My suggestion is to play it more, look at it less. Reduce the aggravation and build better skills. Win win!
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Can someone explain this?
- Thread starter stevensivak
- Start date
My suggestion is to play it more, look at it less. Reduce the aggravation and build better skills. Win win!
Sorry, but my first thought was...
Last edited:
For technical reference, that's not Book-matched wood construction, it's what we often call Side-Matched.
In Book-matched construction, you start with a board that's more than twice as thick as needed. Then saw it in two in a horizontal plane. Trim those two parts to thickness in a planer or wide belt sander. Then the grain pattern of those two boards, when flipped apart like the pages of a book, will be symmetrical and almost identical. Book Matching is done for visual beauty reasons, not structural or mechanical reasons.
Building bodies Book-Matched, in simple 2-piece construction, is expensive and troublesome. It's harder to find boards that are thick enough and wide enough to use. And, if you find them, it's hard to get them dried out properly. It takes more time and care to do it right. Thick boards are more likely to have internal stresses and cracks. That's why Book-Matching is usually done in a thinner board, a Top, which is glued onto a thicker main board. The boards in the main thickness of the body are usually Side-Matched or Non-Matched.
In Side-Matched construction, you start with a board that's about the right thickness, but twice as long. Saw it into two pieces, and rotate one of them around 180 so that the edges that were on the same side of the original board now get joined together. That makes the rings and grain of the two halves symmetrical and opposing, which is good practice for strength and stability of the body. Most high quality bass bodies are made by Side Matching, for that reason. And, that allows most bass bodies to be made using 8/4 kiln-dried lumber, which is more commonly available and more reliable.
On most boards, the rings get closer together toward one edge of the board. That's the "old growth", that was closest to the center of the original tree. In Side-Matched construction, you generally want to put the old growth in toward the center. The edges of the two boards that have the closest, tightest looking grain should be joined to each other in the center of the body. That's for structural/engineering reasons. That edge of the board is stronger than the wider-spaced new growth edge.
And that's what's going on with this Olinto body. It's Side-Matched, joining the two old-growth edges together in the center. That's the way to build a body correctly for strength and stability.
The reason why it looks mismatched visually, is because edge of the left side board goes in closer to the center of the log. Not by much, maybe a quarter inch. The grain/rings get so close together that the edge starts looking much darker. If, when they were jointing the edge of the left board, they had taken off about another 1/4", then the two boards would have matched much better visually. And we wouldn't be having this discussion. My guess is that the left hand board was barely wide enough to fit that half of the body. That's why they didn't take off that extra bit to improve the appearance.
That's the "flaw". It's purely visual and has nothing to do with reduced structural strength or poorer quality construction. A nice looking board and good construction technique.
In Book-matched construction, you start with a board that's more than twice as thick as needed. Then saw it in two in a horizontal plane. Trim those two parts to thickness in a planer or wide belt sander. Then the grain pattern of those two boards, when flipped apart like the pages of a book, will be symmetrical and almost identical. Book Matching is done for visual beauty reasons, not structural or mechanical reasons.
Building bodies Book-Matched, in simple 2-piece construction, is expensive and troublesome. It's harder to find boards that are thick enough and wide enough to use. And, if you find them, it's hard to get them dried out properly. It takes more time and care to do it right. Thick boards are more likely to have internal stresses and cracks. That's why Book-Matching is usually done in a thinner board, a Top, which is glued onto a thicker main board. The boards in the main thickness of the body are usually Side-Matched or Non-Matched.
In Side-Matched construction, you start with a board that's about the right thickness, but twice as long. Saw it into two pieces, and rotate one of them around 180 so that the edges that were on the same side of the original board now get joined together. That makes the rings and grain of the two halves symmetrical and opposing, which is good practice for strength and stability of the body. Most high quality bass bodies are made by Side Matching, for that reason. And, that allows most bass bodies to be made using 8/4 kiln-dried lumber, which is more commonly available and more reliable.
On most boards, the rings get closer together toward one edge of the board. That's the "old growth", that was closest to the center of the original tree. In Side-Matched construction, you generally want to put the old growth in toward the center. The edges of the two boards that have the closest, tightest looking grain should be joined to each other in the center of the body. That's for structural/engineering reasons. That edge of the board is stronger than the wider-spaced new growth edge.
And that's what's going on with this Olinto body. It's Side-Matched, joining the two old-growth edges together in the center. That's the way to build a body correctly for strength and stability.
The reason why it looks mismatched visually, is because edge of the left side board goes in closer to the center of the log. Not by much, maybe a quarter inch. The grain/rings get so close together that the edge starts looking much darker. If, when they were jointing the edge of the left board, they had taken off about another 1/4", then the two boards would have matched much better visually. And we wouldn't be having this discussion. My guess is that the left hand board was barely wide enough to fit that half of the body. That's why they didn't take off that extra bit to improve the appearance.
That's the "flaw". It's purely visual and has nothing to do with reduced structural strength or poorer quality construction. A nice looking board and good construction technique.
That’s where you fold it up to make it easier to carry.
Unless you are going to be doing on stage stunts where the audience sees the back of your bass, a lot, i’d be happy that was the only thing I was less than thrilled with.
Thanks for taking the time to answer this Bruce, well stated, very informative. I have a jazz with a beautiful 1 piece ash body, so this got me thinking, are there any negatives with a one piece body?
well, if it's yours = good luck! 
Well, sure. With a one-piece body, there's more risk of the body warping or cracking. It doesn't mean that it will happen, but that there's more chance that it could. If the board was dried and selected carefully, and it stays stable for a year or two, then it should be fine for the long term. Building in two or more pieces, making the ring and grain orientation symmetrical and opposing, reduces the risk of warping and cracking.
That looks like a unique and beautiful instrument. If you don’t like it though, consider returning it to the luthier you purchased it from and asking for one with a less visible body joint.
There's a marked difference between a HIGH END bass and a HIGH PRICED bass. I'm sure the Olinto line is really good, not because of the price, but because longtime bassists on this board whom have opinions I respect say so.
I have a bass here in the classifieds which knocks most basses out of the park visually with fancy woods. Doesnt make the grade sonically, something about the neckjoint/nut/bridge and maybe even fingerboard. Some of the basses I've bought online are dogs like that.
On the flip side, I've owned some real red headed stepchildren (in the visual realm) that rocked my socks off sonically but we're two baggers.
I gotta stop falling for pretty faces and pretty bodies...
I have a bass here in the classifieds which knocks most basses out of the park visually with fancy woods. Doesnt make the grade sonically, something about the neckjoint/nut/bridge and maybe even fingerboard. Some of the basses I've bought online are dogs like that.
On the flip side, I've owned some real red headed stepchildren (in the visual realm) that rocked my socks off sonically but we're two baggers.
I gotta stop falling for pretty faces and pretty bodies...
For years, I admired carefully book matched top, treasured the look, the symmetry, etc., particularly on acoustic guitars, a hoot to look at a rosewood backed Martin where the grain looked like corduroy.
I played 80's/MIJ Yamaha BB's for years. Yamaha would use Macassar ebony for those fingerboards, and unlike most builders did not color them with that blacker-than-black dye. So I had several in a row with a burnt-coffee brown fingerboard with a lighter 'chocolate' stripe weaving it's way from nut to last fret, and I fell for that not-perfect look as that was what the wood really looked like.
So that bass is fine with me, though it would take me a few months to quit feeling for that cleft in the look of the finish.
I love the variability and randomness of wood.
I played 80's/MIJ Yamaha BB's for years. Yamaha would use Macassar ebony for those fingerboards, and unlike most builders did not color them with that blacker-than-black dye. So I had several in a row with a burnt-coffee brown fingerboard with a lighter 'chocolate' stripe weaving it's way from nut to last fret, and I fell for that not-perfect look as that was what the wood really looked like.
So that bass is fine with me, though it would take me a few months to quit feeling for that cleft in the look of the finish.
I love the variability and randomness of wood.
