Manufacturers avoid describing woods as "laminated"

palsapal

I've been looking at manufacturers' web sites at the specifications for 12 string electro acoustics as I'm expecting to buy second hand.  I've quickly learnt that manufacturers generally avoid using the term "laminated" when describing the top & the sides/back.  They will use "solid", if it's the case, but the absence of the adjective I now assume to mean "laminated".

Would it be myopic to always go for solid top/back/sides or has a solid top with laminated sides/back combination got merits?  I appreciate that the former combination is always going to be more expensive.

sev112

Taylor and Driftwood in particular do, and make a thing of it where they use them

drofluf

I think that it’s partly psychology, as I think it’s possible to build a great sounding laminate guitar (or a poor sounding all solid one). So if you can try then get the one that sounds the best. But if laminate is going to be a constant niggle go for a solid one

Mellish

There's the "opening up" too. A laminate guitar will always sound the same, age won't improve it. But if it sounds great, what's wrong with that? In my early years laminate guitars were all I could afford and I loved them. There was one exception, a Kay bought at Woolworths in 1960. I'm tempted to swear!  

munckee

I would always go with at least a solid top, I prefer my solid guitar to the solid top I had before that and the laminate I had before that, but I paid £400 (used) £350 (new) and £50 used respectively.  I still have the £50 kicking around and I don't think it sounds rubbish when I play it but I do think the solid sounds lovely when I play it.

Whether that is part psychological to protect my brain from the horror of paying 8 times the price for the same thing I can't say
 : )

Tannin

So far as the marketing goes, the dishonest ones bend over bloody backwards to avoid telling you the truth. The mostly honest ones have little choice but to do likewise - otherwise the dishonest ones will kill them in the marketing game. The really honest ones only make all-solid guitars.

(Or only those makers who only build all-solid guitars can afford to be really honest. Hard to say which is which.)

Yep: if they don't say "solid" it is laminate every time.

Should you go all-solid? This depends very much on your budget. At the lower end (around $1000 AUD, that's something like £700), I'd say no. You are better off accepting laminated back and sides and just looking for a solid top.  Up around $2000 AUD the boot is on the other foot: you have companies like Taylor and Martin and those Sheeran by Lowden things selling very expensive laminate back and sides guitars for the same price that companies like Furch and Larivee and Maton and Seagull/Gudin sell all solid guitars for - instruments which are superior in all respects. (Not to mention all sorts of things coming out of the low-wage countries.) 

Now you are looking to go second-hand, so you will need to make the appropriate allowances, but the basics still hold true. 

I'll lay down a general rule here: laminated instruments simply don't have the sound quality or subtlety of a real wood instrument. 

Now I'll contradict it. The other week I played a Taylor 1 Series guitar - not the 2 Series which is their laminated but fairly decent offering in the $1800 price range, a cheap little 1 Series Taylor, and it was bloody excellent! Here was the exception to prove the rule. It really was a beautiful little guitar. I've played quite a few Taylor laminated things, and for some reason this one was way better than the usual competent-but-uninspiring standard they meet. Maybe I should have bought it. 

Bottom line: follow my general rule, but ignore it if you find something you particularly like.

Kilgore

Yes. If it just says "spruce top" it will be laminate rather than solid. Manufacturers have been doing this for years so I'm not convinced this counts as "dishonesty" any more. It's just industry standard marketing nomenclature.

The good news is that most manufacturers use solid tops on the majority of their lines. It tends to be the ultra cheap models that have laminate tops.

Solid back and sides will come at a price but some makers, Faith and Eastman for example produce all solid instruments for around £500. The trade off is plain satin finishes, no binding, no bling, etc. 

Overall the choice and quality of acoustic guitars at all levels of construction and price is vast.

You just have to do a bit of homework and of course, if possible, try before you buy. 

Jalapeno

There's a common mis-conception that laminate = plywood, it isn't.  Plywood is indeed laminated in its construction, but all-spruce, walnut, mahogany or rosewood laminates are definitely NOT plywood.

Point about ageing is well made, a laminate will not improve or decay over time (unless the glue fails of course).

earwighoney

Jalapeno said:

There's a common mis-conception that laminate = plywood, it isn't.  Plywood is indeed laminated in its construction, but all-spruce, walnut, mahogany or rosewood laminates are definitely NOT plywood.

Point about ageing is well made, a laminate will not improve or decay over time (unless the glue fails of course).

If my memory serves me right you are a Gypsy Jazz guitar enthusiast right?

Laminate back and sides crop up on high end instruments Django style guitars not as a cost cutting feature but for the tonality of the instrument.

I love the sound and style of those kind of guitars/Gypsy Jazz.

Lewy

earwighoney said:

Jalapeno said:

There's a common mis-conception that laminate = plywood, it isn't.  Plywood is indeed laminated in its construction, but all-spruce, walnut, mahogany or rosewood laminates are definitely NOT plywood.

Point about ageing is well made, a laminate will not improve or decay over time (unless the glue fails of course).

If my memory serves me right you are a Gypsy Jazz guitar enthusiast right?

Laminate back and sides crop up on high end instruments Django style guitars not as a cost cutting feature but for the tonality of the instrument.

I love the sound and style of those kind of guitars/Gypsy Jazz.

I believe there are also a number of high end luthiers that use laminate sides. Something to do with transferring more energy to the back to get that contributing to the tone I think? Don’t quote me on that being the reason, but they definitely do it. 

octatonic

It depends on why laminated woods are used and how they are used.

Often it is because laminated woods are cheaper than beautiful solid woods.
The material cost doesn't *always* correlate with the built quality and therefor the final price- look at Custom Shop ES335's for example.

So a cheap piece of shit guitar doesn't sound/play bad *because* it is a laminate wood guitar.
There are plenty of good sounding guitars that use that technology.

BigPaulie

Check the specs for the D-28

https://www.martinguitar.com/guitars/standard-series/D-28.html

Vs. the LX1

https://www.martinguitar.com/guitars/little-martin-series/LX1.html

You'll note Martin do it differently. They forego use of the word "Solid" but clearly specify where laminate (HPL) is used.

Gibson specify neither "solid" nor "laminate" as they only manufacture all solid (top, back and sides)  instruments.

ICBM

Mellish said:

A laminate guitar will always sound the same, age won't improve it.

This is absolutely untrue.

... but it is one of the biggest myths about guitars that you will commonly find.

Old laminate/plywood guitars don't sound like old solid-wood guitars, but they don't sound like new plywood guitars either. They certainly age and change, often a bit more slowly than solid-wood guitars, but nonetheless they still do (and arguably improve) with age.

Play a 60s Yamaha or something like that, or even an Eko Ranger, and you'll find it sounds like a nice old ply guitar, not like a new ply guitar.

malcolmkindness

For a budget 12 string with electronics, laminate back and sides will be fine.

BillDL

I think that part of the stigma of laminate bodied guitars is that many people think "plywood".  In most cases the laminate is only 3 ply, with nice looking hardwood veneer on the two outsides and a softer "tonewood" sandwiched between with opposing grain.  The layers are so tightly glued, and the full thickness of the laminate is no thicker than solid woods that would be used on other guitars, so the wood still moves as though it is one solid piece.  Most people will acknowledge that there may be some slight loss of resonance from laminated back and sides, but I think that there is far too much emphasis placed on whether sides and back are solid wood or laminate.  I think that the benefits of having a harder wearing tougher body that is less affected by moisture changes outweighs the cons of laminate where a guitar is going to be less coddled than an extemely expensive guitar.

I bought a 2nd-hand Fender CF60-CE in exceptionally good condition a while back for about 55% of its original RRP of about £240.  I was VERY impressed by the sound of that guitar, not just in spite of being all laminate, but regardless of being laminate.  It is a very nice sounding guitar made better by knowing how little it cost.  In my opinion it sounded as good as (but obviously different) a Takamine or similarly well regarded guitars 3 times its RRP.

Tannin

Kilgore said:

Yes. If it just says "spruce top" it will be laminate rather than solid. Manufacturers have been doing this for years so I'm not convinced this counts as "dishonesty" any more. It's just industry standard marketing nomenclature.

Of course it is dishonest, same as any other  deliberate and considered attempt to mislead potential customers. It complies with the letter of the law in most places, but it is and always was a shonky practice. If "lots of people have been doing this for years" was a valid defence, Rolf Harris and Jimmy Saville would not have got into trouble. 

Is it worse than some of the borderline legal marketing horrors we see in the motor trade, in politics, in food and general retail? Of course not. But it's not a lot better either. 

BillDL

I would say that calling laminated layers of spruce "spruce" is actually less dishonest than manufacturers who name their composite fretboard material with "wood" incorporated into the name.  It may contain wood sawdust, but it is nevertheless man-made composite.  Lying by omission is most certainly misleading and dishonest, regardless of whether it is seen by some as a common marketing technique, but deliberately and falsely naming a product wrongly is, in my opinion, far worse.

rogd

What then is the essential difference between a laminate top and a double top?

drofluf

rogd said:

What then is the essential difference between a laminate top and a double top?

A zero on the price tag

palsapal

I know it's never seen in musical instrument ads but the one that gets up my nose is "faux leather".  It's polyurethane so why pretend?

BigPaulie

palsapal said:

I know it's never seen in musical instrument ads but the one that gets up my nose is "faux leather".  It's polyurethane so why pretend?

But you do see "faux" tortoiseshell. Thankfully.