A discovery about mahogany and recent Historics

Guitar Magic · Feb 5, 2016

I noticed that my ’14 R8’s mahogany has a very unusual color, it’s almost identical to the maple top’s bright yellow shade. I took a picture of my ’08 R0 in reference while changing a pickup, which has the usual brown-reddish colored mahogany that I’m used to. Both Les Pauls are in the same weight range (4,1 kg). All of my earlier Les Pauls, even the Japanese ones (which are made of African mahogany / Khaya) has the dark brown colored mahogany, only this ’14 has this strange bright wood (to my recollection all of my recent Historics had a similar mahogany color). I know that mahogany has an incosistent color depending on many factors, but I’ve never seen any piece of mahogany that bright.

I have also noticed that since around 2012 all of the Historics has a very unusual mahogany grain on their back. Very whirly and wild patterns became perfectly common. To be honest this new wood doesn’t look like mahogany at all to me. I know that Gibson sources their wood from Fiji and it’s the same species (swietenia macrophylla), but the growing conditions must be dramatically different, which raises a question. Is it possible to produce an authentic sounding Les Paul from a wood that is so different from the 50’s source? It’s evident that great sounding guitars can be made from this material, as most guys love their recent Historics. It’s also unquestionable that these guitars have the most authentic look so far (color, hardware, plastics, etc.) and this attracts a lot of buyers. However the Historic Reissue series’ primal goal has always been to produce a guitar that has identical tonal qualities to the ones made in the fifties. Are we getting closer or further from this target?

For me it’s starting to be clear, that the great tonal shift in the recent years wasn’t because of the upgrades (hide glue, removed truss rod condom) but mostly because of this new type of mahogany. What are your opinions?

J.D. · Feb 5, 2016

Agree 100% :jim

Zinc Alloy · Feb 5, 2016

Mahogany gets darker as the tree gets older.

Tim · Feb 5, 2016

General Description: Heartwood reddish, pinkish, salmon colored, or yellowish when fresh; deepening with age to deep rich red or brown; distinct from the yellowish or whitish sapwood

http://www.thefijimahogany.com/fiji_mahogany_description.html

Zinc Alloy · Feb 5, 2016

"How not to tell them apart: By color or weight. Swietenia species of mahogany, depending on the growing conditions and age of the tree, can vary widely in color and density. It’s all over the map. Some can be darker red and with dark streaks, others can be much paler and lighter in weight."

http://www.wood-database.com/wood-articles/mahogany-mixups-the-lowdown/

Tim Plains · Feb 5, 2016

Guitar Magic said:
...which raises a question. Is it possible to produce an authentic sounding Les Paul from a wood that is so different from the 50’s source?

A few members here own bursts and recent reissues. I'm sure one would have blown the whistle by now.

People really overthink such things. I'll bet 75% of people couldn't tell the difference between a burst and Epiphone SG in a blind taste test.

Minibucker · Feb 5, 2016

In discussions about the recent Fijian-grown mahogany it was noted that they are lighter in color. A 2011 R7 I had was pretty light-colored on the back.

Don't know how much of a difference in sound it made.

badmisfortune · Feb 6, 2016

Tim Plains said:
A few members here own bursts and recent reissues. I'm sure one would have blown the whistle by now.

People really overthink such things. I'll bet 75% of people couldn't tell the difference between a burst and Epiphone SG in a blind taste test.

I would tend to agree with you, assuming they are both the same form factor and have identical electronics.

I used to joke that the quickest way to clear a room of audiophiles was to suggest a double-blind listening test on whatever component was under discussion, i.e., cables, capacitors, you name it.

Except that it really wasn't a joke...

BadCat · Feb 6, 2016

badmisfortune said:
I would tend to agree with you, assuming they are both the same form factor and have identical electronics.

I used to joke that the quickest way to clear a room of audiophiles was to suggest a double-blind listening test on whatever component was under discussion, i.e., cables, capacitors, you name it.

Except that it really wasn't a joke...

I actually did a blind test. There was no problem at all to hear the difference between every Epiphone and the Gibsons in a blind test. Not even close. Tested quite a lot Epiphones against Gibsons. There is no comparison at customshop level. If you cannot hear that difference: Good for you because you really can save a lot of money.
But you cannot hear all nuances if the guy who plays in the blindtest is a mediocre player. To feel and hear the subtle differences between the high end Gibson customshop models you have to play the guitar on your own.

Progrocker111 · Feb 6, 2016

I noticed, thet many of the new post 2012 Historics i had, tried or played have fairly bright acoustic tone, generally brighter and with more treble than some of older Historics.

Perhaps it has something to do with the wood change, perhaps not and its only coincidence. :hmm

sws1 · Feb 6, 2016

Progrocker111 said:
I noticed, thet many of the new post 2012 Historics i had, tried or played have fairly bright acoustic tone, generally brighter and with more treble than some of older Historics.

Perhaps it has something to do with the wood change, perhaps not and its only coincidence. :hmm

Didn't they switch from steel posts / brass wheels to brass posts / steel wheels right around the same time? Those changes could affect things.

rob livesey · Feb 6, 2016

Progrocker111 said:
I noticed, thet many of the new post 2012 Historics i had, tried or played have fairly bright acoustic tone, generally brighter and with more treble than some of older Historics.

Perhaps it has something to do with the wood change, perhaps not and its only coincidence. :hmm

Having owned a few older Historics and now owning two 2014 models, I agree, they are brighter acoustically and more open and airy sounding when amplified. I personally like to think the difference can be attributed to the historically correct truss rod. I feel more of the vibration of the notes in my left hand and through the body of the guitar using my 2014's than I ever felt with my older guitars. Then again, I just may have had a few average guitars in the past and happen to own a couple of great ones now.

Rob

B Ingram · Feb 6, 2016

Guitar Magic said:
I noticed that my ’14 R8’s mahogany has a very unusual color, it’s almost identical to the maple top’s bright yellow shade. I took a picture of my ’08 R0 in reference while changing a pickup, which has the usual brown-reddish colored mahogany that I’m used to.

I think you're overlooking the fact that your '14 has raw wood in the cavity, once you get past the cavity edge where the pore filler/dye was hand-applied. Your '08 appears to have finish sprayed into the cavity covering the sidewalls. It's my opinion that accounts for a lot of the color difference. The surface I think has finished overspray in your '08 will feel rough but this is because the surface itself wasn't sanded before heading to the spray booth.

Raw mahogany is a light-colored wood. It's not the deep brown or red that you think you know from a stained & finished surface. It's not as white or very bright yellow as maple, but if you look at youtube videos of Gibson factory tours (oldest I saw was uploaded in 2006) the unfinished guitars going along the carousel to the finishing area have very little color difference between the mahogany bodies and the maple tops (you'd see the color/grain difference holding the guitar in your hand).

That said, as a natural product, some boards are lighter/darker than others. For any mahogany board (and most other wood as well), if it sits a long time in sunlight, the UV will darken the wood. That effect happens both to raw wood and a finished instrument (if the finish doesn't block the light).

I worked at Gibson USA 1998-2000, and also just bought a '14 R9. I saw the same thing as you pictured in my R9's control cavity, but didn't give it a second thought.

Is the Fiji mahogany the thing that accounts for all the tonal change? No way to tell, in my opinion. Unless you build 25 LP's, each with only a single incremental change in material, weight, construction technique, glue, pickup, adjustment, etc, there's no way to confidently say how much of an overall tonal difference is due to any one factor.

That said, I really like the product coming out of the Custom Shop now, which is why my '14 R9 is the first Gibson guitar I've owned in 20 years.

renderit · Feb 6, 2016

B Ingram said:
That said, I really like the product coming out of the Custom Shop now, which is why my '14 R9 is the first Gibson guitar I've owned in 20 years.

Welcome! Astute observations in your post! I can also tell from the quote above that you are most likely above average in intelligence and looks.

Minibucker · Feb 6, 2016

rob livesey said:
Having owned a few older Historics and now owning two 2014 models, I agree, they are brighter acoustically and more open and airy sounding when amplified. I personally like to think the difference can be attributed to the historically correct truss rod. I feel more of the vibration of the notes in my left hand and through the body of the guitar using my 2014's than I ever felt with my older guitars. Then again, I just may have had a few average guitars in the past and happen to own a couple of great ones now.

Rob

That was definitely the first major difference I noticed with my '13 R8...just tuning up out of the box...compared to two R8's and an R7 from prior years. You feel the notes vibrate the neck more and it just seems to sound bigger acoustically. It definitely translates electrically into a more complete tone and notes that take much less effort to play and sustain.

Roger65 · Feb 6, 2016

I never noticed that this was an Epiphone:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LRiuhCsxHLs

Or a Les Paul, for that matter

Mark Kane · Feb 6, 2016

The white, punky mahogany actually started the first time in late 2002 and ran into 2004. By the end of 2004 they had some nice dark looking wood again.

B Ingram · Feb 6, 2016

renderit said:
Welcome! Astute observations in your post!

Thanks!

renderit said:
... I can also tell from the quote above that you are most likely above average in intelligence and looks.

Hang around, I'm bound to say something stupid any moment... :spabout As for looks, I sure look better when I'm holding my R9!

Originally Posted by rob livesey
Having owned a few older Historics and now owning two 2014 models, I agree, they are brighter acoustically and more open and airy sounding when amplified. I personally like to think the difference can be attributed to the historically correct truss rod. I feel more of the vibration of the notes in my left hand and through the body of the guitar using my 2014's than I ever felt with my older guitars. ...

This. All of This!

I agree with Rob & Minibucker, though I don't know what factor causes it. I definitely feel every chord ringing through my R9's neck; I hadn't paid attention as much to feeling vibrations through the body. Whatever is doing it, Gibson should continue!

Gun50 · Jun 6, 2023

Guitar Magic said:
I noticed that my ’14 R8’s mahogany has a very unusual color, it’s almost identical to the maple top’s bright yellow shade. I took a picture of my ’08 R0 in reference while changing a pickup, which has the usual brown-reddish colored mahogany that I’m used to. Both Les Pauls are in the same weight range (4,1 kg). All of my earlier Les Pauls, even the Japanese ones (which are made of African mahogany / Khaya) has the dark brown colored mahogany, only this ’14 has this strange bright wood (to my recollection all of my recent Historics had a similar mahogany color). I know that mahogany has an incosistent color depending on many factors, but I’ve never seen any piece of mahogany that bright.

I have also noticed that since around 2012 all of the Historics has a very unusual mahogany grain on their back. Very whirly and wild patterns became perfectly common. To be honest this new wood doesn’t look like mahogany at all to me. I know that Gibson sources their wood from Fiji and it’s the same species (swietenia macrophylla), but the growing conditions must be dramatically different, which raises a question. Is it possible to produce an authentic sounding Les Paul from a wood that is so different from the 50’s source? It’s evident that great sounding guitars can be made from this material, as most guys love their recent Historics. It’s also unquestionable that these guitars have the most authentic look so far (color, hardware, plastics, etc.) and this attracts a lot of buyers. However the Historic Reissue series’ primal goal has always been to produce a guitar that has identical tonal qualities to the ones made in the fifties. Are we getting closer or further from this target?

For me it’s starting to be clear, that the great tonal shift in the recent years wasn’t because of the upgrades (hide glue, removed truss rod condom) but mostly because of this new type of mahogany. What are your opinions?

my ‘13 R9

Gun50 · Jun 6, 2023

Gun50 said:
my ‘13 R9

A discovery about mahogany and recent Historics

Active member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Member

Active member

Well-known member

New member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

All Access/Backstage Pass

Member

New member

Attachments

New member

Attachments