Non-Bookmatched Guitar Backs

[jasaco]

Is it just me, or does anyone else share this pet peeve? I hate seeing guitars with non-bookmatched maple-grain backs. It just looks cheap to me, and is commonly seen on fairly costly guitars, like this one, currently being offered for $3300. Who wants to see a seam running down the middle?


So... is it just me...?

[lawson-stone]

that looks bookmatched to me. No they didn't line up the horizontal striping, but it looks like the wood was cut and opened out from the center. Planing the edges that form the joint can sometimes cause the horizontal striping not to line up, or perhaps a need to shift a piece up or down to move some feature out of the carved area. But that looks book matched to me.

I think of book matching as a means of sawing the top plate halves. A quarter sawn wedge is then sawn so that the halves open out and correspond to each other. This back clearly has that.

I don't think luthiers use "book matched" to mean that the horizontal grain patterns line up, but I could have that wrong.

[jasaco]

I don't think luthiers use "book matched" to mean that the horizontal grain patterns line up, but I could have that wrong.

Perhaps I'm using the term imprecisely, but my pet peeve is when the grain patterns don't line up.

[rlrhett]

The curl in maple is a result of the cell structure collapsing under the weight of the tree itself. It means that instead of a tree trunk having the structure of a bundle of straws running from root to crown you have a compressed accordion of straws.

That means that when you resaw highly figured wood, one side of the cut will have "straws" bent one way, the other side will already have "straws" starting to bend the other.

A truly book matched piece will never have the figure match. Carving the plate will further change the figure. If you have sheets of veneer that have been spiral cut like a pencil sharpener, you can probably find two sheets that can look like they line up. If that is important to you, you will probably want to look to laminated only. They won't truly be bookmatched, but the figure could line up quite well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Matt Cushman]

That is a fairly strong figure. It looks like a good join to me. Plate halves look unmatched in some areas due to the carving process. The match should be the best in the center of the body. The two plate halves are never identical due to some wood loss and chance does play a roll in the final look. Very straight grained and well quartered pieces often make the closest match when joined and carved..

[jasaco]

So maybe it is just me. But I know that I have seen much closer matching than this in the past and I would not spend big money on any guitar that matched this poorly. Each to his own, I guess.

[lawson-stone]

So maybe it is just me. But I know that I have seen much closer matching than this in the past and I would not spend big money on any guitar that matched this poorly. Each to his own, I guess.

The point I think that has been made is that it isn't about "poor" matching. The luthier is thinking first and foremost about tone quality. The carving is going to try to bring that out. Lining up the cross-striping of the grain just doesn't correspond predictably with that goal. Also the jointer-planer is needed to make the two pieces of wood match and join perfectly, which means taking a little off each piece at the center joint where they meet. Again, it's inevitable, part of the process. From time to time, it works out that the horizontal striping matches up, but the luthier is first concerned with a solid join for the pieces of the top and back plate, and for the carving to bring out the tone.

So I don't think you should call it "poorly" matched. A lot of people think that this highly figured wood is actually not as good tonally as less figured wood, but that's a whole other discussion and I don't know much about it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

How does it sound? That's my metric.

[jasaco]

The point I think that has been made is that it isn't about "poor" matching. The luthier is thinking first and foremost about tone quality. The carving is going to try to bring that out. Lining up the cross-striping of the grain just doesn't correspond predictably with that goal. Also the jointer-planer is needed to make the two pieces of wood match and join perfectly, which means taking a little off each piece at the center joint where they meet. Again, it's inevitable, part of the process. From time to time, it works out that the horizontal striping matches up, but the luthier is first concerned with a solid join for the pieces of the top and back plate, and for the carving to bring out the tone.

So I don't think you should call it "poorly" matched. A lot of people think that this highly figured wood is actually not as good tonally as less figured wood, but that's a whole other discussion and I don't know much about it.

OK, I'll buy your argument. Tone should indeed come before aesthetics. But there are lots of great-sounding ugly guitars that I still wouldn't buy (and don't get me started on Heritage headstocks! LOL: nah, that never was an issue of mine...). I just find this unaesthetic; I don't want to see a line running down the middle of the back of the guitar, like the seam in the back of a lady's stocking. (Of course, some people find that sexy so, as I said, each to his own...)

[lawson-stone]

OK, I'll buy your argument. Tone should indeed come before aesthetics. But there are lots of great-sounding ugly guitars that I still wouldn't buy (and don't get me started on Heritage headstocks! LOL: nah, that never was an issue of mine...). I just find this unaesthetic; I don't want to see a line running down the middle of the back of the guitar, like the seam in the back of a lady's stocking. (Of course, some people find that sexy so, as I said, each to his own...)

Sure. You have a totally legitimate right to your preferences. I was just trying to stress that objectively, mis-matched horizontal striping is not a sign that the wood isn't book-matched. But I can completely get it that someone would prefer that look as being more beautiful.

[Matt Cushman]

Keep in mind that when the match is good, a dark curl on the bass side should be opposed by a light curl on the treble side. A flame maple such as European maple usually has very narrow flames like your example has. A maple with wider flames or stripes is easier to match and often looks better matched due to less variation in the figure. The two halves can never match perfectly due to the saw kerf that is missing from when the pieces were split apart. The nature of the wood grain dictates the final look. A builder can only can only do as well as the wood allows when working with a particular back set. My pet peeve is when the ribs clearly do not match the back wood.

[TH]

Matt, Exact Armondo!
There's the true bookmatch, which in violin culture takes great pride in showing, and there's the mirror symmetrical match, which is much easier to achieve by mis-aligning a regular grain pattern to "match" or by using veneers in pressed laminates. Violins are also small enough so a single piece of unbroken maple can be used.
There's also an amazing practice of applying figure through colouration in the finishing process. I've seen some great looking totally symmetrical figure on maple, but don't look too closely-it's sprayed on!

David

[Matt Cushman]

Matt, Exact Armondo!
There's the true bookmatch, which in violin culture takes great pride in showing, and there's the mirror symmetrical match, which is much easier to achieve by mis-aligning a regular grain pattern to "match" or by using veneers in pressed laminates. Violins are also small enough so a single piece of unbroken maple can be used.
There's also an amazing practice of applying figure through colouration in the finishing process. I've seen some great looking totally symmetrical figure on maple, but don't look too closely-it's sprayed on!

David

A violin made with a one piece back is easier to make and the wood is easy to find. A two piece back is considered to be better sonically. If you have the Benedetto book check out Bob's violin on page #230 !

[jasonc]

How well the figure lines up has absolutely no correlation to the quality of the work. Wood is a natural material and you take what it gives you. I personally, don't like when the figure is super tight and the grain is super straight. I feel it lacks character. That said this is one I finished a few months back for a client with similar taste as you.

[Jabberwocky]

Pretty high standards, jasaco, when you find that bothersome on a $3300 guitar! Even our faces aren't "book-matched" what more about expecting the same on the back of a guitar.

I don't know, man. That is a nice flitch of intricate fiddleback maple, as well book-matched as I expect it to be. I would call that fooking damn excellent. Stonking. A perfect bookmatch looks cheap to me because it reminds me of photo-flame veneer like Formica...unless it says Gibson on the headstock, of course.

A bit of asymmetry is character, like on a human face.

I saw an 18" acoustic archtop with a solid carved one-piece curly Western maple back. Solid one-piece curly 18" maple! And it looked weird to me because my eyes were looking for that centre seam and there wasn't one, like on a laminated maple guitar where the veneer was cut tangentially like a pencil in a pencil sharpener.

$3300 is really low cost for solid carved maple of that figure. That's because it is a Heritage. On a Gibson, it would be 3 to 4 times as much. Same difference.

So, good deal.

To each his own. Chacun á son goût.

[Sitedrifter]

To me that back looks awesome and is very well done.