Choosing wood for a guitar

I just finished the guitars I was working on and so had to dig through my stash of wood to find something for the orders I have to fill now.  This got me thinking about wood in general, wood sellers and the way they grade wood, guitar buyers and what they expect and the different criteria that makers use for choosing wood.  The companies that sell us wood used to have two or three grades of wood with the best being A or first (logical).  Since then they have slowly added categories so we began to see AA and now we have AAA and of course lately “Master”  These categories are useful to the dealers and allow them to charge very high prices for what they consider to be the best wood but to us they are practically meaningless.  For all the best intentions the dealers might have, until they start making guitars and can see what specific physical characteristics are desirable they will always be working blind.  They grade the tops by sight only; they don’t have the time nor the sensitivity to judge each top with their other senses (in reality we don’t expect them to).  We understand too that most of them will not split the wood as we do when we get the opportunity because they get fewer saleable pieces from a tree when they split it.  Even in the case of a guitar maker who buys, then grades and sells wood we find that the buyer doesn’t always share the seller’s idea about what is the best quality wood.  Each maker looks for certain qualities in the wood because he knows what result he will get when he uses wood with those qualities.

So what does all this mean?  It means that if you don’t make guitars then you don’t know squat about guitar-making wood.  It means that if you as a maker want the best and most appropriate wood for guitar making you have to go to the dealer and pick through the master grade, the AAA and the AA (and maybe more).  Some think we do this to get the cheaper wood but actually we know that the best wood is not necessarily in the master stacks so we search through all we can.  In trying to be the best, most ethical makers we can, one of the problems we run up against is the excess of information (and misinformation) especially on the internet.  This idea of the “master grade” tonewood has reached the end user and now everyone expects a concert instrument to be made with “master grade” wood. “Are you telling me that I have to use the wood that the wood seller thinks is the best when I make a guitar for you?”  Wouldn’t it be better if I, after making 160 guitars, were to decide what is the best wood, store and season it for 10 or 15 years and then use it in the way that best takes advantage of its physical characteristics?   I am willing to allow the client some input on the wood I use for his/her guitar but the choices must be from among the sets that I have chosen when I bought the wood in the first place.

Another problem we come up against is the client’s concept of beautiful wood.  Very often a woodworker sees beauty in the stability, evenness of grain and other characteristics that make the wood easier to work with.  We learn to love the species which we can rely on not to crack or deform.  Usually the most stable cut of wood will not yield the most spectacular aesthetic.   For example, Brazillian Rosewood is prone to cracking and deformations but has a better chance of being stable if it has straight, even grain and especially if it is riftsawn.   Bird’s eye maple can make spectacular-looking guitars but can also make for deformed backs and sides.  This is because in order to bring out the best eyes, the wood is flatsawn.  Curly maple is sometimes flatsawn too and can cause the same problem.  A discussion came up recently on one of the forums about bearclaw spruce and it was reported that many years ago the wood sellers couldn’t sell it.  Of course they couldn’t!  If straight, even grain and no run-out are so important in a top then surely bearclaw (localized runout) is not going to be great.  I won’t say it is bad wood and I do buy some because I know that clients will ask for it and I realize that aesthetics are very important these days.  I think we all agree that the top wood is extremely important but what makes a great top?  Certainly not grains per inch.  My most successful guitar (more concerts and recordings than any other) has a top with 8 grains per inch.

In conclusion I would like to say something I have said publicly before: Trust your guitar maker!  When you are looking for a guitar, play as many guitars as you can by a maker, find out who the maker’s teacher was, how many guitars he/she has made and then leave all “acoustic” decisions up to the maker.  We are not going to limit ourselves to using Cypress and Indian Rosewood (wonderfully stable woods) but if I use a piece of wood on your guitar it is because I think it will work musically and physically with my way of building.  Here are a few samples of 14-year-old wood which I will use soon.  Some of it is very beautiful but I will feel much better about using the straight-grained pieces.  Usually if you keep it for 10 to 15 years before you use it you can see any deformations and cut it up for headplates or decorative strips if it is going to cause problems for back and sides.

Andrés Segovia Competition

Here is the official news in Spanish.  For 28 years now the town of La Herradura on the coast of Granada province has hosted a competition for guitarists under 35 which bears the name of El Maestro himself.  We went down for the finals last night and heard four versions of Fantasia para un Gentilhombre by Rodrigo.  I liked the Romanian Mircea Stefan Gogoncea (better sound as well as better playing) but the jury (made up of professional guitarists unlike myself) chose Gabriel Bianco from France and his Smallman.  I must admit that there was a problem with the oboe during M. Bianco’s performance and he might have played better under different circumstances.  As a matter of fact the piece he played after the prize ceremony was excellent.  The photos were taken with no flash of course and from quite a ways back but the press got some good shots so look them up if you are interested.   Second prize went to Gogoncea and third went to Anton Baranov from Russia.

One thing I found quite interesting while perusing the programme was the list of past winners.  It reads like a who’s who of the classical guitar world.  If there are any typos blame it on the OCR software.

CERTAMEN – 1985
1°. Desierto.
2º.  D. Wulfin Lieske (Alem. Federal).
 3°. D. Carlos Trepat Domínguez (España).
IICERTAMEN-1986
1°. D. José Fernández Bardesio (Uruguay).
2°. D. Wulfin Lieske (Alem. Federal).
3°. D. M°. Esther Guzmán Blanco (España).
III CERTAMEN -1987
1°. D. M. Esther Guzmán Blanco (España).
2°. D. Marco Schmidt (Alem. Federal).
3°. D. Eduardo Baranzano Fernández (Uruguay).
IV CERTAMEN -1988
1°. Desierto.
2°. D. Claudio Marcotulli (Italia).
3°. D. Geert Classens (Bélgica).
1 CONCURSO DE COMPOSICIÓN
1°. Desierto.
V CERTAMEN.1989
1°. D. Francesco Moccia (Italia).
2°. D. Eduardo Baranzano Fernández (Uruguay).
3°. D. Carmen M.a Ros Abellán (España).
D. AIex Garrobé Marqui (España).
II CONCURSO DE COMPOSICIÓN —
1°. Desierto.
VI CERTAMEN -1990
1°. D. Joaquín Clerch (Cuba).
2°. D. Francisco Cuenca Morales (España).
3°. D. José Guerola Casas (España).
III CONCURSO DE COMPOSICIÓN
1°. Zul de D. José Manuel Fernández (España)

VII CERTAMEN -1991
1°. D. Edoardo Catemario (Italia).
2°. D. Fabio Pedroso Zanon (Brasil).
3°. D. José Guerola Casas (España).
IV CONCURSO DE COMPOSICIÓN
1°. Magie de D. Nuccio D’Angelo (Italia)
VIII CERTAMEN -1992
1°. Desierto.
2°. D. Satashi Oba (Japón).
3°. D. Anders Karlsson (Suecia).
D. César Hualde Resano (España).
V CONCURSO DE COMPOSICIÓN
1°. Desierto
IX CERTAMEN 1993
1°. D. Franz Halasz (Alemania).
2°. D. Denis Azabagic (Bosnia – Herzegovina).
3°. D. Zoran Dukic (Zogreb – Croacia).
VI CONCURSO DE COMPOSICIÓN
1°. Força de D. Juan A. Moreno (España)
X CERTAMEN -1994
1°. Desierto.
2°. D. Denis Azabagic (Bosnia – Herzegovina).
3°. D. Margarita García Escarpa (España).
VII CONCURSO DE COMPOSICIÓN
1°. Melisma – Jondo de D. José María Benavente (España)
Xl CERTAMEN -1995
 1.° Desierto.
2º.  D. Denis Azabagic (Bosnia – Herzegovina).
3.° D. Christian Saggese (Italia).
VIII CONCURSO DE COMPOSICIÓN
1°. Talea de D. José Manuel Fernández (España)
XII CERTAMEN -1996
1 D. Zoran Dukic (Zagreb – Croacia).
2.° D. Christiari Saggese (Italia).
D. Denis Azabagic (Bosnia).
.  D. Michael Kujawa (Alemania).
IX CONCURSO DE COMPOSICIÓN
1°. Entoada de D. Alexandre de Faria (Brasil)

XIII CERTAMEN -1997
1°. Desierto.
2°. D. Giulio Tampalini (Italia).
3°. D. Antonio Duro Herrera (España).
D. Enrique Solinís Azpiazu (España).
X CONCURSO DE COMPOSICIÓN
1°. Regreso a Jan Mayen de D. Enrique Igoa (España)
XIV CERTAMEN – 1998
1°. D. Ricardo Jesús Gallén García.
2°. D. Christian Saggese.
3°. Desierto.
XI CONCURSO DE COMPOSICIÓN
1°. Sonata Porteña de D. Luis Eduardo Bravo (Argentina)
XV CERTAMEN – 1999
1°. D. Christian Saggese (Italia)
2°. D. Dejan Ivanovic (Bosnia-Herzegovina).
3°. Desierto.
XII CONCURSO DE COMPOSICIÓN
1°. La misma Luz de Entonces de D. Marco Smaili (España)
XVI CERTAMEN – 2000
1°. D. Goran Krivocapic (Yugoslavia).
2°. D. Grzegorz Krawiec (Polonia).
3°. D. Mauricio Díaz Alvarez (México).
XIII CONCURSO DE COMPOSICIÓN
1°. Five Pieces de D. Virginio ZocateIli (Italia)
INTERPRETACIÓN : D. Dejan lvanovic (Bosnia-Herzegovina).

XVII CERTAMEN – 2001
1°. D. Dejan Ivanovic (Croacia)
2°. D. Ramón Carnota Méndez (España).
3°. D. Jérerny Jouve (Francia).
XIV CONCURSO DE COMPOSICIÓN
1°. El Jardín de Lindaraja de D. Eduardo Morales Caso (Cuba)
INTERPRETACIÓN : D. José Javier Navarro Lucas (España).
XVIII CERTAMEN – 2002
1°. Desierto
2.° D. Roman Viazovskiy (Ucrania).
3.° D. Fotis Koutsothodoros (Grecia).
D. Ramón Carnota Méndez (España).
XV CONCURSO DE COMPOSICIÓN
1°. Westward Voyage de D. James Lentini (Estados Unidos)
INTERPRETACIÓN: D. Ander Ciernen Oien (Noruega)

XX CERTAMEN – 2003
1°. D. Ander Ciernen Oien (Noruega).
2°. D. Rarnón Carnota Méndez (España).
3°. D. Roman Viazovskiy (Ucrania)
XVI CONCURSO DE COMPOSICIÓN
1°. Hechizos de D. Mauricio Arenas Fuentes (Chile) INTERPRETACIÓN: D. Rornan Viazovskiy (Ucrania)

XX CERTAMEN – 2004
1°. Desierto.
2°. D. Alen Garagic (Bosnia).
D. Marco Tarnayo (Cuba).
3°. D. Isabel Montesinos (España).
D. David Martínez García (España).
XVII CONCURSO DE COMPOSICIÓN
1°. Alter Ego 1 de D. Evis Sarnrnoutis (Chipre)
PREMIO LEO BROUWER: D. Jan Depreter (Bélgica)
XVIII CONCURSO DE COMPOSICIÓN – 2005 1°. Retorna de D. Javier Farías Caballero (Chile)

XXII CERTAMEN – 2006
1°. D. Andrey Parfinovich (Rusia).
2°. Desierto.
3°. D. Shani Invar (Israel).
XIX CONCURSO DE COMPOSICIÓN
1°. Crornático de D. Jorge Miguel González (España)
PREMIO LEO BROUWER: D. Andrey Parfinovich (Rusia)
XXIII CERTAMEN – 2007
1°. D. Bertrand Pietu (Francia)
2°. D. Esteban Espinoza Norarnbuena (Chile)
3°. D. Juan Ignacio Rueda (España)
D. Dirnitri lllarionov (Rusia)
XX CONCURSO DE COMPOSICIÓN
lº. Homenaje a Frank Martin de D. Antonio Domínguez Buitrago
(España)
PREMIO LEO BROUWER: D. Alesandro Benedetelli (Italia)
PREMIO JJ.MM. D. Andrea González Caballero (España)

XXIV CERTAMEN – 2008
1º. D. Otto Tolonen (Finlandia)
2°. D. Gustavo Costa (Brasil)
3°. Dña. Paola Requena Toulouse (España) D. Ah Arango Marcano (Cuba)
XXI CONCURSO DE COMPOSICIÓN
1°. Temple y Puya de D. Héctor González (Cuba)
PREMIO LEO BROUWER: D. Otto Tolonen (Finlandia)
PREMIO JJ.MM. : D. Jerzy Chwastyk (Polonia)
XXV CERTAMEN -2009
1°. D. Dimitri Illarionov (Rusia)
2°. D. Gustavo Costa (Brasil)
3°. Dña. Iva Nezic (Croacia)
XXII CONCURSO DE COMPOSICIÓN: Desierto
PREMIO LEO BROUWER: Jerzy Chwastyk (Polonia)
PREMIO JJ.MM. : Dña. Anna Likhacheva (Rusia)
XXVI CERTAMEN – 2010
1°. D. Emerson Salazar (Chile)
2°. D. Gustavo Costa (Brasil)
3°. D. Jerzy Chwastyk (Polonia)
PREMIO LEO BROUWER: D. Emerson Salazar (Chile)
PREMIO JJ.MM. : D. José Casallas (Colombia)
XXVII CERTAMEN – 2011
1°. D. Renato Serrano (Chile)
2°. D. Esteban Espinoza (Chile)
3°. D. András Csaki (Hungría)
PREMIO LEO BROUWER: D. Renato Serrano (Chile)
PREMIO JJ.MM. : D. Luis Guevara (Chile)
PREMIO DE COMPOSICIÓN: Desierto

 

 

Wood from Romania

One of the things that I thought I would do as a post was to document a visit to Valencia to one of the wood dealers but I have no plans to go in the near future.  In the meantime I took a few photos yesterday because Ioan Cioloca was here from Romania yesterday.  He comes twice a year with maple and spruce and stops in Madrid, Granada and a few other places.  As with any wood seller the quality can vary wildly but since we get to choose the sets we want that is not a problem.  I have some very nice bearclaw from him, excellent bird’s-eye with tiny little eyes and this time I got some really curly maple.  I liked the look and feel of it and took 100 sets.  That is an awful lot considering that this is not the most common wood for classicals nor for flamencos but the way the Torres copy is selling both in bird’s-eye and curly I think it was a good idea.

I have some space right outside my workshop so “Juan”, as they call him here, parked his van and some of the other builders came by and made their purchases right there.  He promised bird’s-eye for his next trip so I will be putting aside some money for that as well.

Public Radio

The national classical radio station here in Spain has a programme on Sunday nights dedicated to the guitar.  Last week they played music from the two albums that Javier Riba has recorded.  The first one, with music from Albeniz was recorded with my Torres copy and the second one with music written for Andrés Segovia was recorded with the 1900 Vicente Arias.

 

Copying the Lorca – Els Jageneau

I made the first copy of the Lorca guitar in 1996 or thereabouts.  As mentioned I had examined the guitar and made my own drawing but my technical drawing skills and my guitar-making skills left a lot to be desired.  For the first copy I had access to the instrument and the guidance of an expert luthier (Chacón) but for subsequent copies I think I really didn’t have very good information and had not taken a single photo of the original.  Luckily, I later learned that Els Jageneau, a teacher at a guitar making school in Belgium had made a detailed drawing and a datasheet of the guitar.  The photos she took as well as the detailed information was very helpful as I continued to make this replica.  I will use some of her information here to illustrate the idiosyncrasies of this guitar.  The full plan is available and consists of “a documentation drawing at full size in which the guitar is shown in different views . Next to it there is a appendix with technical information including photos”  Please contact Ms. Jageneau for price and availability.

elsjageneau (at) skynet.be  

or   

Els Jageneau
Schransstraat 19
2530 Boechout
Belgium


Here is the typical purfling style of instruments of this era.  I have never seen the right-angled mitres that we use today.  In the photo above note the massive ends of the bridge, something not very common then or now.


Below you can see that the top has cracked right at the ends of the bridge, explaining why we tend to feather the bridge ends.  Very interesting that another Lorca I have seen from 1871, made by his son, Antonio de Lorca Pino, has the same aesthetic and MOP decoration on the bridge but much lower and less massive bridge wings.  They learned their lesson.

 

My solution to this problem in making replicas was the diamond shaped patch which so far has worked to stop the crack before it happens.

This photo shows a lot of the other things I want to point out.  The slipper foot is very long and wide to the point of doing away with a back bar in that region.  The fan bracing with the common starting points for braces 1 and 2 as well as for 4 and 5 is present in some of the Pages instruments.  The photo of the endblock purfling above also shows the curve of the top which is extreme even by today’s standards.  It is more a cylindrical curve than a dome.   I believe that this, along with the fan bracing, is what gives this guitar its special voice when compared to other romantic instruments (especially french, italian or german ones).

 

Below is a drawing from Ms. Jageneau’s notes that shows the true nature of the “V-joint” that is used in this gutar.  It is actually a scarf joint with an extra cedar “headplate” under the ebony one and then a false diamond and V carved into the back.  The neck blank was not thick enough to allow the diamond so an extra piece was glued on there.  I have seen other instruments made like this but what is the intention?  Some have suggested that he wanted to copy the V-joint or even Lacôte’s secret joint but didn’t know how.  I personally doubt that he made this elaborate joint out of an inablility or lack of knowledge.  The workmanship as a whole is very good and the acoustic result is also excellent.