Exotic Wood and Fine Inlay in Custom Guitars

In a different thread (HERE) we were looking at Ivo's Bluesboy trying to determine the type of wood.

I found a sample of very exotic swamp ash used in a guitar.

The builder is Ron Thorn Custom Guitars in Glendale, California.

Here are some examples of his work:




So the thread would load faster CLICK on thumbnails for enlarged images

wow, never heard of this guy. he is 15 minutes from me. i'll have to stop by and check them out.

my favorite so far

second and third

I think this shares a lot of wood grain pattern with that of Ivo's Bluesboy:

Very nice indeed! A bit out of my budget though. Maybe if I win the Lottery. I'm still going to buy myself a Bluesboy next year.

Bill

They are all beautiful, but it's not my thing. Of course it's a matter of taste, but one of the reasons I chose for G&L, was their no no-nonsense approach.
I like the iconic image of these guitars. Imagine these pictures with hummingbird inlays, exotic woods and no pick-guard:



That would look weird...
But: There is no accounting for tastes

my favorite so far

It does look pretty. The problem with Quilt or Flame maple top is, you have to see it before you buy.
I have seen some ugly looking quilt/flame maple top guitars that I would not pay top dollar for the special wood.
Are you brave enough to do a custom order with G&L with quilt/maple top? I'm not.

Like Ivo, I prefer simplicity in the design of my instruments. But unlike Ivo, I truly find these guitars to be hideous.

i showed some of these to my tech, and he said " you don't need one of those. the guys who buy those guitars can't play. they just play a few chords and admire the guitar" he said 1500-2000 gets you about as good a guitar as you can make, the rest of the money is all looks. the most i have ever paid for a guitar is 900.

Like Ivo, I prefer simplicity in the design of my instruments. But unlike Ivo, I truly find these guitars to be hideous.

Well, you know, being a nice guy and all...

But Leo's designs are so strong, that they don't need this. The above features only makes is weaker. And it sure doesn't improve tone, play better, or give them more value. It's kitsch.

Like Ivo, I prefer simplicity in the design of my instruments. But unlike Ivo, I truly find these guitars to be hideous.

Well, you know, being a nice guy and all...

But Leo's designs are so strong, that they don't need this. The above features only makes is weaker. And it sure doesn't improve tone, play better, or give them more value. It's kitsch.

actually he made a few improvements. the neck joint is a dovetail joint, also the contoured heel, the reversed control plate and the frets.

Yes, that's right Louis, and that's great. But I meant the cosmetic features.

G&L also leaves functionality far behind and often shoots for purely cosmetic goals.

Many of these Thorn guitars are not that different than some G&Ls including Ivo's Bluesboy.

The level of exotic detail should not automatically reflect upon the build quality or functional qualities of a guitar, positively or negatively.

"G&L also leaves functionality far behind and often shoots for purely cosmetic goals.

Many of these Thorn guitars are not that different than some G&Ls including Ivo's Bluesboy.

The level of exotic detail should not automatically reflect upon the build quality or functional qualities of a guitar, positively or negatively."

I have been following this post and I think I am lost in the shuffle. Even after a couple of cold ones. What I am seeing here is some fine Ron Thorn instruments with exotic beautiful woods. I also like the neck joint and would be surprised if the fretwork were subpar. My Suhr is not that different from a Fender or a G&L but that does not make it bad and there are some positive improvements in the design. I fail to understand were G&L has left functionality out for looks in fact leaving a pickguard off a transparent Bluesboy in my opinion would reduce the cost of parts and in no way reduce functionality and add to the looks, at least for me. I would love to own one of those Thorn guitars shown and I know that it would not affect my playing one way or the other a great deal. The bottom line is that I can increase my playing ability for very little money. Most musicians believe that they are better after they have had a few cold ones. Reality then returns the next day! It works for an evening. Have a great Saturday evening! I am, I became a new Grandpa with a new granddaughter this afternoon.-- Darwin

[quote="darwinohm"]"G&L also leaves functionality far behind and often shoots for purely cosmetic goals.

Many of these Thorn guitars are not that different than some G&Ls including Ivo's Bluesboy.

The level of exotic detail should not automatically reflect upon the build quality or functional qualities of a guitar, positively or negatively."quote]

I have been following this post and I think I am lost in the shuffle. Even after a couple of cold ones. What I am seeing here is some fine Ron Thorn instruments with exotic beautiful woods. I also like the neck joint and would be surprised if the fretwork were subpar. My Suhr is not that different from a Fender or a G&L but that does not make it bad and there are some positive improvements in the design. I fail to understand were G&L has left functionality out for looks in fact leaving a pickguard off a transparent Bluesboy in my opinion would reduce the cost of parts and in no way reduce functionality and add to the looks, at least for me. I would love to own one of those Thorn guitars shown and I know that it would not affect my playing one way or the other a great deal. The bottom line is that I can increase my playing ability for very little money. Most musicians believe that they are better after they have had a few cold ones. Reality then returns the next day! It works for an evening. Have a great Saturday evening! I am, I became a new Grandpa with a new granddaughter this afternoon.-- Darwin

[quote=]"G&L also leaves functionality far behind and often shoots for purely cosmetic goals.

Many of these Thorn guitars are not that different than some G&Ls including Ivo's Bluesboy.

The level of exotic detail should not automatically reflect upon the build quality or functional qualities of a guitar, positively or negatively."[/quote]

I have been following this post and I think I am lost in the shuffle. Even after a couple of cold ones. What I am seeing here is some fine Ron Thorn instruments with exotic beautiful woods. I also like the neck joint and would be surprised if the fretwork were subpar. My Suhr is not that different from a Fender or a G&L but that does not make it bad and there are some positive improvements in the design. I fail to understand were G&L has left functionality out for looks in fact leaving a pickguard off a transparent Bluesboy in my opinion would reduce the cost of parts and in no way reduce functionality and add to the looks, at least for me. I would love to own one of those Thorn guitars shown and I know that it would not affect my playing one way or the other a great deal. The bottom line is that I can increase my playing ability for very little money. Most musicians believe that they are better after they have had a few cold ones. Reality then returns the next day! It works for an evening. Have a great Saturday evening! I am, I became a new Grandpa with a new granddaughter this afternoon.-- Darwin

[quote=]"G&L also leaves functionality far behind and often shoots for purely cosmetic goals.

Many of these Thorn guitars are not that different than some G&Ls including Ivo's Bluesboy.

The level of exotic detail should not automatically reflect upon the build quality or functional qualities of a guitar, positively or negatively."

I have been following this post and I think I am lost in the shuffle. Even after a couple of cold ones. What I am seeing here is some fine Ron Thorn instruments with exotic beautiful woods. I also like the neck joint and would be surprised if the fretwork were subpar. My Suhr is not that different from a Fender or a G&L but that does not make it bad and there are some positive improvements in the design. I fail to understand were G&L has left functionality out for looks in fact leaving a pickguard off a transparent Bluesboy in my opinion would reduce the cost of parts and in no way reduce functionality and add to the looks, at least for me. I would love to own one of those Thorn guitars shown and I know that it would not affect my playing one way or the other a great deal. The bottom line is that I can increase my playing ability for very little money. Most musicians believe that they are better after they have had a few cold ones. Reality then returns the next day! It works for an evening. Have a great Saturday evening! I am, I became a new Grandpa with a new granddaughter this afternoon.-- Darwin

congratulations. i think he means that nice wood selection, premium finishes and such are purely cosmetic, leaving functionality behind

Last edited by louis cyfer on Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Okay I am not clear whether Louis is echoing Darwin or merely attempting to clean up his posts. Before anyone gets carried away with what they think my post meant allow me to clarify what I meant. First, you should look to the whole post and not isolate one sentence. If there is any doubt usually the adjoining sentences add clarity to the meaning. That is how paragraphs are constructed and though this is three sentences touching on separate posts by different members the idea is singular. Looking at it any other way would produce contradictions.

G&L also leaves functionality far behind and often shoots for purely cosmetic goals.

This means G&L also pursues visual goals that have no bearing on functionality. This does not suggest G&L abandons functionality in doing so. It means that certain visual features that have been produced by G&L are also well beyond practical or conservative or basic. For instance red sparkle flake has nothing to do with functionality, playability, tone or electronics. It is purely cosmetic. Some might consider flake finishes to be extreme and even exotic. This is not slamming G&L if that is how you perceived it.

Many of these Thorn guitars are not that different than some G&Ls including Ivo's Bluesboy.

I do not see that there is a significant difference between Ivo's Bluesboy and the above example of the Thorn guitar that I posted as the closest here. Both are beautiful. Both may play and sound great, or maybe not but I did not suggest either. I have not experienced the two guitars in such a way to know myself. The Thorn guitar is one of the less exotic Thorns while Ivo's is one of the more exotic pieces of ash I have ever seen in a G&L. There is no denying that they are similar woods.

The level of exotic detail should not automatically reflect upon the build quality or functional qualities of a guitar, positively or negatively.

This should have clarified the essence of my thought in the whole post. How you could interpret this any other way may take a few cold ones for me to understand.


My point is that just because any builder offers exotic visual elements should neither be a reason to dismiss them as purely visual flash nor accept them as an indication that every other aspect of the guitar is somehow better.

Although they can be viewed as occupying different places in separate universes, G&L and Thorn probably have more in common in terms of quality than they are different.




Congratulations on the new granddaughter Darwin!




.

Last edited by Michael-GnL-Michael on Sat Nov 19, 2011 8:25 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Okay folks, I have to apologize. I was trying to get quotes to work and ended up with multiple post. It is not easy to be me!-- Darwin

Okay I am not clear whether Louis is echoing Darwin or merely attempting to clean up his posts. Before anyone gets carried away with what they think my post meant allow me to clarify what I meant. First, you should look to the whole post and not isolate one sentence. If there is any doubt usually the adjoining sentences add clarity to the meaning. That is how paragraphs are constructed and though this is three sentences touching on separate posts by different members the idea is singular. Looking at it any other way would produce contradictions.

G&L also leaves functionality far behind and often shoots for purely cosmetic goals.

This means G&L also pursues visual goals that have no bearing on functionality. This does not suggest G&L abandons functionality in doing so. It means that certain visual features that have been produced by G&L are also well beyond practical or conservative or basic. For instance red sparkle flake has nothing to do with functionality, playability, tone or electronics. It is purely cosmetic. Some might consider flake finishes to be extreme and even exotic. This is not slamming G&L if that is how you perceived it.

sorry if i wasn't clear. i was basically trying to say what you said here, trying to clarify what you said to darwin. i am glad i had it right, even if i was clear enough. to me what you said was clear.

Louis,

Because of the way the code did not properly enclose the quoted text I did not see the last line you had added. I would have been certain that you were offering clarification.

Thanks

Louis,

Because of the way the code did not properly enclose the quoted text I did not see the last line you had added. I would have been certain that you were offering clarification.

Thanks

i fixed it. it is really strange, when just quoting the post, it shows up really weird. i had to try it several ways, in the end had to put in a duplicate of the first quote code later on again to make it work. strange indeed.

G&L also leaves functionality far behind and often shoots for purely cosmetic goals.

Many of these Thorn guitars are not that different than some G&Ls including Ivo's Bluesboy.

The level of exotic detail should not automatically reflect upon the build quality or functional qualities of a guitar, positively or negatively.

I have to clarify. Of course I like nice finishes, pretty woodgrain etc. But I like it subtle and tasteful.
And I was not talking about Thorn guitars in general, but the examples in the pictures posted by Michael.
I was referring to the above examples with the bird inlays in the fingerboard, lizards on the body, a complete flora and fauna on the fingerboard. I have an aversion to these things.
I think of the Telecaster as the workhorse of guitars, and not as a piece of canvas. The art is in Leo's simple design. But it's my opinion, just a matter of taste, that's all.