Wood Quality of a R9

[Kinetic]

I know this question had been beat to death, and I have done some searches on this too, but I needed to touch base on this attribute and try to get some sort of a consensus since the information seems to be mixed in opinion.

The R9s range in weight from 8 to 9 lbs. I have never seen an R9 anywhere in the 7lbs or 9lbs range but I'm sure one of you cats can show me otherwise.
From what I have read, this is because of the wood used (old growth, less dense mahogany). The lightest R9's have the least dense wood.

Are the lightest R9's considered to be "top-notch" wood for tone (forgive me),
than the heavier end 8lbs R9's, or it really doesn't matter: both light and heavier R9's have top-notch wood.

[b-squared]

I believe the best/lightest of the mahogany is saved for the R9; that being said, the woods used on all of the 'R' series are the best Gibson has to offer.

The R9 gets the flamiest maple tops, although I've seen R8s and R0s on here that rival them.

My two cents, but I'm not an expert.

BB

[delawaregold]

The wood density is specific to the species. It is usually quoted as a range,
that a particular species falls into. What makes any sample of a species of
wood heavier, or lighter, would be the amount of mineralization, or the
amount of heavy minerals the tree absorbed while it was growing. This is
a result of the conditions and soil the tree was grown in, and contains in its
cells. All the wood for the Historic Reissues are fundamentally the same. It
is all the same species of wood. The rough shaped bodies are weighed, and
the lightest, or least mineralized wood blanks are selected for use on the R9’s.

[delawaregold]

Since the wood is processed as needed for production, if the load of
lumber being processed is generally heavy, or heavily mineralized,
when rough cut and weighed, even the lightest wood blanks may be
on the heavy side, but are used for the R9’s. Conversely, if the load
of lumber being processed is generally light, or lightly mineralized,
when rough cut and weighed, the lightest wood blanks may be on
the light side, but are used for the R9’s. So from production run,
to production run the weights of the R9, may be heavier or lighter
than other models, or even other R9’s

[Kinetic]

Originally Posted by delawaregold

The wood density is specific to the species. It is usually quoted as a range,
that a particular species falls into. What makes any sample of a species of
wood heavier, or lighter, would be the amount of mineralization, or the
amount of heavy minerals the tree absorbed while it was growing. This is
a result of the conditions and soil the tree was grown in, and contains in its
cells. All the wood for the Historic Reissues are fundamentally the same. It
is all the same species of wood. The rough shaped bodies are weighed, and
the lightest, or least mineralized wood blanks are selected for use on the R9’s.

I always love reading your posts delawaregold, you always have great and concise info. I hope you are writing a book on this sometime soon!

The mineralization phenomenon is what I read too, from the late Skaterbrane for example. Minerals such as Silicon, Calcium, and metals are absorbed into the cells of the wood. This makes the wood heavier, and denser.

If I can speculate here...this would "alter" the acoustic resonance, and rigidity of the wood. The more mineralized wood could filter out more tone than a less mineral (going out on a limb here).

so if I understand correctly from the two posts, the lighter wood (less mineralization) is the best wood, and the best unadulterated LP tone on ca get from an R9?

One of the points I am drawing up when justifying
$5K for an R9 is the wood quality. If I am shelling out that kind of money, I also want to make sure I am getting the best darn wood I can too.
It sounds anal, but so is Gibson.

[delawaregold]

Originally Posted by paleo

so if I understand correctly from the two posts, the lighter wood (less mineralization) is the best wood, and the best unadulterated LP tone on ca get from an R9?

It is the lightest wood. The best, or best sounding? That is subjective.
I wouldn’t say that. There are too many factors that define the tone
of a guitar to say you can get the tone you are looking for by the
careful choosing of the wood. It is only one part of the equation.

Thank you for the compliment, BTW.

[joff]

My VOS R9 Pearly Gates weighs in at apparantly 9.5 lbs...the dealer weighed it...i need to get some accurate scales to double check the weight but it is definitely a bit heavier than my R7. I know of another VOS Pearly Gates that weighs a little more than mine...odd considering the materials were apparantly so carefully picked for the Pearly Gates guitars? It does sound awesome though and so i am not complaining!

[Tim Plains]

Originally Posted by joff

odd considering the materials were apparantly so carefully picked for the Pearly Gates guitars?

I'm pretty sure that only applies for the top, joff.

[Kinetic]

Originally Posted by joff

My VOS R9 Pearly Gates weighs in at apparantly 9.5 lbs...the dealer weighed it...i need to get some accurate scales to double check the weight but it is definitely a bit heavier than my R7. I know of another VOS Pearly Gates that weighs a little more than mine...odd considering the materials were apparantly so carefully picked for the Pearly Gates guitars? It does sound awesome though and so i am not complaining!

good point.
and the Pearly Gates R9's all sound great, arguably better than a standard R9.

[delawaregold]

Didn't the PG's get special pickups?
I’m not sure you can compare them, “apples to apples”.

[delawaregold]

Originally Posted by joff

I know of another VOS Pearly Gates that weighs a little more than mine...
odd considering the materials were apparantly so carefully picked for the Pearly Gates guitars?

Carefully picked, Yes! Carefully picked from the material on
hand at the time. The best of what is available for production.
If everything available at the time of production is heavy, then
the lightest of the heavy is selected, but is still heavier than some.

I know the Mahogany is weighed, I don’t know that the Maple
is weighed, or that the weight of the Maple is taken into consideration.
I believe the Maple is chosen for it’s Flame, regardless of weight.

[lewis_grey]

I'd say weight is another subjective thing, I tend to prefer Les Pauls on the heavier side (9lb or so). From my experience the sound they produce is reflective of their weight in that it's a heavier, thicker tone whereas lighter one are punchier, more midrangey and IMO more aggressive sounding (there are of course exceptions to this but it's a general observation).

Everyone has a different idea of their ideal Les Paul tone, I happen to want the thickest, creamiest tone on the planet which my 9lb 2oz R9 provides, you may want something different all together.

[mightymike]

Originally Posted by delawaregold

It is the lightest wood. The best, or best sounding? That is subjective.
I wouldn’t say that. There are too many factors that define the tone
of a guitar to say you can get the tone you are looking for by the
careful choosing of the wood. It is only one part of the equation.

Excellent post! It's very easy to cherry-pick wood based on weight. That's something you can actually measure. There is not, however, a way to measure the tonal capabilities of a plank o' wood. That's why it's impossible to claim lighter wood = better wood.

If heavier wood is more dense and therefore stiffer, it would be actually better for the sustain! The less flexible a body is (including the neck), the less it will absorb the string's vibrations. This is especially true for the neck, as it is very weak compared to the body.

[Kinetic]

Originally Posted by mightymike

Excellent post! It's very easy to cherry-pick wood based on weight. That's something you can actually measure. There is not, however, a way to measure the tonal capabilities of a plank o' wood. That's why it's impossible to claim lighter wood = better wood.

If heavier wood is more dense and therefore stiffer, it would be actually better for the sustain! The less flexible a body is (including the neck), the less it will absorb the string's vibrations. This is especially true for the neck, as it is very weak compared to the body.

great points,
From what I read in past posts many of suggested that there is in fact better wood than others. What is completely true at the same time is great tone is not necessarily correlated with great wood. Another subjective point is what makes good wood? Dense, heavy and mineralized, or light and non-mineralized.

The most rare wood would be the latter, and almost all who have light R9's
(8.5lbs and lower) always complain on how excellent it sounds Loud acoustically, more output in volume, and supposedly ages better. I really dont know if any of this is true...

I hear you on the rigidty factor. I thought the exact same: a more dense and heavy wood should allow from more string vibration and better sustain.
But when you think about it this more, a mineralized dense mahogany will also not absorb and filter out the string vibration in the neck and body as good as the lighter wood. So you are hearing more string vibration and sustain, but the so called "woody, or dynamic/orgainic" sound of a LP may be minimized. A super heavy mineralized mahogany might as well sound like a plank of Oak wood (not really but you get what I'm saying). The light mahogany is still rigid enough for sustain but allows for perhaps a different tone filter and acoustic resonance more than its heavy counterpart.
This is all speculation, I'll have no problem if someone calls bullshit on this...

Other than ergonomics and comfort, why else would Gibson reserve the lightest wood for the R9's? If light wood is special, then the lightest R9 would be a criteria to shop for.

[mightymike]

Originally Posted by paleo

I hear you on the rigidty factor. I thought the exact same: a more dense and heavy wood should allow from more string vibration and better sustain.
But when you think about it this more, a mineralized dense mahogany will also not absorb and filter out the string vibration in the neck and body as good as the lighter wood. So you are hearing more string vibration and sustain, but the so called "woody, or dynamic/orgainic" sound of a LP may be minimized. A super heavy mineralized mahogany might as well sound like a plank of Oak wood (not really but you get what I'm saying). The light mahogany is still rigid enough for sustain but allows for perhaps a different tone filter and acoustic resonance more than its heavy counterpart.
This is all speculation, I'll have no problem if someone calls bullshit on this...

Seems absolutely logical to me - but I am no wood expert either...! So combining our theories I think it would be best to use a light wood for the body (cos that one is rigid as hell anyway), and a more dense wood for the rather flex-y neck That way you could have woody sound and tons of sustain

[LPCustom72]

I really enjoy these sort of threads. They leave me wondering if there isn't a role for formal investigation into this issue. Huge amounts of money are spent by acoustical experts on designing and "tuning" concert halls and recording studios as well as developing the materials for constructing such venues. Why not a little time spent on guitars?

Paleo's comments are well thought out and provide what is called formally in science a hypothesis. It wouldn't take a whole lot, it seems, to test out the hypothesis with some acoustical tests - e.g., what are the resonant frequencies of different mahogany blanks and then how does that translate once they are fashioned into guitars.

I think many small scale luthiers wonder about these things and do what they can to incorporate ideas, experiences and hunches into their creations. I have read many comments by makers of acoustic guitars about selecting the woods for a guitar based on the particicular resonance of the parts and then chiseling or sanding them to get at the right sound.

Folks at Gibsosn and Fender have the money to investigate but are more likely to plop their cash into marketing or product development - not unreasonable given they have to feed the finanacial beast.

Sorry for going on but this is really interesting and would well be worth a grant to some interested and sympathetic academics in the acoustical field. But then again.....it's only rock 'n roll.

[johnbeloe]

Originally Posted by paleo

I know this question had been beat to death, and I have done some searches on this too, but I needed to touch base on this attribute and try to get some sort of a consensus since the information seems to be mixed in opinion.

The R9s range in weight from 8 to 9 lbs. I have never seen an R9 anywhere in the 7lbs or 9lbs range but I'm sure one of you cats can show me otherwise.
From what I have read, this is because of the wood used (old growth, less dense mahogany). The lightest R9's have the least dense wood.

Are the lightest R9's considered to be "top-notch" wood for tone (forgive me),
than the heavier end 8lbs R9's, or it really doesn't matter: both light and heavier R9's have top-notch wood.

doesn't really matter - you get great sounding lighter and heavier LPs. Many of the original 50s LPs were 9 to 9.5lbs - just check the weights in BOTB or on fretted americana

[delawaregold]

Excerpted from; Gibson Guitars: Ted McCarty's Golden Era: 1948-1966

[fretnot]

Originally Posted by paleo

Are the lightest R9's considered to be "top-notch" wood for tone (forgive me),
than the heavier end 8lbs R9's, or it really doesn't matter: both light and heavier R9's have top-notch wood.

There is no exact science to the way Gibson does things...remember, it's a factory using assemly line processes. There isn't a room of guys tone tapping each piece of wood before its use. I've had 8lb R7's and 9+ lb R9's, so there is no definites. Each guitar is judged on its own merit and nothing more. The Pearly Gates and other Sig guitars for the most part are no different than a regular R9 aside from the pickups, colors, and sometimes hardware.

[Kinetic]

Great points, but bring it down to a simple question. Other than for comfort or ergonomics, why would Gibson reserve the lightest old growth mahogany for the R series with the R9s being top priority?

[delawaregold]

Because the soundboard is the Maple. If Maple were not so heavy,
the whole body would be Maple. The Mahogany was added to reduce
the weight, so why not reduce the most weight you can, on your
Flagship model.
Please carefully re-read post #19.

[deepblue]

Originally Posted by paleo

Great points, but bring it down to a simple question. Other than for comfort or ergonomics, why would Gibson reserve the lightest old growth mahogany for the R series with the R9s being top priority?

Because the 1959 Les Paul is their bread and butter.

[River]

Originally Posted by paleo

Great points, but bring it down to a simple question. Other than for comfort or ergonomics, why would Gibson reserve the lightest old growth mahogany for the R series with the R9s being top priority?

For comfort and ergonomics.

"Old growth"? What old growth?