Will rosewood 400s be the end of Ovangkol?

[Peachlander77]

I'm all for diversity in tone woods as well.  I was unaware of Taylor's issues in finding sustainable ovangkol going forward.  I'm still a little surprised in learning this.  Obviously, rosewood 400's won't be the end of Ovangkol rather just a substitute based on the harvesting/sustainability issues in Africa.  Hopefully, these issues get resolved for the betterment of all involved.

I just sold my Taylor DN4 as kind of needed the cash and this was the one that I was least attached too at the time.  Until owing a Taylor ovangkol guitar, I know I probably undervalued ovangkol as a tone wood.  I didn't realize how good the ovangkol Taylor guitars sound and sounds like they are becoming more rare now going forward.  I just presumed Taylor would make ovangkol guitars forever.  Maybe I should have kept that one.  I do know now though that Ovangkol can sound incredible and I wouldn't hesitate to get another one.

[Edward]

... I could half understand if Taylor were to switch the back/sides of one of the higher priced rosewood series to something else in order to offer rosewood at the more accessible price point of the 400s.  Otherwise, find another alternative for the 400s instead of rosewood.

Yeah, I'm with you 100% on this, as well!  And not just for Taylor, but for all marques in general.  RW has looooong been the traditionalists' default (along with mahog), but even worse many somehow equate RW as "upgraded" wood.  Too bad.  I love RW when paired with cedar, for example, but that doesn't mean I want to see a bunch more RW products.  And for many years now, I've enjoyed the fact that Taylor's product line has typically been very diverse in offering numerous flavors at different price points; of late, not as much.  I wonder if their move to RW on the 400s is prompted more by this market perception that RW is more "upscale," and thus will seem like a "better" 400 series (seriously flawed logic, IMHO), or if their storehouse of "other" woods is not plentiful enough to sustain a year's worth of 400 builds?!!  Who knows ...perhaps RW was just their simplest fall back.

But as for Taylor's decision to no longer use Ovangkol because of its sketchy appropriation, I resoundingly applaud them!  Like cocobolo that sadly got dropped from their line, if a given material cannot be procured in an ethical manner that can be verified under close scrutiny, then thank you, Taylor, for taking a moral stand that supersedes financial concerns! 

Edward

[Earl]

+2 here.  There is not all that much distinction now between the 700 and 800 series like there used to be, so why do we need yet another rosewood / spruce combo?  I have nothing against rosewood, but having other tone wood options is a good thing.  Rosewood / cedar 400's would be potentially interesting..... or bring back cedar tops on the 700's as a standard production model.  (Yes, I am aware that you can order it that way as BTO.  I just prefer to play instruments first rather than rolling the tonal dice, even with Taylor).

As for wood, there may well come a time when the only thing we can get "ethically sourced" may be American domestic woods.  If that is important to you then get used to walnut, maple, myrtle, oak and other North American species (all fine woods).  Forget rosewood, ebony and mahogany.  Although I really like wood instruments, my interest is more in carbon fiber these days, but not for environmental reasons.  Having lived much of my adult life in places where humidity control is vital and a struggle, the low maintenance aspects have great appeal.  And CF tone has really grown on me too as it matures.

[DennisG]

And CF tone has really grown on me too as it matures.

Earl, I was fascinated by your last line.  I wasn't aware that the tone of CF changes as it matures.  What, exactly, is doing the maturing?

[Strumming Fool]

But as for Taylor's decision to no longer use Ovangkol because of its sketchy appropriation, I resoundingly applaud them!  Like cocobolo that sadly got dropped from their line, if a given material cannot be procured in an ethical manner that can be verified under close scrutiny, then thank you, Taylor, for taking a moral stand that supersedes financial concerns! 

Edward

Couldn't agree more, although I'm sad to see both cocobolo and ovangkol go...

[Strumming Fool]

As for wood, there may well come a time when the only thing we can get "ethically sourced" may be American domestic woods.  If that is important to you then get used to walnut, maple, myrtle, oak and other North American species (all fine woods). 

I'll speak up for walnut as an excellent alternative. My two walnut-backed GAs are among my favorites: bold, powerful, rich tone with a crisp bass response. More people need to get acquainted with walnut, and I thank Taylor for exposing players to walnut since its inception.

[Earl]

Earl, I was fascinated by your last line.  I wasn't aware that the tone of CF changes as it matures.  What, exactly, is doing the maturing?

I misspoke, in a way.  The CF itself does not mature - at least without about 100,000 years of play time to open up.    
But the building process has certainly matured over the years.  Carbon fiber guitars just keep getting better and better, and more woody in tone.  That is what I meant by "maturing".  For example, my 2001 vintage Rainsong WS-1000 has a layer of foam on the inside of the top, IMO to adjust the vibration damping characteristics to better match wood's attack and decay.  The so-called crystalline tone of the early carbon guitars was due to insufficient damping and excessive ringing of the CF tops.

[jima9426]

Ovangkol is a sustainable tonewood readily available with similar tonal properties to rosewood.

I will be there tomorrow to buy a (OMG) Martin . . .
The Martin is a Little Martin in black for my oldest son who wants to learn but is absolutely all about black. My mini is still way too big to be comfortable so yet another guitar purchase. We will also be buying our first mandolin for my youngest son, and I may use it too!

Never apologize of buying a guitar for someone who wants to learn to play it, whatever the make is.

[jima9426]

Okay, so I asked the guy who mentioned the end of Ovangkol coming and he said it is because the people who harvest it and ship it aren't safe in the Congo. He said that the safety and security of the workers harvesting and transporting was a big headache that would be too expensive to solve to keep it cost effective. Hence, the move towards Rosewood on the 400's for now.
Really third hand info but he did seem sure of it. Info worth what was paid for it. Kind of sorry I mentioned it on the previous thread, I wouldn't want anyone to make a buying decision on rumor.

What I also heard is that furniture makers are using more Ovangkol thereby applying some price pressure. Whatever the case, what I can't figure out is how Taylor now offering an EIR 400 at the same price as Ovangkol when Ovangkol was supposedly cheaper to source.

[jima9426]

I could half understand if Taylor were to switch the back/sides of one of the higher priced rosewood series to something else in order to offer rosewood at the more accessible price point of the 400s.

How do you reason that offering a RW 500 or 600 would bring it in at a 400 price?

[Frettingflyer]

And CF tone has really grown on me too as it matures.

Earl, I was fascinated by your last line.  I wasn't aware that the tone of CF changes as it matures.  What, exactly, is doing the maturing?

I have to add in here that after visiting the Blackbird factory(awesome folks and guitars) and spending 3.5 hours at Teds shop in LA playing the CF offerings I was very impressed. I have had my Rainsong about 4 months now and it has allowed me to play more due to being able to be left in the car and travel worry free. However, I have really grown to like its tone, unique as in wood guitars and really not too far off from wood. So, yes, the manufacturing has improved greatly as these luthiers learn to make CF guitars that sound, feel and look great. Not giving up my Taylors but if I had to downsize the Rainsong would be one of the last to go.

[Strumming Fool]

I could half understand if Taylor were to switch the back/sides of one of the higher priced rosewood series to something else in order to offer rosewood at the more accessible price point of the 400s.

How do you reason that offering a RW 500 or 600 would bring it in at a 400 price?

Please reread my post. I never suggested  any changes for the 500 or 600 series. I suggested an alternate tone wood for one of the higher end rosewood  series to facilitate a rosewood 400 series and avoid the proliferation of rosewood guitars.

[jima9426]

I could half understand if Taylor were to switch the back/sides of one of the higher priced rosewood series to something else in order to offer rosewood at the more accessible price point of the 400s.

How do you reason that offering a RW 500 or 600 would bring it in at a 400 price?

Please reread my post. I never suggested  any changes for the 500 or 600 series. I suggested an alternate tone wood for one of the higher end rosewood  series to facilitate a rosewood 400 series and avoid the proliferation of rosewood guitars.

Okay, if I understand correctly, you'd like to see the respective series' be less tonewood specific and more appointment oriented. I would agree 110%.

PS> The "reread my post" snarkiness really isn't necessary. You can assume most folks read and reread posts, and thoughtfully ponder before commenting. If they missed the plain meaning of a word, then simply explain it differently. Something like, "No, what I mean to say is . . ." A little intellectual charity goes a long way.

[Strumming Fool]

I could half understand if Taylor were to switch the back/sides of one of the higher priced rosewood series to something else in order to offer rosewood at the more accessible price point of the 400s.

How do you reason that offering a RW 500 or 600 would bring it in at a 400 price?

Please reread my post. I never suggested  any changes for the 500 or 600 series. I suggested an alternate tone wood for one of the higher end rosewood  series to facilitate a rosewood 400 series and avoid the proliferation of rosewood guitars.

Okay, if I understand correctly, you'd like to see the respective series' be less tonewood specific and more appointment oriented. I would agree 110%.

PS> The "reread my post" snarkiness really isn't necessary. You can assume most folks read and reread posts, and thoughtfully ponder before commenting. If they missed the plain meaning of a word, then simply explain it differently. Something like, "No, what I mean to say is . . ." A little intellectual charity goes a long way.

Sorry if you thought I was being snarky, but you have again misinterpreted my meaning. So what I mean to say is that there are already three rosewood backed series within Taylor's offering of 9 numbered series. If the 400s change permanently to rosewood,  there will be four rosewood series - I personally think the three is too much. So, I'm suggesting that Taylor either find another tonewood for the 700 or 800 or 900 series  to give people a more affordable rosewood guitar in the 400 series or find another tonewood other than rosewood for the 400 series. That’s  it - sorry for the misunderstanding.

[jima9426]

I could half understand if Taylor were to switch the back/sides of one of the higher priced rosewood series to something else in order to offer rosewood at the more accessible price point of the 400s.

How do you reason that offering a RW 500 or 600 would bring it in at a 400 price?

Please reread my post. I never suggested  any changes for the 500 or 600 series. I suggested an alternate tone wood for one of the higher end rosewood  series to facilitate a rosewood 400 series and avoid the proliferation of rosewood guitars.

Okay, if I understand correctly, you'd like to see the respective series' be less tonewood specific and more appointment oriented. I would agree 110%.

PS> The "reread my post" snarkiness really isn't necessary. You can assume most folks read and reread posts, and thoughtfully ponder before commenting. If they missed the plain meaning of a word, then simply explain it differently. Something like, "No, what I mean to say is . . ." A little intellectual charity goes a long way.

Sorry if you thought I was being snarky, but you have again misinterpreted my meaning. So what I mean to say is that there are already three rosewood backed series within Taylor's offering of 9 numbered series. If the 400s change permanently to rosewood,  there will be four rosewood series - I personally think the three is too much. So, I'm suggesting that Taylor either find another tonewood for the 700 or 800 or 900 series  to give people a more affordable rosewood guitar in the 400 series or find another tonewood other than rosewood for the 400 series. That’s  it - sorry for the misunderstanding.

Ah, yes. I get you now. Thanks for clarifying.

I share a similar sentiment. It has long stuck me as odd and annoying that RW is clustered at the top end of the Taylor line as if to  incentivize buyers to shop at that price point, or to place it on some kind of pedestal. I, for instance, wanted a RW Taylor, but bought the 414 in part because I couldn't afford a 714. So I kinda felt like RW was out of my reach. But most other manufacturers don't do that. Even Martin makes RW accessible in its 16 Series.

Now let's say the 400 and 700 tonewoods are swapped. The 400 becomes a simple appointments RW series and the 700 becomes a ornate Ovangkol series. How would the economics of that play, I wonder? Could Taylor sustain (no pun intended) Ovangkol at a 700 Series price point?