Official Luthiers Forum!

I'm curious if anyoe has ever built a guitar with non-matching back and sides? For instance, if you use a spruce top and light colored back (like sycamore for example), anyone use a dark side wood for contrast? (so everything isn't light colored)

Just curious. I've not seen one myself but if anyone has a picture of a guitar built like this I would love to see a picture.

_________________
Formerly known as Adaboy.......

I thought this was a question about non book matching woods. Because I have come across instruments built with backs, sides and even tops that weren't even close. Wood that looked to come from 2 different trees. As for your question I have seen one guitar that did have rosewood sides, maple back and spruce top. It was quite nice.

Boaz Elkayam (with the influence of Richard Schneider and Dr.Michael Kasha) has built several guitars with where the backs weher made out of wood you'd normally consider to be soundboard material.

Brazilian sides with redwood back(and top):

the argentinian luthier(anybody ever notice that all those spelling checkers never seem to recognize the word "luthier"? are we all just fooling ourselves?) with whom i've apprenticed have used this type of thing as well.

spruce back:

but these guys are doing it for acoustical reasons and not merely for aesthetic ones.

My answer to this would be to go and take a look at Howard Klepper's website. Howard is an OLF member, and to me always has a place in my top 5 steel string builders on the planet. He is an artist of consumate skill and taste, and his work will show you that you are only limited by your imagination.

Colin

_________________
I don't believe in anything, I simply make use of a set of reasonable working hypotheses.

I use different woods alot for my sides and backs.My latest had ash sides with quilted maple back and walnut binding for contrast.I usually keep the sides and back close in color though.

I think it's a really cool idea. When you think about it, the back and sides serve very different purposes, and the ideal side material would have very different properties from the ideal back material. Most people don't match the neck wood to any other part of the guitar; likewise choices of materials for other parts are often made with consideration only (or mostly) for their properties, and not whether they match other parts. If creatively, intelligently, and artfully done, I think there's a lot of potential for using different woods for the sides and back in ways that would work beautifully both in terms of both function and aesthetics. And yes, Howard is a great example of someone thinking brilliantly outside the box in these kinds of ways.

_________________
Todd Rose
Ithaca, NY

https://www.dreamingrosesecobnb.com/todds-art-music

https://www.facebook.com/ToddRoseGuitars/

Yes I do. Every year I seem to have to have orphan parts and make a couple of insturments with them. I have one now that is coco from two very different billets and vendors. I also have built from different kinds of wood. One was koa side, black taz back and top from two different pieces of spruce. On all of them were just pieces. All the left over sides parts I build or use for binding, headplate, end graft, heel cap side supports etc. Some look odd but seem in the end to work out. his new one my wife says is the best looking of any guitar so far. Most time the backs and sides are same spiecies but very different grain look. Why waste wood? I can't say get a big tone difference with use of differect speicies of sides and back or other combo's, but I am not one who can tell a lot by varied sounds and don't comparte them one from another. I just know if one sounds and plays well on it own merits and if so good which usually the end results.

Howard is certainly quite the innovator in artistry and quality and he has my utmost respect.

_________________
Bill Hodge


One does not simply, own enough guitars!

I think within the next month or two.... I will have a guitar with non-matching back and sides.
Back will be Mahogany and the sides will still be plywood.

I feel like I am building a Guitar kinda like the old Johnny Cash song about the 35-year Cadillac.

Thanks

John

Thanks for all the replies. While not conventional, it sounds like this is a viable option for aesthetic or acoustic reasons.

_________________
Formerly known as Adaboy.......

Would there be any structural reasons not to build with different sides as opposed to back? If not, sounds like an interesting way to go.

Glenn

I can only see potential structural advantages to using a different wood for the sides than the back. For example, if you're using something like Braz. rosewood, ziricote, Malaysian blackwood, etc, for the back - woods that can do wonderful things for the sound of the guitar but tend to be prone to cracking - then you would improve the sturdiness of the guitar by using a different wood (something very stable and resistant to cracking) for the sides. You could also make the guitar more lightweight that way. Meanwhile, you could save some money and save the precious Brazilian or whatever for where it really makes a difference in the sound: the back.

_________________
Todd Rose
Ithaca, NY

https://www.dreamingrosesecobnb.com/todds-art-music

https://www.facebook.com/ToddRoseGuitars/