I'm speaking in general terms here. I am pointing no fingers, taking no swipes, engaging in no nonsense of any kind. I respect myself, my fellow members here, the PRS company, and music & guitars in general far too much to engage in such behaviour.
I've been following this topic at the other forum, and what I take away from it is this: It never ceases to amaze me how some people seem to get upset/irate/troubled over such relatively small things. In my opinion, that's what has happened in this case.
My personal take on this subject is that it's another example of a mountain being made out of a molehill. Apparently, there was enough of an 'issue' made about the term 'sinker' that Paul Reed Smith himself took the time and made the effort to address it. He was concerned and wanted to set the record straight. He stated his position, explained the origin of the term as it pertains to his company, and that's the end of it. I know of no effort whatsoever on the part of anyone to intentionally con or mislead or misrepresent anything to anybody, be they consumers, writers, or whomever.
Again, IMO, this topic says far more about the society we live in and the ways in which it has changed than it does about what a guitar company chooses to call the wood it uses.
Today, 'sinker mahogany', tomorrow, perhaps 'Korina'. That's an invented name too, thought up by some folks at Gibson a long time ago. Why? Because they didn't like the name 'African Limba'. Their wood, their guitar, their choice. They came up with the name 'Korina' and people ended up really liking guitars made out of it. Why? Because of the great sound.
Then, there's the age-old matter of 'tremelo'. Guitars don't have tremelos, unless they have some very unique electronics built into them. The correct term for the guitar hardware commonly known as a whammy bar, or Floyd, or what have you, is vibrato. Yet, guitars with some sort of mechanical device used to raise and lower the pitch of the strings have been referred to as having a 'tremelo' for many, many years. It is technically incorrect, but so what? The name stuck. Lots of people dig guitars with one. Why? Again, because they can sound great! Does the almost universal acceptance of the incorrect term indicate some sort of conscious decision on the part of builders to mislead the public? Not by my standards.
In the end, what difference does it make whether the wood is called 'sinker' by Paul's definition, or someone else's? To anyone who feels misled, duped, etc., I would ask the following: How does the guitar sound? Do you like it? Do you LOVE it? If the answer to any of those questions is yes, then what else matters? If a person is truly upset over a matter such as this, then my advice to them would be that with the next guitar they buy, they should let their displeasure be known by going with another brand.
Again, if anyone has taken offense with what I have said here, please go back and reread the first paragraph of my post. After that, play the guitar(s) you have, enjoy every moment with them, and quit being so concerned with terminology. Listen, touch, experience, enjoy, and make up your own mind based on that input. THAT is what's 'cool'!
Goldtop
, more than a few guys bought into Sigs because of the cool factor of 200+ year old growth being recovered and used in a killer guitar. ![]-[@n$0Ma☩!©](/data/avatars/m/0/675.jpg?1595235761){kind=avatar}
