Scenaries inside 4 acoustics (Taylor, Martin, Lakewood and Gibson)

[Marco Polo]

I can see most of us peering inside the body during the next string change...

[michaelw]

I'm not a luthier (or play one on tv) but I think that 914 is a counterfeit.  Look at the difference in the shape of the top braces compared to mgap's 514.  No scalloping, so to speak. Just rough, crude rectangles of wood with a bevel at the end. 

Looking at the fretboard inlays, rosette and purfling, can anyone identify what year these details were available by Taylor?

What is the body wood? Any guesses?

If the owner contacts Taylor and it does turn out to be bogus, I hope he posts that information and clears their good name.  If it turns out to be authentic, I hope they give an explanation how such a thing could happen and "make it right" for him.

out of all pics of counterfeit taylors made overseas
that i've seen, none of them had the correct tuners or
electronics & the interior labels have looked a bit 'off' -
the bracing shapes appear to be correct for a 2015 model 914ce
(AP is parabolic, as opposed to scalloped CV), the heel block
label looks legit, the ES2 behind the saddle pickup element,
the side bracing & neck pocket bolt seem to look 'right' to me

however, i can't explain the level of fit, finish & adhesive residue

[Guitarsan]

I know Martin offers a "hide glue" option in their builds, so I can't help but wonder whether the Martin depicted in this thread has that option.  Exactly what benefit (short of aesthetics) the "hide glue" option would have is a bit of a mystery to me, since the Taylor folks are clearly doing something right with their guitar designs; I mean, we all keep buying them and raving about the tone, so the excess glue they leave on the inside apparently doesn't detrimentally affect the acoustical/vibratory properties of the body...

Ummmm... hide glue doesn't mean they "hide" it, it refers to animal or protein based glues.  Andy calls them that (protein glues) rather than hide, I suspect just because that's not what Martin calls them.

[Guitarsan]

I'm not a luthier (or play one on tv) but I think that 914 is a counterfeit.  Look at the difference in the shape of the top braces compared to mgap's 514.  No scalloping, so to speak. Just rough, crude rectangles of wood with a bevel at the end. 

Looking at the fretboard inlays, rosette and purfling, can anyone identify what year these details were available by Taylor?

What is the body wood? Any guesses?

If the owner contacts Taylor and it does turn out to be bogus, I hope he posts that information and clears their good name.  If it turns out to be authentic, I hope they give an explanation how such a thing could happen and "make it right" for him.

Ding ding ding ding! Congrats, you win the prize. I stared at this for a minute and thought, no way that's the inside of Taylor guitar. No way. A Chinese knockoff? Quite possibly. Or maybe not even the inside of that guitar, if in fact it is a Taylor. I think the original author was taken for a ride.

[madx2]

michaelw,
Obviously you know far more than me about Taylor guitars so I accept all you said. It probably isn't a counterfeit but with all the quality control that Taylor has, I just can't believe that guitar left the Taylor factory looking like that. 

I did a little "sleuthing" and found that the twitter account for @hymn1984 (on the pictures) is held by someone in Dongguan, China.  I assume it is the original poster since he goes by hymn1984.  Under the (possibly) Korean writing is the web site address: bus.guitarchina.com which is where I assume hymn1984 found them.  The last part of the first post, hymn1984 says, "...put his cellphone into the sound holes of these 4 acoustics, took some shots, and checked out their interiors. Here are the shots. What do you think?"

Here is what I think.  I think  I would like to know what the photographer/owner of the Taylor said when he/she posted them.   I wonder if the owner purchased it new from an authorized Taylor dealer?  I hope hymn1984 will fill us in with the backstory.

To finish, like others have said, maybe it is a very sloppy repair.

[Minnesotaman]

If it is a sloppy repair, then the same person repaired the Gibson. Looks like a monkey did the work with Gorilla glue.

[Norm Gen]

I got curious. So I put my phone camera inside my Taylor. Here are photos of "sloppy" glue work on my 618e (2016) purchased from a reputable New York state guitar retailer. The guitar sounds fantastic and I love it. The craftsmanship on the outside is impeccable. But that glue work.

[ctkarslake]

It does seem odd that the original 914 pics come from the far east...the land of fakes.

On the other hand...is there such a thing as a friday guitar?

[madx2]

Norm Gen. The amount of excess glue surprises me.  I will look inside my 2013 DN7 the next time I change strings.

To anyone who has taken the tour:  is the glue applied to the braces by hand or a machine?  If by hand, does one person do it or several assemblers at separate work stations?  If many workers do that job that might explain why some brace pictures posted by members of their guitars are clean and others aren't.  Do they run the braces across a glue roller or paint it on with a brush?   Do different top woods need different (or amounts) of glue?

I am very intrigued by this. Especially with all the care and expense Taylor have invested in 3.5 mil finishes.  Maybe excess glue doesn't detract from the vibrating ability of the top.

 All of this still doesn't explain the broken brace in the original post, though.

[madx2]

Doing some YouTubing I found this video.  At the 7 minute mark it shows the gluing of braces. The glue is applied using a glue roller.  Notice the man in the dark blue t-shirt.  He is wiping the excess glue off.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkulWeufLu0

Like I said elsewhere, I don't think those pictures are of the inside of an "authentic" (sorry Martin guitars) Taylor 914ce.

[Frettingflyer]

None of my Taylors look like that! I don't think it left the factory that way if it is authentic.

[Edward]

...To anyone who has taken the tour:  is the glue applied to the braces by hand or a machine?  If by hand, does one person do it or several assemblers at separate work stations?  If many workers do that job that might explain why some brace pictures posted by members of their guitars are clean and others aren't.  Do they run the braces across a glue roller or paint it on with a brush?   Do different top woods need different (or amounts) of glue?...

I had taken the tour twice, but that last time was perhaps 5 years ago so could not comment if the procedure changed.
I recall glue on braces applied by hand.  But while I don't recall whether by brush or roller, I know it was fast and consistent (as in a "measured" application ...heck, everything done on that production line was measured consistency!) so it's not a line worker going willy-nilly with a bottle of Elmers.  Immediately after glue is applied, it is then put on a vacuum press where a "rubber-like sheet" clamps down the entire top, and air is sucked out like one of those food preservers: this is how the braces stay put while the adhesive sets.  The tops are then placed on racks for final curing for who knows how long.

But like anything made on a line (or even hand-made, natch!), one has to establish priorities and put time and energy where the best outcome will see gains.  So if "neater" gluing yields no sonic improvement, then making it look better is wasted time and effort, which we all know translates to wasted money on the line.  And no one can effectively argue that Taylor's craftsmanship overall suffers, whether in aesthetics nor most of all, tone and playability.  So my guess (based entirely on supposition), is "how they choose to glue" is one of a myriad of tradeoffs they have made to yield the best productivity without sacrificing tone or overall build quality.  Clearly, I could be completely wrong about this.  But given all we know about the ethic of the company and how it has been received by the marketplace clearly indicates that Taylor knows what it is doing, or folks would be taking their wallets elsewhere.

FWIW, I'd rather see neater joints, without doubt, particularly since I'm a persnickety beast when it comes to details.  But above this undetectable aesthetic faux pas, I know that the gestalt of the guitar screams out quality. If it did not, I'd be playing something else.

Edward

[timfitz63]

I know Martin offers a "hide glue" option in their builds, so I can't help but wonder whether the Martin depicted in this thread has that option.  Exactly what benefit (short of aesthetics) the "hide glue" option would have is a bit of a mystery to me, since the Taylor folks are clearly doing something right with their guitar designs; I mean, we all keep buying them and raving about the tone, so the excess glue they leave on the inside apparently doesn't detrimentally affect the acoustical/vibratory properties of the body...

Ummmm... hide glue doesn't mean they "hide" it, it refers to animal or protein based glues.  Andy calls them that (protein glues) rather than hide, I suspect just because that's not what Martin calls them.

OK.  Duly noted for future reference.

[hymn1984]

Hi all,

Wow, I never expected this thread would got so much attention. Should I invite the guitar owner to join the discussion, and answer your questions?

I got these pics from http://bbs.guitarchina.com, the biggest guitar forum in China,  and  I posted the pics in here under the permission of the original owner of those 4 guitars.

It all started when I bought a GS Mini, and in no more than 1 week after purchase, the corners of the bridge was lifting (I  posted a thread about that in this forum before). I also posted a thread in http://bbs.guitarchina.com, asking questions about the bridge, and that very thread evolved into a heated debate on Taylor's craftsmanship.   And finally the owner took those pics to compare the craftsmanship among these 4 brands.
Then I asked the owner whether he permitted me to post his pics outside China, to see what guitar players around the would would say about this. He said yes, and so I did it. And here came this thread.

As I am not the original owner, I don't have much more info to share with you at the moment.

What I got from the owner about the 914CE are:
1. It's a 2015 model;
2. The owner claimed it to be genuine and there was no repair;
3. The owner said clean-and-neat-inside Taylors tend to be old model, and his very one was new (2015).

Regards,

[TaylorGirl]

What I got from the owner about the 914CE are:
3. The owner said clean-and-neat-inside Taylors tend to be old model, and his very one was new (2015).

Wow, I have several newer Taylors and they definitely don't look like that. I just don't buy into his claim of old model Taylors vs new.