Official Luthiers Forum!

[QUOTE=verhoevenc] Well if you can find some down there I think the problem will be getting it back up to the surface... imagine how heavy it'll be, even in water, and it's not like you can bring your chainsaw down and cut it into smaller pieces hahahaha.
Chris[/QUOTE]

I have done a bit of recovery work Chris and it is not as hard as you would imagine. The hard bit is getting things rigged for the lift. EG getting slings under the bugger can be a bit of a challenge but it aint that hard. Once the slings are in place you just hitch them to an air bag or 2 and fill'em up, and she will rise to the surface.

You just need to be careful to use the correct sized lift bags and not to over fill them. If you do, the air will expand and vent from the bottom of the bags as the load rises. This can make things a little unstable and freak'in dangerous and when you scream in 70' of water no one hears you, they can only judge how scared you where by the size of the lump in the back of your wetsuit

Very easy really but once at the surface you would certainly have your work cut out for you.

Cheers

Kim

My dive instructor and I have been manufacturing bags for the purpose of bringing this stuff up.  I want to start small - more manageable in size.  He says that even with the small stuff, the biggest issue is breaking its seal from the muck...Past that - stabilizing the wood is apparently incredibly difficult after you pull it out...But I figure it is totally worth a good solid couple of trys.

 

 

Stephen

_________________
www.ziegenfussguitars.com

HI Steve! Welcome to the OLF!

_________________
Support the OLF! Bookmark our STEWMAC link Today!
Lance@LuthiersForum.com

Okay guys, you've got me interested. Save me a piece for an archtop.

I have used Sitka boom logs recovered from Lake superior and Lake Nipigon. The problem with these was primarily that even after over 60 years in the Cold water of superior and then another 15-20 years up on shore they are still dripping wet and they are very inclined to splitting when they dry. At the same time it does produce some nice tops and I have had good success with them and use a lot of this wood for brace wood as well. Is is superior (no pun intended) to other top wood. I'm not convinced, but for me, getting 3' to 4', 20' long logs and then processing them simply wasn't worth it. I sold a fair bit on E bay a few years back but didn't get a lot of money for it, Everyone was happy with it though. In my opinion it was too much work to process for the product but it certainly makes a nice story. I still have a bunch left but most of the really nice stuff is gone. If I though it was worth it I still know where there are piles of the logs that are free for the picking but logs of this size are just to hard to handle. So they sit there and rot

I have the text from a Smithsonian article written a few years ago about this topic. It appears the recovery is difficult as the OLF divers have pointed out.

I don't know how to upload a pdf to the olf so if someone could let me know pdq i could do that asap.

or just send a note and i'll attach it to an email.
-Shawn

[QUOTE=Pwoolson] I think it's a lot of hype. I have troubles believing that
the soaking would really add anything to sound quality. [/QUOTE]

I've heard it said that Stradivarius' work was so successful due to the fact
that his wood was soaked in borax to prevent infestation of bugs and rot.
Some believe that perhaps this was an element that affected the sound of his
instruments.
So, perhaps it's entirely possible?

_________________
Christopher C. Cordle
North Muskegon, MI

http://www.yardsaleunderwear.com
http://www.facebook.com/christopher.cordle

[QUOTE=uncleshish] [QUOTE=Pwoolson] I think it's a lot of hype. I have troubles believing that
the soaking would really add anything to sound quality. [/QUOTE]

I've heard it said that Stradivarius' work was so successful due to the fact
that his wood was soaked in borax to prevent infestation of bugs and rot.
Some believe that perhaps this was an element that affected the sound of his
instruments.
So, perhaps it's entirely possible?[/QUOTE]
The problem I have with this, as well as many other theories, is that many of them start just as your post did. "I've heard it said..." and "some believe..."
Show me one ounce of fact and I'll get up on the highest hill and announce wholeheartedly that I was wrong.

...which is exactly what HYPE is. Promotional publicity of a contrived kind. Get a guy to say it's great. Next another guy says that Joe Blow said it's great, then a friend of Joe Blow said..., before long it turns into "Some people say..."
Back to the topic on hand. I still think sinker wood is hype. Yes, some of it is great wood. But that same wood harvested and dried naturally would be equally good (until I'm proven wrong)

Paul,
I don't know if I would go so far as to say there is a lot of hype
surrounding sinker redwood. Mostly because very few people have even
heard of the stuff. Outside of Peter, myself, and Rick Micheletti - I don't
know of another sinker redwood even being built (though I'm sure there
has been). And while Peter and I both have said it has a great tap tone
and makes an excellent guitar - that shouldn't be considered hype.
However, and justifiably so, the perceived value of the sinker redwood is
higher than normal redwood due to the fact that it is very rare and
unique.

It is an obvious fact that sinker redwood is different compositionally from
normal redwood due to it being submerged for such a long time and the
physical processes that occur in said conditions. The differences between
the spruces are not hugely significant - at least, from a botanist's
perspective - yet all of us notice a difference between red spruce and
German spruce and Sitka and Engelmann etc... It is a perfectly logical
step to assume that the mineralization and the beginnings of petrification
will have some effect on the tonal properties of the wood.

As far as it being better than normal redwood, to my knowledge no one
has claimed that or is claiming that. The nice thing about any of these
sunken woods is that if they are nicely preserved, you are generally
looking at old growth wood.    So regardless of whether the "sinking" has
a dramatic or even positive tonal effect - at least, you are starting out
with very nice wood.

Assuming you don't dislike the way the wood looks, I would highly
recommend trying it out someday. It does have an excellent tap tone and
with your talent, I bet you would make a killer guitar out of it.

Peace Out,
Simon

Simon, what you say makes perfect sense and that's the kind of response I can relate to.
Though implied, I guess you are right in saying that nobody here has come out and said it's better. Though I've seen that claim, said not implied, on many occasions on both forums and articles.
I wish I could name names but I don't have that information. But evidently there are enough builders out there that newspapers claim it is "very popular" in the building world. Maybe that's the hype part of it.
When this whole sunken thing got big about 5 years ago, I prices some of the wood. It was about 3 times what a standard mill got for the stuff. Now I'm not sure if they were trying to recoup their efforts in bring it up or if they were claiming it to be some superior phenom. I haven't priced the stuff since. But if a sunken top set was in the ballpark to a standard set, I'd be happy to try it out. If only to prove myself wrong and find out it is indeed superior. (Who has it for sale?)

The LS Redwood that Dennis Scannel (True North Guitars) builds with is of the same origin isn't it?

Don't know if it's better but it sure is pretty.

_________________
My Facebook Guitar Page

"There's really no wrong way, as long as the results are what's desired." Charles Fox

"We have to constantly remind ourselves what we're doing....No Luthier is putting a man on the moon!" Harry Fleishman

"Generosity is always different in the eye of the person who didn't receive anything, but who wanted some." Waddy Thomson

Rod, I was under the impression that the LS was not sunken but just a wonderful find of a tree. I could be wrong (usually am). Mayes has some as does Hank.

[QUOTE=Rod True] The LS Redwood that Dennis Scannel (True North Guitars) builds with is of the same origin isn't it?

Don't know if it's better but it sure is pretty.[/QUOTE]

The LS tree was a found and storm downed tree but it was not submerged or even near water from my understanding. Just simply great wood. Hank may shed more light on that if he finds this thread.

_________________
Tickle your guitar daily, and it'll tickle you back.

Just a quick point of clarification. It has been said many times in this thread (and others) that one of the appealing aspects of salvaging woods from the bottoms of these waterways is that they are "old growth" and I percieve that the perception is that that makes them better. I think all of you intuitively know (but it is not being said) that any spruce, cedar or redwood, at least in North America, that is harvested for musical instruments is "old growth" and was living and doing it's thing long before the industrialization of our logging practices. For example the trees I harvest, for arguement purposes on the conservative side, will have an average of 15 grains per inch (it is typically higher but I will leave the tree structure stuff to another time). So if that tree is 42 inches in diametre that leaves a radius of 21 inches, multiplied by 15 years is 315 years. That is the youngest tree that will typically be harvested for a spruce guitar top. Most are much older. Deciduos trees typically have a much shorter life span than conifers so the defination of "old growth" in them can be like 100 years, and that is usually real old!

OK, I am off the soap box....the issue here is the processes that occur to the wood while residing in the water for this length of time and the novelty factor of this wood. One other issue that is important though is that using some of this wood should, technically, reduce the pressure on the living forest. But the reality is that modern harvest is so wasteful that the benefits of this acquasition of wood would not be measurable!

Just more fuel for the fire!

Shane

_________________
Canada

[QUOTE=Shane Neifer] One other issue that is important though is that using some of this wood should, technically, reduce the pressure on the living forest. But the reality is that modern harvest is so wasteful that the benefits of this acquasition of wood would not be measurable!

Just more fuel for the fire!

Shane[/QUOTE]

Yeah Shane, on that point, destruction of the marine environment would probably cancel out the benifit and is the reason why, as I understand, they have now banned the recovery of sunken logs, at least in certain areas.

Hey and the LS Redwood, wasn't it a log the fell across a ravine and was exposed to the air all around for many years???

And on goes the rumor mill

Cheers

Kim

[QUOTE=Hesh1956] My understnding of LS Redwood is that it was a tree that fell across a ditch or some kind of depression in the earth. This left much of the log suspended in the air for as long as it took for someone to find it and recognize the possibilities. This also means that it was air drying on all sides for a long time.

The designation "LS" stands for "Lucky Strike" or so this is what I remember reading somewhere.

BTW I got to tap some at Lance's and it had the best ring of any thing that I have ever heard.[/QUOTE]

Hey! that's what I just said. That's pragerism buddy

Hesh, when you taped the LS was there any normal Redwood to compare with?? I ask because I got a set of the stuff that the Don at New England Tonewoods had for sale and it rang like a bell as well, I was shocked at how loud, long, and clear quite frankly. I have some with curl as well but cause of all that short grain it does not compare, but boy, the sinker wood I got from Rick does, it rings and rings.

Cheers

Kim

No need to apologise mate I was just having a bit of fun

My curly redwood taps OK as well, just nothing like the stuff I got from the Don and I think that the sinker wood from Rick taps better and is stiffer than them all. But that is just my opinion, I have no scientific data, just my ears and hands, but that's enough for me to feel I have something quite special here.

One thing I have noticed with the sinker redwood I have is that as you slide the palm of your hand across the dry surface of the board, it feels and sounds as if it is covered in a very fine dust. I gave it a wipe with naphtha but I can still feel a very very fine grit all over the board, not a concern mind but interesting.

Has anyone else noticed this? Or is it yet another symptom of being dropped on my head as an infant too many times.

Cheers

Kim

I'm a man of faith and I accept the premise that sunken wood is tops because recovered maple is now the hottest thing for BANJO rims and bridges. That's good enough for me.

Ron

_________________
OLD MAN formerly (and formally) known as:

Ron Wisdom

Somewhere in the middle of Arkansas......

[QUOTE=fmorelli] Paul, I've been following this thread and I'm somewhat confused by your comments. Please help me out, if you would:

[QUOTE=Pwoolson]The problem I have with this, as well as many other theories, is that many of them start just as your post did. "I've heard it said..." and "some believe..."
Show me one ounce of fact and I'll get up on the highest hill and announce wholeheartedly that I was wrong.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Pwoolson] ... Though implied, I guess you are right in saying that nobody here has come out and said it's better. Though I've seen that claim, said not implied, on many occasions on both forums and articles.
I wish I could name names but I don't have that information. But evidently there are enough builders out there that newspapers claim it is "very popular" in the building world. Maybe that's the hype part of it.[/QUOTE]

I think you just inadvertently pulled an anti-hype. Or you've hyped the hype?

Rick Micheletti has told me (as someone else here also observed) that he thins the sinker more than his standard redwood builds - to about his spruce top thicknesses. That's his professional experience building with sinker redwood, and he also builds with regular redwood. It's a fact that he does it, it's his professional experience, and I'd hardly consider an observation of top thickness by a builder to be hype.

You may find a different experience building with any species of wood, as could others. I feel like we got "wolf" cried on us here, when I've not seen any hype. But I may have misunderstood your posts and why they are on this thread...

Straighten me out. I'm happy to apologize if I got it all wrong, or if I ruffle your feathers.

Filippo [/QUOTE]
Filippo, my second post, that you quoted, was in response to Simon's comment that very few people had heard of it. I was trying to strengthen my arguement that until I see any type of proof or hear an A-B comparison, I still think the whole sinker thing is hype.
The hype I've been referring to goes way beyond this forum. I've seen it in many different places, forums, articles, newspapers, etc.
So when I responded to the original question of "what do you think of sinker wood" I was bring in the outside information that I've read and heard and responded that I thought it was hype.

Paul,
If you are interested in checking out a set of the sinker redwood - I have
seen a number of them sell on eBay. And I'm pretty sure they are from
Rick Micheletti.

As I said before, I am not particularly fond of the looks of sinker redwood
for a top. I really like seeing lighter colored and homogenous tops like
spruce, cedar, or redwood. But it really is some of the nicest sounding
stuff I have had the pleasure of working with. I honestly do think you
would be impressed with it - at least enough to want to try and build a
guitar with it.

If you can't obtain some thru Rick or from eBay, shoot me an email at
info@fayguitars.com and I will get a set of it to you.

And I do agree with you about hype originating from outside the lutherie
community and especially amongst customers. I have found that it seems
a lot of the buyers of handmade guitars feel the need to justify the
expense of their newest acquisiton by criticizing factory guitars or less
expensive guitars. Anyway.

Peace Out,
Simon

Hank Mauel brought some tops to an NCAL (Northern California Association of Luthiers) meeting. Among them were some LS tops and others from trees which had been named. He had a price list for the different tops from the different trees. They all had interesting tap tones but the LS were the best. I was curious because I already had some tops that I had sawn from lumber salvaged by Dave Smith of Fort Bragg, CA. My best tops were close to the LS tops and they were salvaged from downed trees. In addition to being old growth my tops were from near the base of the tree. They are therefore much tougher than tops would be from further up. They are almost like spruce. Curiously the sinker tops I had sawn were very flexible with not nearly as good a tap tone. Like any other tree there is great variation from one redwood to the next and you need to select your tops accordingly. I think Rick's wood came from an old Mill pond. BTW you can no longer dive for redwood because of the adverse effect on fish habitat, but you can can catch 'em when they roar down the river in a storm.      

_________________
Ken Franklin
clumsy yet persistent
https://www.kenfranklinukulele.com