I've been having this picture in my head, does anyone know if Tamboti have ever been used in a guitar?
Surely it must be usable 'coz its rockhard and so purdy

X-rated Bob wrote:

...mario... wrote: Yes I think they are comonly used for solid bodies.
That rosewood tele is hot, but I think they use rosewood mainly for the fretbord and not the body 'coz its a very oily wood,
I've posted a pic before on the forum of a 8string B.C.Rich Bitch bass made from Koa, now that was an eyecatching wood for me, it's quite recent on the pron thread aswell

Rosewood is frequently used for the back and sides of acoustic guitars, so it can't be that difficult to work with. The main problem, I'd think, is the weight. If you have two acoustics that are the same in all respects other than that one has rosewood back and sides and the other mahogany then there will be tangible difference in the weight. So I'd imagine that a tele-sized slab of rosewood isn't going to be that light.

Koa is not that dark a wood actually. It's often stained to make it look darker than it is, or to accentuate the difference between the light and dark in the wood. See and even more recent posting in the pron thread (from me) - an all Koa acoustic.

Will sneak to that thread just now ?

Yeah I can imagine it would be a backbreaker, makes sense

I see, that koa is actually very light, the one I saw must've had a tinted finish then

BASSWOOD FTW! :woohoo:

My favourite, not pretty but it's got a really easy to sculpt tone. It doesn't seem to peak in terms of frequency in any particular part of the spectrum and it's got good throaty mids ?

Not everyone's choice but tonally my favourite, it's also really easy to work with and takes well to having a maple cap ?

Acoustic wise I seem to prefer Spruce tops ? and lyrachord back and sides, cause I love Ovations 8)

X-rated Bob wrote: Mahogany is not so dark. Rosewood, cocobolo.... now you're talking dark. Mind you, are those woods that commonly used for the bodies of electric guitars?

I have seen cocobolo used for fretboards before but never as an actual body wood. I know that it is "technically" a part of the same family as another tonewood, I believe this may be rosewood but I'm not 100% sure.

Chad Adam Browne wrote: I have seen cocobolo used for fretboards before but never as an actual body wood. I know that it is "technically" a part of the same family as another tonewood, I believe this may be rosewood but I'm not 100% sure.

You're correct. Cocobolo is a dalbergia, the same family as rosewoods. It's a redder wood than Brazilian or Indian rosewood.


I think it darkens with time though. My Morgan has cocobolo bindings and now they're nearly as dark as the rosewood but the original owner tells me they used to be very red indeed.

I've been having this picture in my head, does anyone know if Tamboti have ever been used in a guitar?
Surely it must be usable 'coz its rockhard and so purdy

I'm gona bump this just to keep it going as I'd really like to know if Tamboti and other uncomon woods could make good guitarwoods other than for esthetics, this and a wood called "red iron bark/pink seligna" (for those who don't know seligna is part of the eucaluptus group (gumtrees they plant everywhere for paper etc.) but this specific species is very expensive, heavy and rockhard, its a very saught after furniture wood and has to be carefully kilndried for a very long time to avoid cracking)

im partial to mahogany/ alder and pau ferro

brought some pau ferro for a build at home.. damn that thng weighs almost 6kgs

I can already hear you sing out that high C when that thing gives you a hernia ?

Tonedef wrote: I can already hear you sing out that high C when that thing gives you a hernia ?

:roflmao: ?

I'm also on another forum called Sevenstring.org and on that forum I saw the guitar with cocobolo.

For anyone who's interested in it's build thread here we go: http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/luthiery-modifications-customizations/123272-pretending-luthier.html

Chad Adam Browne wrote: I'm also on another forum called Sevenstring.org and on that forum I saw the guitar with cocobolo.

For anyone who's interested in it's build thread here we go: http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/luthiery-modifications-customizations/123272-pretending-luthier.html

damn.................that's some sexy wood there.......

I have a nice chunk of tambootie that I intend to use as two fretboards...one on a mopane guitar.
I also have a piece to be used as the bindings.

the density and tap of this fretboard blank is very nice indeed. Not sure how it would work on an electric guitar (although for certain it would be heavy as all hell). Has a similar feel/density to the coco piece I have, but no doubt there are other woods with a closer resemblance that I don't know of.

One thing about tambootie is that it is toxic. So be sure to wash your hands thoroughly after working with it, and always wear a dust mask.
I know Phillippe at pro sono in joburg stocks some tambootie, so maybe ask him? Not sure where he gets his tambootie, but he buys african blackwood, mopane and pink ivory by the log and then processes it.
www.prosono.co.za

Thanks for the info.
My stinkwood classical is not far from completion.
The builder does such fine work at an unbelievable price...
I'm hooked and already contemplating a 2nd.
I'm thinking more along flamenca lines this time.
Will definitely follow up the tambootie lead.

Post some pics and let us know how yours turns out

flatfourfan wrote: Mahogony has a nice colour, but honestly, 99% of the time I'm just gonna paint over it......

There should be a law against painting over wood. Stain it if you must, but paint no. >

I've looked quite a bit into this...
I reckon anything goes.
Rule of thumb is -if you stike the wood it should go piiiiiiinggggg - and not just donk!

Snobs will say only rosewood / maple / ebony fretboards.
However some will argue African blackwood is the ultimate - just too scarce and expensive comercialy.

I reckon theres probably dozens of woods as good / better than alder and ash for electric bodies.
Fender uses alder because its cost effective and available - rosewood bodies i would imagine would be far superier - and WAY more expensive.

There are factors - oilyness, brittleness, softness, toxisity, etc that are factors...
But someone who understands wood can do anyting.
I have a friend making mindblowing clasical back and sides out of olienhout!

I reckon if you willing to take the gamble - go for it! Make sometin unique!

Average Joe wrote: I reckon theres probably dozens of woods as good / better than alder and ash for electric bodies.

Have to disagree with you there. There are other good woods, but they are I've tried a lot of different woods and always come back to swamp ash - not only that, but I know from experience, what weight of ash will work for me on a Strat, what's gonna work on a Tele, etc.

Fender uses alder because its cost effective and available

That was the original motivation, but they couldn't change now because those woods have become a part of the Fender sound. Medium weight was also in the original spec. Easier to finish was why alder took over from ash, etc. Even different species of a medium weight wood can sound radically different - compare eastern and western maple or swamp with baseball bat ash. Hardwoods are for the most part unsuitable unless you're making a skinny guitar like a Ric, or using it as a cap for a much softer wood or for a laminated hollow body. Even when hardwoods like maple are used for body applications, they tend to the softer varients.

rosewood bodies i would imagine would be far superier

Have you ever played a solid rosewood bodied guitar? Weighs an absolute ton and is generally pretty dead (yeah, a fingerboard or neck blank will ring like a bell, but it doesn't scale up to a body, where it acts more as dead weight than anything). Pine makes a better wood for a body...

But someone who understands wood can do anyting.

True in an acoustic or an archtop, but the Bob Benedettos of the world are rare (and it's a huge amount of work). Solidbodies are different animals too - they are slabs so you can't carve the top or braces to adjust the sound one way or another. The only thing you can do is wind pickups to suit.

I have a friend making mindblowing clasical back and sides out of olienhout!

The primary concern of back and sides in an acoustic is rigidity. While it does have a small influence on the resulting tone, it's nowhere near as critical application as a top or even the neck and there are a lot more woods that are suitable.

This isn't all to say that the established woods are the only ones that will work - I've loved ovankol since I first heard it used in cheap Korean guitars and pao ferro is my favourite fingerboard wood (In fact, I've been around since before blackwood and Nato were acceptable tonewoods). Speaking blackwood, its rare to find logs large enough to make guitar backs and 90% of a log is wasted in splitting/cutting - which explains why ebony was the preferred tonewood for lutherie over blackwood.

So while there are other woods that will work besides the traditional ones, there are often other factors to take into account and you never really know if something will work until you try it.

Average Joe wrote:
Snobs will say only rosewood / maple / ebony fretboards.
However some will argue African blackwood is the ultimate - just too scarce and expensive comercialy.

I reckon theres probably dozens of woods as good / better than alder and ash for electric bodies.
Fender uses alder because its cost effective and available - rosewood bodies i would imagine would be far superier - and WAY more expensive.

I expect fender used maple fretboards for no other reason than cost. On my strat, I love the maple board, but I dont think I would put one on an acoustic.
African blackwood, for me is (one of) the ultimate for fretboard and bridge, but yes, very expensive, also, it's a rosewood too, as is cocobolo.
Cocobolo is probably my favourite wood aesthetically. I love that red.
I have a big plank of flat sawn coco and I am trying to decide whether to try and re-saw it to make a set of sides and back (which will be very hard to keep stable, due to its flatsawness), or to rather chop it up into a bunch of quarter sawn fretboards, bridge blanks, bindings and headstock veneers.

I am considering the latter, but it's hard to get coco in South Africa these days, so I am taking my time deciding.

There is snobbery, but there is pragmatism as well. If we consider flat top steel string acoustics then Martin just about wrote the book on those, but Martin use the woods they use for reasons beyond mere flash and snob value (collectors look for certain woods now, but that's not why Martin used those woods in the first place).

The classic combinations are there at least partly for pragmatic reasons - suitability to the job (spruce has a very high ratio of strength to weight along it's grain - perfect for the high tension resulting from steel strings), ease of working, tendency (or not) to irritate the eyes and nose. History may have dictated things as well - we're used to the sound of a spruce top, it's become the benchmark sound.

It may be that Ratcliffe's X-rated Bugweed sounds spectacular, but also doesn't last long and is heck on your tools. So it would have been discarded as a viable option a long time ago. The tried and trusted combinations are trusted because they were tried and when they were tried they worked.

George Harrison's solo on the album version of Let it Be is a solid rosewood Telecaster. It did, in fact weigh a staggering amount. As a consequence, almost all "rosewood" Teles are actually veneer. Mostly MIJ guitars.

Alan Ratcliffe wrote: Pine makes a better wood for a body...

I'm so glad to hear that! My guy that I bought my rosewood plank for the neck suddenly decided to charge an arm and a leg after giving me such a bargain, so in desperation I chopped up an old pine shelf and started shaping my bass guitar body.

He wanted R500 for some cherry planks. Is cherry even a tone wood? ???