Citation - Down Beat Dec 69

[Hammertone]

I don't claim to have any knowledge like this about woods, so I would not have the expertise to make any claims about what the real wood species is that was used for the back of my guitar. I called it "bubbles" when I first saw it and was later told by somebody that it is quilted maple. Seeing the pics of the two guitars together, it seems clear to me that my description of the wood used on the back of my guitar is not really "bubbles", but does look more like some storm clouds I have seen. So if these are not the same woods, I have no problem with that.
For me, I enjoy playing the guitar and that is good enough for me. As I mentioned in another thread about another subject, in forums we seem to go on and on about minutia and for those with the interest of the particular subject matter, that is probably quite fulfilling. I simply like my guitar and am glad to have it. I will leave the details about the woods used to the builders who select such woods. Tony

Your guitar is textbook quilted maple.

[deacon Mark]

Birdseye is by far the hardest maple and many luthiers will not work with it as it takes toll on tooling. I remember Bill Hollenbeck loved birdseye and used it for backs and necks as he could. He said no wood is going to limit me on the maple I want, just have to keep up the tools and sharpening.

[tbeltrans]

Birdseye is by far the hardest maple and many luthiers will not work with it as it takes toll on tooling. I remember Bill Hollenbeck loved birdseye and used it for backs and necks as he could. He said no wood is going to limit me on the maple I want, just have to keep up the tools and sharpening.

You guys now have me more curious about wood than I would normally be. Is that wood in the pic of the 1935 Super 400 Bird's Eye Maple?

Now I know that my Citation has Quilted Maple (thanks Hammertone). Since my wife is into quilting, she will get a kick out of that.

Tony

[bluejaybill]

You guys now have me more curious about wood than I would normally be. Is that wood in the pic of the 1935 Super 400 Bird's Eye Maple?

Now I know that my Citation has Quilted Maple (thanks Hammertone). Since my wife is into quilting, she will get a kick out of that.

Tony

Quilted maple, being from a softer maple, is said to make for a warmer sound, all other things being equal. I know it's true, because I read it right here. (Thanks Mark C.).

[ccroft]

I'd call it bubble, which is closely related to quilt. Birdseye has tiny dark dots with swirls around them.

My limited experience with birdseye is that it's no harder than plain maple of the same species. It's just harder to work with because the tools have to be as sharp as possible so they don't tear out the eyes. You have to be more careful about cutting angles as well. The grain runs every which way.

On grading: Birdseye is one that has something of a less subjective thing. More eyes are more desirable. Also VG fir. While not really of interest to us here, it is sometimes graded by number of lines per inch. Again, more is better.

[TAA]

Isn’t there also a “tiger stripe” maple?

Tom

[ccroft]

Quilted maple, being from a softer maple, is said to make for a warmer sound, all other things being equal. I know it's true, because I read it right here. (Thanks Mark C.).

It must be! On a side note and since we're talking wood: quilted maple is flat sawn, where curly maple is quartered. This might have some effect on tone as well. It's also worth remembering that lots of highly figured curly maple is also from a softer maple.

Tiger, curly, fiddle-back and flame is really all the same thing. Just different 'poetic' names that may describe the character of the figure in a particular chunk.

Here's a quick run-down on figured maple.

[tbeltrans]

Quilted maple, being from a softer maple, is said to make for a warmer sound, all other things being equal. I know it's true, because I read it right here. (Thanks Mark C.).

To me, whether a given wood always means a certain type of sound seems to be a rather ambiguous area because there seem to be other variables involved in a build. I am not a builder and can't in good conscience pose as being knowledgeable about the various tone woods, but I have read enough posts in the acoustic guitar forum from those who are (we can easily check their credentials if they are known builders), to know that there is more to the story than this type of wood is always bright and that type of wood is always warmer. It is easy to double-check what quilted maple looks like because there are plenty of pictures all around the internet and there is a consistency among them.

So, yes, there is the cliche regarding having read something on the internet and especially having seen something on youtube, but there are ways to cross-check information in some cases, just as we had to do prior to the internet when doing any sort of research

I simply never gave much thought to the woods in my guitar until this thread's discussion along those lines. It wasn't the beauty of my guitar that attracted me. It was the sound and playability and just an overall sense of quality. I play it rather than putting it in a glass collector's case to look at.

Tony

[ThatRhythmMan]

You guys now have me more curious about wood than I would normally be. Is that wood in the pic of the 1935 Super 400 Bird's Eye Maple?

Now I know that my Citation has Quilted Maple (thanks Hammertone). Since my wife is into quilting, she will get a kick out of that.

Tony

It’s bubble or blister maple. As noted above, it’s related to quilt. Birdseye results from a very different process and rather than giving a three dimensional appearance, looks like small knots in the wood.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jimmy blue note]

I remember music row, 48th street, around that time. D'Angelicos, old Gibsons, Strombergs, Guilds, D'Aquistos hanging in windows and on stands of the stores. I wanted a Johnny Smith that was $500. But just as unattainably beyond me. And at that time those were priced for working musicians to afford and nobody could EVER imagine what they charge today.
Still, I wonder. If Gibson had the lutherie to make such an undeniably exquisite sounding instrument, they also had the wood. At that level, the wood they used on Johnny Smiths was in the same quality and class as the Citation. So I wonder: It's not the wood, overtly, that makes the difference, it's the craft. I've played '60's Johnny Smiths that had the "Top of the line" vibe that I felt in Citations and Kalamazoos. Do you think Gibson held back on the final tunings and acoustic detail AFTER they had a new apex model? Do you think it's possible that they actually held their punches so they could have their "top of the line" stand uncontested as THE gem of the Gibson line?

I will tell you that we took in a terribly damaged Norlin era Johnny Smith that the owner sold to us after a catastrophic disaster that he didn't have the heart (and $$) to restore. Yeah, I bought it and did a two year repair on it, rebuilding the neck totally and actually regraduating the plates and tuning them. It's not the wood that makes the biggest difference. Al Carruth and I re-tuned and regraduated the guitar and it acquired a voice that sits among the best archtops I've ever played.

Yeah this was NOT the instrument that came out of Kalamazoo...but it could have been.
Maybe Gibson didn't try their hardest with Johnny Smiths when they had to put their best efforts into an instrument that they could sell for 3 or 4 times as much with more bling?

I have my strong suspicions.

[tbeltrans]

I remember music row, 48th street, around that time. D'Angelicos, old Gibsons, Strombergs, Guilds, D'Aquistos hanging in windows and on stands of the stores. I wanted a Johnny Smith that was $500. But just as unattainably beyond me. And at that time those were priced for working musicians to afford and nobody could EVER imagine what they charge today.
Still, I wonder. If Gibson had the lutherie to make such an undeniably exquisite sounding instrument, they also had the wood. At that level, the wood they used on Johnny Smiths was in the same quality and class as the Citation. So I wonder: It's not the wood, overtly, that makes the difference, it's the craft. I've played '60's Johnny Smiths that had the "Top of the line" vibe that I felt in Citations and Kalamazoos. Do you think Gibson held back on the final tunings and acoustic detail AFTER they had a new apex model? Do you think it's possible that they actually held their punches so they could have their "top of the line" stand uncontested as THE gem of the Gibson line?

I will tell you that we took in a terribly damaged Norlin era Johnny Smith that the owner sold to us after a catastrophic disaster that he didn't have the heart (and $$) to restore. Yeah, I bought it and did a two year repair on it, rebuilding the neck totally and actually regraduating the plates and tuning them. It's not the wood that makes the biggest difference. Al Carruth and I re-tuned and regraduated the guitar and it acquired a voice that sits among the best archtops I've ever played.

Yeah this was NOT the instrument that came out of Kalamazoo...but it could have been.
Maybe Gibson didn't try their hardest with Johnny Smiths when they had to put their best efforts into an instrument that they could sell for 3 or 4 times as much with more bling?

I have my strong suspicions.

Interesting points I would have never considered since I don't work on guitars. I owned a Johnny Smith at one time. It was an early 1970s model. I was informed by people (I think) are quite knowledgeable about Gibson lore who told me that these were built by a set-aside group of luthiers (predecessor to their custom shop?) rather than on the main assembly line.

I can tell you that my experience of playing my Citation is quite a bit different than playing my Johnny Smith was. There really is (at least to me about my particular Citation, which is the only one I have ever seen or played...) something about the Citation that is truly special. The Johnny Smith was a fine instrument though. I moved it on because of the gasses its pick guard exuded that ruined the electronics and I didn't want to deal with it. By contrast, I have been told that Gibson learned from that and the pick guard on my Citation is made of wood. I am told it is ebony, but you can't see the wood grain on it. As far as "bling" it looks rather plain to me compared to some less expensive instruments - like being classy by dressing in a fine, but low key suit rather than a tuxedo.

As I have mentioned in previous posts, a guitar is a very personal thing and I try to word my reference to my Citation as being personal opinions and experiences rather than as general statements to be interpreted as if everybody should experience the Citation as I do. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are those who feel that this guitar is nothing special, and that is perfectly fine too. I am not addressing this to the poster who I quoted here, but am just pointing out my specific choice of words and my reason for them.

Tony

[jads57]

The owner is the only one that really matters after all. If it speaks to you in a special way, that’s what really counts! Play in good health!

[Bluedawg]

I will tell you that we took in a terribly damaged Norlin era Johnny Smith that the owner sold to us after a catastrophic disaster that he didn't have the heart (and $$) to restore. Yeah, I bought it and did a two year repair on it, rebuilding the neck totally and actually regraduating the plates and tuning them. It's not the wood that makes the biggest difference. Al Carruth and I re-tuned and regraduated the guitar and it acquired a voice that sits among the best archtops I've ever played.

Yeah this was NOT the instrument that came out of Kalamazoo...but it could have been.
Maybe Gibson didn't try their hardest with Johnny Smiths when they had to put their best efforts into an instrument that they could sell for 3 or 4 times as much with more bling?

I have my strong suspicions.

From what I remember of Gibson's marketing the extra effort you are describing is exactly what they claim they were doing with the Citation and the Kalamazoo Award.

Supposedly they built the guitars from the best woods they could find and then they took that extra time and made that extra effort to get the best tones out of the guitars.

It would be nice if they could have done that with every archtop that left the factory, but there are always hard decisions between cost and benefit that even the best luthiers have to make. Maybe Monteleone or Manzer and a few others can get away with stratospheric archtop prices, but most of us would be quite upset if Gibson tried to bring back their archtops at Monteleone prices.