Stories about desperate luthiers chopping up church pews etc. are greatly
exaggerated. While some of us have used salvaged wood, sources for that
are tiny in comparison with demand. I suspect the origin of the church pew
stories is some of the hype which surrounded Orville Gibson. He supposedly
used church timber for some of his early mandos etc., but then he was a
well-known nut-job.

There is more bullshit talked per acre about instrument woods than almost
any other topic I can think of. People seem to want there to be some magic
silver bullet which explains why some guitars are great and others ain't.
There isn't.

Braz. makes good classicals because it is hard, dense, and produces very
good trebles which are far more difficult to produce with gut or nylon
strings than heavy bass is. It has been the 'traditional' wood of choice
for many decades, helped by its rich appearance and the glamor factor of
increasing cost. Many knowledgeable builders actually hate the stuff for
it's unpredictable nature and it's tendency to check. Current costs for
good Braz. are out of all proportion to its true usefulness, and the vast
majority of the material on offer is of such poor quality that it should be
avoided. Much of it has been picked over and rejected by previous
generations of builders, and is only being used now out of desperation.

Flat-sawn Braz., which is easier to find that the decent well quartered
stuff, will crack. It shows beautiful figure, but that is small
consolation when you pay $1,000 for a set of it and discover minute checks
in it as soon as you've finished it.

When C.F. Martin and Co. stopped using Braz. near the end of the 60s, most
of the old hands in the plant held a celebration. By that time they were
actually baking each piece in an attempt to harden up the resins and reveal
any incipient cracks before they started working it. Jean Larrivee, 30
years later, was coating every piece he used with Super Glue inside and out
prior to assembly in a pre-emptive strike against the same tiny checks.

There are a number of excellent substitutes for Braz. which are currently
available, and several of them are easier and more predictable to work.
As long as players, magazines, some luthiers etc. continue to propagate the
myth that Braz. is the only wood with which the finest guitars can be built
there will always be folks who are willing to pay truly idiotic premiums for
timber which would be more suitably employed proving heat via the shop
woodstove.

How a skilled luthier treats the material he has on hand is far more
important than the timber itself. The 'magic bullet' for which so many
search in vain is actually nothing more than the experience gathered over
many years by a gifted builder. Such individuals can and do produce great
instruments using a wide variety of materials. The problem is that no-one
really wants to believe that you can't teach your hands, eyes, ears and
brain to work together in the production of superior instruments overnight.
The key is in fact the ability of a luthier to judge how best to use the
materials he or she has and how to wring the last drop of performance out of
'em while still producing a durable instrument.

Messing about trying to use space-age science to duplicate a dwindling wood
species in jig-time is a waste of time and energy. It parallels the use in
our society of steroids and other drugs to shortcut the route to athletic
success.

Classical guitarists, whose entire field of endeavour emphasizes the need
for endless hours of basic training and discipline before any sort of
reasonable proficiency is reached, should be among the first to understand
that there is no X%$#&*! free lunch.

KH


"Tommy Grand" wrote in message
...
Brazilian rosewood is a prized material used in crafting fine
classical guitars. However, sources of the wood have all but dried up
and luthiers are growing desperate. I've heard stories of guitars
made out of chopped down castle doors and stolen church pews, to name
a few.

Now plainly, the only materials needed to create rosewood are a seeds,
soil, sunlight, water and time. You have to wait something like a
thousand years for the tree to grow, which is the whole problem. With
modern chemical know-how, can't we find a way to speed up whatever
reaction is involved and create some new wood in say, five years? If
not, tell us whether the barrier is lack of scientific knowledge or
lack of money.