S
Skarekrough
Guest
Re: OLP guitars
There's a difference between something like the FotoFlame done by Fender Japan in the late 80's and early 90's and the OLPs.
The core wood of the MIJ Fender FotoFlames was a consistent product; it was (is) a known tone wood that produces typical results for it. They just wanted it to be prettier and thusly went with the option to FotoFlame. How it effects the tone of the instrument in the long run is anyones guess though. If folks will argue over whether nitro finishes do or do not let the wood breathe and how important that factor is then this is a good sidebar argument.
The OLPs are generally done because the wood is an inferior non-tone wood. The two comparisons I have heard being used to describe the wood involved in the OLP's is chipbard and sawdust. The general concensus is that the wood chunks are being held together by glue. And anyone that has played Norlins-era Gibsons knows that there's a tonal variation once you start using THAT much glue in the formation of tone woods. Add to that what's probably non-tone woods into the mix and there's no telling what the total effect is going to be.
Certianly we've all had it proven again and again that tone woods are not always necessary to make a decent guitar. There have been plenty of examples of composite materials being used to make guitar bodies over the years. But when it comes down to it the instruments that we know that have lasted and have become classics and desirable had a certain set of characteristics, which is where we get the core concept of what is and what is not a "tone wood."
Who knows...we may all be ponying up cake for a sawdust axe in 20 years. But somehow it seems unlikely.....
beandip said:
There's a difference between something like the FotoFlame done by Fender Japan in the late 80's and early 90's and the OLPs.
The core wood of the MIJ Fender FotoFlames was a consistent product; it was (is) a known tone wood that produces typical results for it. They just wanted it to be prettier and thusly went with the option to FotoFlame. How it effects the tone of the instrument in the long run is anyones guess though. If folks will argue over whether nitro finishes do or do not let the wood breathe and how important that factor is then this is a good sidebar argument.
The OLPs are generally done because the wood is an inferior non-tone wood. The two comparisons I have heard being used to describe the wood involved in the OLP's is chipbard and sawdust. The general concensus is that the wood chunks are being held together by glue. And anyone that has played Norlins-era Gibsons knows that there's a tonal variation once you start using THAT much glue in the formation of tone woods. Add to that what's probably non-tone woods into the mix and there's no telling what the total effect is going to be.
Certianly we've all had it proven again and again that tone woods are not always necessary to make a decent guitar. There have been plenty of examples of composite materials being used to make guitar bodies over the years. But when it comes down to it the instruments that we know that have lasted and have become classics and desirable had a certain set of characteristics, which is where we get the core concept of what is and what is not a "tone wood."
Who knows...we may all be ponying up cake for a sawdust axe in 20 years. But somehow it seems unlikely.....
