instruments out of unlikely wood. The squirreling away factor has more to do (for me) with what DP LaPlante mentioned Romanillos valuing, the aged wood. Wood is easy to come by, but how easy is it to purchase some 50 year old red spruce? Every time I buy some wood, some of the better tops go onto the way out pile and wait for the day in the future that they will get put to use. I had the chance to buy some 50 year old Indian rosewood that was not the prettiest, but the tap beat everything else I have. Maybe it was that good when cut too, but I don't think all that time hurt. With 4 piece tops, I have added wings on a couple guitars and they both are my best ones. For visual homogenity, matching the runout(if there is some) is key.
Author:  DP LaPlante [ Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:03 pm ]
Post subject: 

I've seen lots of change over the years regarding the ebb and flow of wood availability not to mention price. 


When I started building (41 years ago) my first set of Brazilian Rosewood cost me twenty bucks....... There were lots of folks holding this stuff and the dramatic rise in price over the last ten years or so flushed most of it out. There was excellent wood to be found "basement diving" but now I'm afraid that my impressions are the opposite of what Hesh mentioned with most of it (non stumpwood) offered being illegal with reliable legal sources drying up. I frankly feel much better about offering Indian Rosewood so I'm stocking up when the price is good. 


 I've also been buying some 30 plus year old European spruce which came out of a luthier's "estate" (read deceased) so I didn't age it but someone had the foresight to do so.........and at this point I don't have enough time to hang around and wait.


Best!


 


 
Author:  fryovanni [ Mon Dec 24, 2007 2:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
I have no issue with using more pieces. Actually I find bookmatching 4 piece backs can really take advantage of the figure found in small trees, that in a two piece back would not have the great look across the set(landscape 4 piece sets can be had easily and are really quite stunning in my opinion).

I wouldn't have a problem with full 3 or 4 piece tops(maybe breaking up the top a little more would improve performance, heck what do I know), but at this point it is just not needed based on my stock. When I have to start stock piling 3 or 4 piece tops for use years down the road, I will think about any adjustments I need to make.

Either way, I am stocked up and have enough to keep me going for quite a while. So no worries.

Peace,Rich
Author:  Shane Neifer [ Mon Dec 24, 2007 5:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well,

Being Christmas and all, I hate to disagree with Hesh but I am afraid I have to. Sorry!! I see quality spruce for two piece tops being something of the "now" era and being an issue in the not too distant future. I have said a few times on this board that I think that two piece, high grade spruce tops are the real endangered wood. We CAN grow BRW again in 100 to 150 years but I am not at confident that we can grow 6-800 year old spruce trees in the conditions that will give us the properties we expect in high end wood. We will not see these mixed species, closed canopy forests again once they are gone. I could go on on the reasons for this but I won't. I am just sharing my thoughts on this, I will be putting spruce away any chance I get, which isn't that often right now because I can't get ahead of the demand but hopefully next year I will be able to get ahead and will indeed be doing like the fella's at Old Standard. I have the shed just waiting for them !

BUT, there will definitely be wood available for 4 piece tops for quite some time and they really are just fine as well. I don't know that I would say better than the best 2 piece tops but certainly they are likey to be no worse from a performance perspective.

Shane
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/