Old Wood vs New Wood (hold the jokes)

themike

New Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2012
Messages
1,992
Saw this image on a woodworking forum I like to read and I figured some instrument buffs like yourselves would appreciate it....

Here is a 2x4 from 1927 next to a 2x4 from 2015 (both are Douglas Fir). Thats a LOT more time to hone in on its natural musical properties, aye? And also wayyyyy bigger in size.


kxiAs41.jpg
 
One thing I have found out, for my taste, most of the time, (not all) I seem to prefer the sound of new guitars over vintage ones of the same model. The one exception is with Teles. Most (not all) of the time I prefer the sound of a "good" vintage tele over a "good" new one. With Strats, the Fender Custom shop seems to REALLY have it down, and most of their new ones are fantastic instruments, and sound better that most old ones to me. Same with Les Pauls.
 
Great photo. Did the one on the right get more water, as I am guessing it grew faster explaining the bigger gap between the rings. Apologies I don't know much about wood but I like it.
 
One is from an larger "old growth" tree. The other a much younger, smaller tree...
 
As PRSh likes to remind us, the forests in North America have been completely logged three times since the white man got here.

The wood from the left is old growth, the way trees naturally grow when you don't harvest them every few years.

The wood on the right is "farmed". They are grown farther apart with no overstory. More light and less competition for water makes for wider growth rings.
 
I'm personally a believer in old growth wood for the most part. I have a 50s Les Paul Custom with PAFs and a 59 Junior, and I've never encountered a Historic even remotely close. I seem to remember PRSh talking about the resins crystallizing over time.

The one glaring exception to me are torrified, or roasted, woods. That process makes some scary good guitars, although it doesn't work with mahogany. I've read the drying process makes it too brittle.
 
Back
Top