• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Fender no longer using rosewood ?

Let's do maple boards for all. It's local, cheap and looks great.

I don't understand the switch to ebony. It's a wood that has been pretty much dropped because supplies were shrinking, production isn't sustainable, quality was going down and price up. Have things changed ?

I guess not, other than we are using the "imperfect" (read: not pure black) ebony now as well.
But I guess the main problem is that we as players are wood snobs.
I remember the uproar on guitar forums when Gibson and Martin started using Richlite fretboards.

I have a two instruments that have ebony fretboards and while they are beautiful, I bought them because I liked the overall instrument not just the fretboard.

On the other hand I have a Les Paul with a Richlite fretboard, and I can't find any fault with it. It looks pretty damn good, is maintenance-free and the guitar sounds fantastic. So while I enjoy nice woods on instruments, I could live without them, because the alternatives aren't any worse in my experience. At least for the fretboards.
Hell, if you built a guitar completely out of recycled anything and it sounded great, I would rock the poopie out of it !
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jazz Ad
This is a storm in a tea cup! Stop buying stuff that isn't sustainable. We already own enough great stuff and we don't need any more. Be sensible and save the planet.

On fretboards. . . . I don't like maple because it looks dirty and messy when it wears through to the wood and stains up. This is the reason Leo Fender introduced rosewood in the first place. He didn't think stained maple looked good either. . . . great minds eh? If they could stop that happening I'd be just as happy with maple.
 
Possibly, but a very sensible precaution nonetheless. I once took a camera to the airport and got it "certified " because I knew I was going to be taking it out of the country in the future. Maybe this is doable with an instrument?.

When I was traveling to China for a photo project we had to get all the equipment that we were taking in & out of the country certified [karnay-sp?]. The following trip we were in Mexico and when we were leaving the country they tried to make us leave our lighting kit behind because it was "too big" to put on the plane. We argued that it wasn't too big when we arrived and after some haggling they charged us $50 and the kit was suddenly okay. The airline had charged us $6500 to take the exact same equipment with us to & from China so we figured it was a good deal. :thumbsup:

Last year when I was on my way to South America I had the customs officials at the airport verify every piece of equipment that I was taking with me so as to have a document that made it harder if someone wanted to try and confiscate it for not having proper records. It's advisable to do the same with any item of value IMHO.

According to Fretboard Journal you can now get a "passport" for instruments as well. 99% of us on TB will never need such a thing but in case you do it's good to be well-informed.
 
Nothing wring with rosewood. I have 3 American Standards. Of course, the Fender Select has a finished flame maple fretboard.
 

Attachments

  • 1495376584465903415365.jpg
    1495376584465903415365.jpg
    654.1 KB · Views: 17
Ebony sucks, for the most part (Macassar an exception). It's so temperamental and stubborn compared to basically maintenance-free rosewood. I can already predict how many cracked/split boards will pop up (being mass-produced and all).

Bad choice, Fender.

How can Ebony be a problem when violin, alto, cello and DB are all made with Ebony fingerboard and many instrument are a few undred years old ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helix
IMG_0405.JPG
I don't have an issue at all with what Fender is doing. Pau Ferro is a good tone wood. The bass above was one of my Music Man Bongo's with it and is sounded, felt and played great. Due to CITES, Fender and everyone else now has to do something different or pay a lot more money per instrument just for Rosewood. I think it's stupid too but out of my hands. I'm surprised by the Ebony decision though as I thought Ebony was more scarce than Rosewood. And as far as streaking Ebony goes, after seeing the video that Taylor guitars put out about it, I had no idea, that that many trees were being cut down, just to obtain all black Ebony so I am totally okay with streaked Ebony. Plus I think streaked Ebony looks beautiful and makes each piece more unique.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tfer
They (CITIES) need to seriously revisit their decision to put ALL species of dalbergia (rosewood) on the endangered list regardless of whether they are endangered or not.

Saturday morning tonewood rambling started. I think this applies to rosewood, ebony or any other hard to find wood and how cosmetics and sound quality interact and affect it's use as a tonewood. If not, hopefully it's at least interesting! :)

As far as spruce goes, I'm a luthier who also cuts Adirondack Spruce trees, which long ago was the only species of spruce used by the big acoustic builders like Martin and Gibson. They stopped using red spruce some time during the 1940s because there were not enough good trees left. So they switched to Sitka. Sitka was great because the trees were abundant, huge, old and it was very easy to find trees with near perfect, straight, even, 18+ grain per inch.

In general, compared to Sitka, Red Spruce trees are not abundant, are small , and don't grow evenly. So the wood has a different look with wider, less even grain and more color variation. The problem is from 1950-today, people have become accustomed to the "look" of perfect Sitka tops on guitars all guitars, even cheaper ones. So people end up wanting the sound of a red spruce top with the looks of a Sitka top, and as someone that cuts red spruce trees I can tell you, that top is one in a million. I stopped cutting trees to sell the wood a few years back because customers had become ridiculously picky about cosmetic quality, and now I only cut for my own use.

The interesting thing is with red spruce cosmetics (grain per inch, even, straight) make no predictable difference in sound. With Sitka it does. That's because the early growth (light colored rings) on Red Spruce are extremely hard/dense/fibrous/strong compared to the early growth on Sitka. That means Red spruce is strong regardless of how many grain per inch, whereas Sitka depends much more on the late growth (dark rings) for strength, so a top with wide grain usually means a light, weak, floppy top. In fact, the best acoustic guitar I've ever heard in my life was a 1930s Martin D-18 with a red spruce top that had 4 grains per inch, and a huge wave in the grain!

One of the nice parts about cutting trees only for my own use is I stopped being "disappointed" when I cut a tree that was not cosmetically perfect. I began to really appreciate the look of the coarser, uneven grained wood instead of thinking "how the heck am I going to sell that?"

Here's two instruments built with a tree I cut in 2004. Keep in mind, I could hardly give this wood away because it was so "ugly", which may turn out to be a good thing because I ended cutting it into billets for archtop guitars and keeping a lot of it. This is a parlor guitar built by Hans Brentrupp. He was the only builder that could not get enough tops from this tree:
View attachment 1137022

This is one of three basses I finished recently I call "Double-Bass Guitar":
View attachment 1137023

View attachment 1137024
I wouldn't have a problem with any of those.
 
Clickity Clack... Bye Bye warm tones
Yeah, I'm not a big "wood matters" guy, but I do think two things about wood selection. First, basswood tends to affect (IMO damage) the midrange of a passive bass, and second, fingerboard wood affects the acoustic tone of an instrument. I won't argue that it affects the amplified tone in any way that matters, but I sure do think the acoustic tone changes.

...

I also think this is as much a marketing ploy as it is concern about import/export costs. Fender is still going to use rosewood on the American Professional series, and they used CITES as a reason (excuse?) to raise their prices. That may be about importing neck blanks, but a lot of these MIA basses never leave the US. Ebony has long been sold as an upgrade from rosewood, so moving the Elites to this adds marketing prestige. Pau Ferro is less prestigious, which, given the high quality of the MIM line, adds a needed (IMO) differentiator between the MIM and MIA product lines.

Fender seems to be trying to distinguish between its product lines, and if they can get any positive press from being pro-conservation, they will take it:

MIM = Pao Ferro
MIA = Rosewood
MIA Elite = Ebony

See what they did there?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pbassmanca