an Ash neck or a Maple body?

[UnklMickey]

i've noticed when it comes to necks, Mahogany and Maple are quite common.

but not Ash.



there seem to be even more choices for bodies. Ash is present here.

but i haven't seen mention of a Maple body (except as a CAP over Mahogany).




has any one seen an Ash neck, or solid Maple body?

what would make those undesirable?




unk

[dunkelfalke]

maple body would be very heavy. still, i have seen soft maple bodies sometimes.

[quarry]

Did I read in a post around here, that Douglas Fir has the same density as most guitar body woods, and could therefore be used for a guitar body (electric, that is)?

[RandomHero]

Ash isn't the strongest or most stable stuff, hence it's not common to use as a neck. And as Dunk said, maple is so dense and solid that a body would not only produce a very (possibly unbearably) piercing bright sound, it would also take a truck scale to weigh the thing.

[Runewalker]

A lot of mfg wood choices are merely convention. One of Tex Hornet's pieces of wisdom is:

Beliefs drive experience, especially when you put money on your beliefs.....[/color]

Ol' Tex, comes through again.

Baseball bats are traditionally made of Ash. Bods of guitars are not made of furniture grade ash, but of "swamp Ash." hmm, that doesn't sound to good together, especially after a whiskey or two.

I've never seen "swamp ash" growing that I knew of, but it supposedly grows near water and is more cellularly porous, less dense than furniture type ash. Furniture type ash is full of pores, like oak, and also about as dense as oak. Where are the oak guitars? Swamp ash was chosen for its lightness, which was similar to Alder in weight.

I was the one that noted the similarity in density of Fir and Alder. Fir is a "softwood" and does not machine as finely. However, even a softwood could be cell consolidated with modern resins to improve its machining properties. A resin is not that far removed from a grain filler.

Swamp ash is also quite "porey" with a distinct and large figured grain pattern. Ash is most often grain filled before finishing because of these pores, as is some Alder. Maple is a wonderfully dense wood in terms of both weight and small indistinct pores, and frequently requires no grain filler.

We keep thinking Leo chose these woods on their acoustic properties and merits. Wrong, he chose on the basis of availability and cost. He was a radio repairman for Unk's sake!

There are maple bodies of course, especially one of Unk's favorites, the Gibby L6S.

But there are many woods that would be suitable for guitar bodies ("woods that would" need no ED medications). There is a company in Brazil that churns out bods out of what they can get from the local rain-forest, and much of that flora is foreign to the US, but its what they can get cheap. There is a guy on ebay that fashions necks out of unusual types of wood, frequently exotics, but certainly unconventional.

The same question could be posed about fretboard woods --- 3 choices: maple, rosewood and ebony? That's it? Warmoth does allow for some other exotic choices but what about for those on a budget?

Then this whole issue of figured woods -- Birdseye, 'flamed', splatted, burled, etc? These are imperfections in terms of straight regularly aligned cellular structure. The straight, and uniform grained wood is highly priced for acoustic soundboards for its ability to 'resonate' and produce uniform wave patterns. But for electrics the highly figured woods, which are completely dependent on irregularity, are highly prized by the guitarists for their appearance, frequently the same guitarists that tout various species for their tonewood properties. Can't have it both ways.

A reasonable person would allow for the possibility of unconventional woods yield perfectly acceptable guitars. Extending that there are also at least possible other materials that would yield effective, maybe even superior instruments. One thing about wood for necks is that there are a vast number of failed necks because of the irregularity and fickleness of a give piece of timber. These failure rates are all but ignored as various woods are worshiped.

I love wood, the way it works, the aroma it yields, its warmth and organic poetry. But it is imbued with mythic dimensions that overlooks its variability and persnickety nature. A materials engineer who was also a guitarist could no doubt produce a more cooperative neck and body substance, but would fight the headwinds of belief.

Ash (not swamp) would probably work as a neck as it is both stiff and machines well, but would have some grain fill issues. There are any number of good alternatives, but rarely seen because they are unconventional.

[UnklMickey]

thanks tons for all the info, guys!


i think Maple is very attractive.

Ash is okay too.

i was imagining a custom build (you know the kind you dream of, but never have the $ to make happen.)

and being a natural, clear-coated finish, i'd want the body and neck to be of the same material.

but it looks like maple would be rediculously heavy unless it was a small body like an LP,

only WAY thinner........................................................................................hmmmm!

and i s'pose i could shave a bit more weight if it were a D.C. .........................hmmmm!

and if it had a minimalist head stock ...........................................................hmmmm!

[UnklMickey]

Rune,

("woods that would" need no ED medications).

okay, i won't touch that one.





this is quite a departure from the straight-grained maple i had in mind, but later you mentioned exotic woods.

knowing that you didn't mean the chippendales,

that brought to mind a site i had stumbled upon, a while back, whilst looking for other things:

www.langcaster.com/

these guys use "35,000 year old swamp Kauri".

expensive as all get-out, but visual candy.



but then they spoil it all with a (IMHO) butt-ugly headstock.





unk

[Runewalker]

ToneMinerals?
ToneAmber?

[RandomHero]

Tonebutt-ugly?


...like a Steinberger!

[dunkelfalke]

i like it, except of the headstock
p.s. i like steinberger, too. used to have a different opinion on it, though.

[UnklMickey]

ToneMinerals?
ToneAmber?

ToneStone!

[vonFrenchie]

Common body materials are ash (light weight) alder (light weight) mahogany (looks and weight). There is a hard and soft ash which can change the weight of the guitar but primarily soft ash is used. If your guitar is painted you probably have an alder body.

Necks on the other hand must stand up to the tension of strings and the truss rod. Thus maple and some harder mahogany varieties are used. Some other woods used for necks (not just fingerboards) are ebony, goncalo alves (waxy and doesnt require finish), hard maple, padouk (both bodies and necks) and koa (necks and bodies). Koa is special because you can have your entire guitar made from Koa but youd be paying ALOT of money. Koa is grown only in volcanic fields in Hawaii. Its strong and light but rare.

If you use Ash as a neck (im sure it can be used on the fingerboard) you might as well play a harp.

On the other hand maple usually isnt used on the body because it is so dense and heavy. If it is used it is usually a laminate top. Maple is a common choice because our lovely neighbors in Canada have PLENTY of it. Also we here in the northern states have our fair share.

I have a friend who has a solid maple LP. It weighs as much as my bass.

There you go. Woods from a woodworker's son.

And dunkelfalke... I'm diggin the steinberger too.

[j48johnson]

Good info. everyone! Ash is a open grained wood like oak and unlike maple, but it is heavy so making a guitar body and neck out of maple, oak, or ash would be like hanging an anvil around your neck.

All three woods produce a very brite voice and would have to be toned down with the correct pots., caps., and pick-ups. If anyone has ever worked with ash, they can tell you that it is a fiberous wood meaning in laymens terms it's hard to rout without having chipout or runout.

Since a lot of work goes into a guitar using a router, this may not be a prefered wood to work with. You could be almost done with your last bit of 3/8" roundover, come to a grain pattern that was feeling a bit naughty and BAM! Now you have a body with a sliver of cracked wood 4" long and a half inch deep on the face of your guitar. If you do make it past the chipout you will need to fill the open grain of the wood in your finishing stages of the build.

Ash has a nice, clean grain pattern but oak is as hard and, (imho), has a nicer pattern, is as open of a grain pattern, and if you get lucky, you will find a piece of "tiger stripe" oak. It looks like "flamed" maple, but with the open grain of the oak.

There were highly reguarded cabinet makers in the early 1920's that built iceboxes, (wooden boxes that people had in the kitchen), that would hold blocks of ice delivered from who else but the ice man. Remember this was back in the day so there were no refridgerators. Back to my point...Tiger Stripe was from "old growth" oak, usually red oak, not the white or black found today. The old growth trees were here with the native Americans long before Mr. Columbus set sail. These trees grew in a LARGE forest called America. Since there were so many large trees, the canopy was high above the saplings. These trees would have to grow for years, 100+, to get high enough to start branching. The base or trunk of the small sapling was very straight, (shortest point to sunlight = straightup), since the larger trees shielded little brother from the elements, mainly wind, there was no twisting. This means that the wood would be straight as an arrow so to speak once it was dried. No crooks, checks, cups or any defects caused from the wind howling, (and twisting the fibers), of the smaller trees. Since there were no branches for the first 100+ feet, there are no knots in the wood.

The Tiger Oak was used for the highest quality furniture prized for the striping of the wood grain. The only place I know where you may find this old growth lumber would be Triton Logging Inc.