Is Gibson's Fijian Mahogany lighter than the South American variety?

GuitarMonkey

"Big-leaf mahogany was granted international regulatory protection by its listing on CITES Appendix II in late 2002."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swietenia_macrophylla

It is certainly endangered.

underdog

Then surely we shouldn't be making guitars out of it at all?

ThePrettyDamned

underdog;203333" said:

Then surely we shouldn't be making guitars out of it at all?

Well, it should be controlled pretty tightly. There are lots of woods that are great for guitars - it always makes me laugh that basswood is often referred to as cheap and nasty when it's super light, easy to finish and quite often an attractive, if plain, white grain.

I tend to like swamp ash, which is supposed to be pretty renewable but, truth be told, I don't know how true that is.

underdog

Just think maybe guitars just aren't that important, this coming from someone who's guitar of choice is a Les Paul.

I used to have a basswood telecaster and loved it.

ArchtopDave

underdog said:

Then surely we shouldn't be making guitars out of it at all?

This is potentially a difficult one, but certainly a question each of us has to consider. 

What do you do if the wood was felled a while ago and is now seasoned. You unfortunately cannot turn it back into a living tree.

    I have, just this weekend, bought some Cocobolo and Tasmanian Blackwood for an Acoustic build. Neither is commonly available and I gather Cocobolo is now on the CITIES List. My conscience does feel a little uncomfortable, but the woods were felled quite a while ago, and realistically someone is going to use them even if I didn't. 

underdog

If its already dead then be shame to nor use it. Maybe eventually us guitarists will have to give up in trying to sound like that guitar from the 50s or 60s and make a sound of our own.

Skipped

Gibson are saying that the back colour (Historics) is more accurate which is just as well as the appearance of the wood itself is very different. I think it is indeed Fijian. I have no idea what the USA backs are.
What interests me is the numbers of Historics now appearing which are 8.2 lbs or 8.4lbs. Does this mean that the chambered Historics are now finished? Would you want one now?

The (second) picture above seems to have a work of art hiding in the grain. Or is it Layla?   

crunchman

GuitarMonkey said:

"Big-leaf mahogany was granted international regulatory protection by its listing on CITES Appendix II in late 2002."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swietenia_macrophylla

It is certainly endangered.

I didn't know this.  I googled what the Appendix II means.  It can still be traded but there are very tight controls, and it must have all the correct paperwork to show that it has been harvested legally.  The onus is on the receiving nation to verify this, as well as the nation it originates from.

From my understanding, plantation grown wood would be ok.

Brazilian Rosewood on the other hand is Appendix 1 which means that it cannot be traded, although the Wikipedia Article seems to suggest that it might be ok if you cultivate it on a plantation.

Trade of captive-bred animals or cultivated plants of Appendix I species are considered Appendix II specimens, with concomitant requirements (see below and Article VII).

Full article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CITES_Appendix_II#Appendix_II

Neil

underdog said:

Just think maybe guitars just aren't that important, this coming from someone who's guitar of choice is a Les Paul.

I used to have a basswood telecaster and loved it.

Probably right re the importance, that said I know of no other use for mahogany nowadays apart from musical instruments and fine furniture. 

I doubt they no longer use it much for boats as fibre glass has pretty much usurped it. 

the_passenger

The mahogany grain pattern that can be seen on new Reissues is indeed really impressive. But the weight seems to be on the low and mid 8 lbs range. I prefer my LPs around 9 lbs. Under 9 lbs the low-end response tends to be weaker and the tone becomes very airy. I don't want my LPs to sound like a hollowbody jazz guitar. I don't get the featherweight craze. The original '58 - '60 Les Pauls were between 8.7 - 10 lbs in general.

the_passenger

This is the back on one of my early 2000's Gibson LP. It's the classic grain pattern that you can also see on old Bursts. Weight is between 8.8 and 10.5 lbs generally. This is a typical flat-sawn example:

GuitarMonkey

the_passenger said:

The mahogany grain pattern that can be seen on new Reissues is indeed really impressive. 

Or not, if like me you prefer straight grain.

the_passenger

GuitarMonkey said:

the_passenger said:

The mahogany grain pattern that can be seen on new Reissues is indeed really impressive. 

Or not, if like me you prefer straight grain.

I like flat sawn backs more than quarter sawn straight grain mahogany. First thing I examine is always the back on a Les Paul, I don't care if its a flametop or plaintop. The magic comes from the mahogany. 

guitargeek62

Grain pattern's a bonus for me, the same goes for the top. If I don't like the neck profile, and it's too heavy, then I'm not going to bother picking it up.

the_passenger

guitargeek62 said:

Grain pattern's a bonus for me, the same goes for the top. If I don't like the neck profile, and it's too heavy, then I'm not going to bother picking it up.

Weight doesn't botter me if the guitar has the resonance and right tonal balance. The same goes for neck profiles. Fat 58-baseball bat style or slim 60s profile can be equally comfortable for me as long as the neck relief, the frets, nut and string height are adjusted correctly.

Jeztone

I used to knock my LP Classic out of tune. It was a beautiful guitar but incredibly heavy so sold it on. Then I briefly owned my brothers 90s Standard. That's my reference for a good Les Paul tone. The Trad Pro II was bought as it's built the same way.

But light guitars never have that much low end grunt