• 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.

Rosewood vs Pau Ferro

#101
I have owned (and still own) Pau Ferro fretboard basses: Stingray & Cirrus. Both examples are top notch. Maybe the issue is not so much with the wood as it is with the batch of wood FMIC is using? As far as the appearance - I prefer Pau Ferro on most instruments, the majority of Indian Rosewood fretboards look like they are dyed and that makes it a little inauthentic or fake for me. I like the natural imperfections of the wood, it adds character.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stuntbass77
#103
The other end of the spectrum...
Here are the same woods as I originally posted, Pau Ferro, Indian Rosewood and Brazilian Rosewood, top to bottom.

upload_2018-10-31_13-13-5.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: J-Mags, wraub and stuntbass77
#104
I'm personally not a huge fan of rosewood or pau ferro. It's not because of any of that tone wood stuff, or the difference between the two (I can't see much of a difference between the two).

I just prefer maple if it's an option. Again, not because of tone, I know people say maple necks are brighter, but I just like the look.

All of my guitars though have ebony boards, and I'm a huge fan of that.
 
#111
harmonyriver said:
I have a 90s Fender Roscoe Beck V with the Pau Ferro - when I first received it I thought WOW the fingerboard looks really pretty and different. It sounds amazing to my ears, except I can't really tell the difference between rosewood vs maple vs pau ferro on recordings..... can everyone else can?
Click to expand...

IME, no they can't. Many claim they can but most can't tell. A lot of people, again just my experience, can tell the difference between their personal basses that have different characteristics. And they go on to assume that every similar bass sounds the same. Discounting string choice, amp choice, playing style, and the difference that can happen between two guitars of the same model line built with the same species of wood. It leads me to believe that for most of the players out there it comes down to looks and tradition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thick McRunfast, kodiakblair and BillMason
#112
blue4 said:
IME, no they can't. Many claim they can but most can't tell. A lot of people, again just my experience, can tell the difference between their personal basses that have different characteristics. And they go on to assume that every similar bass sounds the same. Discounting string choice, amp choice, playing style, and the difference that can happen between two guitars of the same model line built with the same species of wood. It leads me to believe that for most of the players out there it comes down to looks and tradition.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this!
 
#114
James Collins said:
I think all wood darkens with age. Not that the wood of today isn't lighter. Maybe we need a thread about climate change ruining the quality of instrument wood.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...I recall that brand new Fender bass fingerboards looked very dark when I started gazing longingly at them in 1963. The rosewood that was available 50+ years ago was quite dark.
 
#115
Jim Carr said:
Hmmm...I recall that brand new Fender bass fingerboards looked very dark when I started gazing longingly at them in 1963. The rosewood that was available 50+ years ago was quite dark.
Click to expand...
I have an $80 Ibanez classical guitar with a very dark rosewood fretboard from around 2000. I'm not proud of it.

This gets at recall and confirmation bias though.
 
Last edited:
#116
James Collins said:
Cool story bro. I have an $80 Ibanez classical guitar with a very dark rosewood fretboard from around 2000. I'm not proud of it.
Click to expand...
Ya I think that's what @Turnaround originally mentioned. The newer woods are being dyed now...and @Jim Carr is noting back in '63, it was naturally dark. Personally I prefer the lighter woods with more grain character...I have a couple ebony boards (likely dyed), and it think it lacks in the looks department...
I bet that 18 year old Ibanez has stood up well (?) :). that dog in your avatar looks awesome. He/she looks like a lot of laughs
 
#117
graphics1988 said:
Ya I think that's what @Turnaround originally mentioned. The newer woods are being dyed now...and @Jim Carr is noting back in '63, it was naturally dark. Personally I prefer the lighter woods with more grain character...I have a couple ebony boards (likely dyed), and it think it lacks in the looks department...
I bet that 18 year old Ibanez has stood up well (?) :). that dog in your avatar looks awesome. He/she looks like a lot of laughs
Click to expand...
Except my fretboard was not as dark 20 years ago. It is dyed with age only.

What someone remembers from 60 years ago doesn't really matter. People tend to think the 60s were a better time to live. Doesn't make it true.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Axstar and blue4
#118
ole Jason said:
I don't think you can really judge anything by those low quality ultra zoomed in photos of the raw wood. Wood can look vastly different on an instrument depending on how it is finished, as well as the trickery that can result from body color. You really need to see the wood as an actual fretboard to really "get it" IMO.
Click to expand...
Except that they all differ just as much in real life as they do in the photos. So I guess no comparison is valid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajkula66 and retslock

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back