It is currently Tue Mar 17, 2020 12:12 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Go to page 1, 2  Next

Are sustainable wood sources important to you in your choice of guitar?
No. 15%  15%  [ 3 ]
No, because I want the best sound possible. 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
No, because I don't think the environmental impact is a problem. 10%  10%  [ 2 ]
No, because I want the best guitar for my money. 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
No, because I want a beautiful guitar. 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Somewhat. 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Somewhat, but it is not a critical factor in my choice of guitar. 30%  30%  [ 6 ]
Yes. 10%  10%  [ 2 ]
Yes, because I want a great guitar from an environmentally sound source. 20%  20%  [ 4 ]
Yes, because I believe sustainable sources can provide the best guitars anyhow. 15%  15%  [ 3 ]
Total votes : 20
Author Message
Post subject: old growth redwood 60th anniversary Telecaster
Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 10:59 pm
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist

Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 1
It seems like there should be some better options instead of old growth redwood for 60th anniversary Telecasters. I realize it is a challenge to build quality guitars with sustainable wood sources, but old growth appears to be a poor choice. Rational comments are welcome.


Top
Profile
Fender Play Winter Sale 2020
Post subject: Re: old growth redwood 60th anniversary Telecaster
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 12:23 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 5:41 pm
Posts: 623
odd first post, but welcome to the forums none the less


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: old growth redwood 60th anniversary Telecaster
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:15 am
Offline
Amateur
Amateur

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 2:54 pm
Posts: 147
As long as it sounds good I don't care what it's made from. My pine tele sounds just as good as the ash one.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: old growth redwood 60th anniversary Telecaster
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:44 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
asdfjkl wrote:
It seems like there should be some better options instead of old growth redwood for 60th anniversary Telecasters. I realize it is a challenge to build quality guitars with sustainable wood sources, but old growth appears to be a poor choice. Rational comments are welcome.

Just as was the case with the Browns Canyon Telecaster, it is nearly certain that the the Old Growth Redwood 60th Anniversary Telecaster is made from recycled, reclaimed, or salvaged old growth redwood, which is readily available.

Fender should issue a statement regarding the nature and source of the redwood used in these guitars.


Last edited by MickJagger on Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: old growth redwood 60th anniversary Telecaster
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 5:39 am
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist

Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:26 am
Posts: 2
Because I am eagerly awaiting one I was going to post a really snotty reply about doing a little research into the guitar before posting such inflammatory statements. If one just reads the website it says that the wood has been reclaimed, and if you look at the videos from NAMM on YouTube they say the wood has been reclaimed twice, first the rail bridge was reclaimed and turned into a building and then the building was reclaimed and fashioned into a guitar. I mean how much more sustainable can you get than using reclaimed wood??? So I have no issue with wood sustainability there as they are reusing wood that was cut over 100 years for a sweet looking tele. The problem is, Fender have now removed the guitar and the specs from their website which make me worry even further. To go from "Browns Canyon" to "Old Growth" was such a disappointment and I am now really fearing the worst that I won't be able to own such a wonder piece of history, both from a Fender and a Redwood perspective.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: old growth redwood 60th anniversary Telecaster
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:03 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician

Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 8:10 pm
Posts: 327
Location: Kentucky
All wood is sustainable, it's just that none of us will be here in 100 years to see the results.

If a tree needs to be 100 years old to be of suitable size to use, the lumber companies can cut 1% every year and have an endless supply of 100 year old trees. The problem comes in when demand is greater than supply.

Trees are sustainable, harvesting methods are not.

Jeff


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: old growth redwood 60th anniversary Telecaster
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:51 am
Offline
Professional Musician
Professional Musician
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:45 am
Posts: 2244
Location: Pittsburg, CA
Even if the old growth redwood is harvested lumber, most of the time it comes from privately owned tree farms. Redwood logging is very restricted and the tree farms are a great way to have a very sustainable source of lumber.
Also, at least in California, tree farms are required to re-plant every time they harvest the trees.

_________________
Check out my new FB music page!

https://www.facebook.com/TheDevilandMe.Music

Image


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: old growth redwood 60th anniversary Telecaster
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:52 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:29 pm
Posts: 614
Location: SW Ohio
Sustainability is more than just whether the source for a material is sustainable. As stated by others, management of the resource is important and honestly, pretty much already in place. But sustainability has another side - the wise use of the resource.

As an architect, I don’t care whether a redwood timber is recently harvested old-growth, recently harvested new growth, or reclaimed material - my responsibility is to use that material in a fashion and with the mindset that this timber will be in my building for the next 500 years. If I am going to have a 300 year old tree harvested so I can obtain a 24 inch deep redwood timber, I better not be putting it in a shanty.

If I were Louis Kahn (google him), I would ask the tree what it wants to be. I’m sure the tree would prefer to be part of a church, a library, a timber-framed home. I need to design the building so the materials are still here 500 years from now.

Of course, it would be great not to see the end user just abuse the building, neglect normal maintenance, or not think of the building as a 25 year commitment that they will bulldoze for McDonald’s when a good offer for the property comes along.

So for me - sustainability is how the resource is used. I guess you could make a claim that music is unnecessary and therefore solid woods should not be used. However, I think the opposite, a well-designed and constructed instrument should (and could) last hundreds of years. Think of a Strativarius violin (I understand he did a few “guitars”)

Personally - using a fine tone wood (regardless of age) for a high quality musical instrument seems appropriate and hopefully the instrument will be played and cherished for hundreds of years. Meaning we need to keep it out of the hands of Pete Townshend. :lol:

Image


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: old growth redwood 60th anniversary Telecaster
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:35 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
phansford wrote:
"Sustainability is more than just whether the source for a material is sustainable... Sustainability is how the resource is used."

Brilliant!! :shock:
You must be from the James G. Watt (Google him) School of Republican, clear cut, forest management.
That's about the most foolish thing written on the subject that I've seen.

Congratulation.
You win the "Ends Justify The Means Award" in the "Lets Rape the Earth for Profit Contest."

Using your analogy, if you would ask the tree what it wants to be, I’m sure the tree would prefer to be a tree.

The idea that the concept of the "sustainability" of old growth forests, (which never seems to include considerations of wildlife habitat,) is whether the designed building using scarce resources will still be here, 500 years from now, is so ridiculous on it's face, that you should question your mental sanity and seek professional help.

That is like saying that the extinction of elephants in the wild is acceptable, so long as there are beautiful ivory tusk carvings that survive 500 years from now.


Last edited by MickJagger on Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: old growth redwood 60th anniversary Telecaster
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:21 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:29 pm
Posts: 614
Location: SW Ohio
MickJagger wrote:
phansford wrote:
"Sustainability is more than just whether the source for a material is sustainable... Sustainability is how the resource is used."

Brilliant!! :shock:
You must be from the James G. Watt (Google him) School of Republican, clear cut, forest management.
That's about the most foolish thing written that I've seen on the subject.
Congratulation.
You win the "Ends Justify The Means Award" in the "Lets Rape the Earth for Profit Contest."


Your comments couldn't be further from the truth.

People talk about bamboo as some wonder material for flooring. So let's talk about.

Yes - bamboo is rapidly renewable. But its a soft material and scratches easily. You can't repair it - You can not sand and restain it. So its effectively a material that will last less than 5 year. If you lucky to get that length of service out of it. I know situations were its been replaced in less than a year. However, a wood floor, using FCS-certified material that can be placed in a building and last 200 years is certainly more sustainable than bamboo.

BTW - did you know that bamboo is the primary food source for Pandas. So taking a food source of endangered species for your new floor seems like a grand idea. Thank you for being sustainable.

Also - if every one specified bamboo for their floors tomorrow, we would deplete the entire world supply. Its been mathematically proven. That seems real sustainable.

Lets talk about transporting materials. You can specify products from within 500 miles of the project site to keep carbon emissions to a minimum during transportation. I not real sure about the carbon footprint of shipping containers filled with bamboo being shipped across the Pacific Ocean. Maybe you'd like to calculate that for us. I wonder what the embedded carbon usage is when I have to rip up and replace the bamboo floor every 12 months.

Of course the manufacture of bamboo takes quite a bit of energy also. It has to be manipulated and adhesives and binders are needed to create the flooring. I love the smell of toxins in my flooring.

So yes - when architects talk about sustainability, we think about the source of the material, but also the longevity of the product. Its embedded carbon footprint with transportation costs , the embedded energy to make the product, and the life cycle of the material.

BTW - in 200 years that wood floor can be harvested and used for something else. Bamboo ends up in the landfill.

Light bulbs are a big thing.... lets talk about using only fluorescent light bulbs. While they consume less energy and give off less heat than incandescent, if you don't specify the proper controls, their application is meaningless. So their installation needs to include occupancy sensors at a minimum and if you have the budget, they should also be controlled by a photocell the reads the amount of daylight in the space and then will dim the lamps to compensate for the free daylight. (70% of energy/electricity used in commercial buildings is lighting - just changing to some compact fluorescents won't cut it..... and we won't be building an new power plants)

So please continue to enlighten me about sustainability and the built environment.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: old growth redwood 60th anniversary Telecaster
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 5:04 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:29 pm
Posts: 614
Location: SW Ohio
MickJagger wrote:
The idea that the concept of the "sustainability" of old growth forests, (which never seems to include considerations of wildlife habitat,) is whether the designed building using scarce resources will still be here, 500 years from now, is so ridiculous on it's face, that you should question your mental sanity and seek professional help


I am not advocating the harvesting of old growth lumber..... reread my post..... I don't care if its FSC certified or reclaimed or somehow old growth. I am going to carefully think about how I use it. But thank you for your knee jerk reaction.

FWIW - there's not a lot of old growth left. At least where I live (SW Ohio). In 1917, Ohio did a survey and over 70% of the state had been cleared. You'll find some "old growth" in SE Ohio (in the mountains). Meaning the average age of a tree in Ohio is about 80 to 90 years old. At best.

I was at Smokey Mountain National Park about a month ago. The area was heavily harvested prior to becoming a national park. They estimate less than 25% of the park is old growth - only because that part of the forest was inaccessible (thank god). The park is over 800 Square Miles. NPS states that most of the trees in the park are about 70 years old.

So nearly all of the lumber we get here is new growth.

I always like pretentious people who run off wildly and make assumptions.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: old growth redwood 60th anniversary Telecaster
Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2011 9:19 pm
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 807
Location: Just East of Event Horizon
phansford wrote:
I always like pretentious people who run off wildly and make assumptions.

Upon your request, I have re-read your initial post which makes the indefensible assertion that "Sustainability is more than just whether the source for a material is sustainable..;” stating that “Sustainability is how the resource is used."

Your position is clear, and is devoid of any assumptions on my part.

In your second post, you quickly change the subject to arguing against the use of a very renewable resource, “bamboo,” so as to obfuscate and deflect from your ridiculous assertions regarding your concept of “sustainability” and old growth forests.

You then proceed to make silly remarks like:

phansford wrote:
“ …bamboo is the primary food source for Pandas. So taking a food source of endangered species for your new floor seems like a grand idea. Thank you for being sustainable.”

I doubt that you are teachable, but I will try.

Pandas have a very limited habitat in the mountains of China. No bamboo is harvested from these mountainous areas for use as flooring materials.

You then continue this nonsense by stating:

phansford wrote:
"Also - if everyone specified bamboo for their floors tomorrow, we would deplete the entire world supply. It’s been mathematically proven. That seems real sustainable."

What percentage of the world's flooring is made from the cultivated and highly renewable resource, bamboo? Maybe 5%??? I feel sorry for you, if you are sitting around mathematically proving that "if everyone specified bamboo for their floors, the entire world supply would be depleted.” You are wasting your time mathematically proving an absolute absurdity.

But this is most likely just another attempt on your part to further obfuscate, deflect and distort the issue under discussion through analogy, with further delusion, disinformation and digression, while failing to address your warped view of what constitutes “sustainability” of old growth, endangered forests.

Next you move on to discuss “Light bulbs” and transportation costs... continuing to avoid your warped view of what constitutes “sustainability” of old growth, endangered forests.

In your last post, above, you state:

phansford wrote:
I am not advocating the harvesting of old growth lumber..... I don't care if its FSC certified or reclaimed or somehow old growth. I am going to carefully think about how I use it. But thank you for your knee jerk reaction.

In your last post, you finally admit that you basically could care less about whether the lumber that you use in construction is from an endangered old growth forest. You justify this indefensible position by stating at you “will carefully think about how I use it.” You then thank me for my “knee jerk reaction” to your radically warped statements.

Unfortunately, knee jerk reactions to the outrageous warped statements of a nihilistic, anti-environmental zealot, are often required in order to refute any speculation that the premise of such radical views constitute any form of acceptable “conventional wisdom”.

Your views, sir, on what constitutes “sustainability,” are simply unacceptable, and no degree of rationalization or obfuscation will change that. For that reason, my knee jerk opposition to your remarks is in order.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: old growth redwood 60th anniversary Telecaster
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 5:37 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:29 pm
Posts: 614
Location: SW Ohio
I glad you want to hang your argument and vilify me on one glib comment.

Okay..... let’s try this one more time, because the amazing part of this is we both think sustainability is important. I just feel that sustainability is more complex then just ensuring the source of the material is sustainable. It is far more than that..... and if you understand the concept of building to LEED standards, you’d better understand.

We both agree that sustainability starts with the harvest of the material and the material should be renewable. Neither of us wants to harvest old-growth forests. No matter what you think. And trees - no matter what you think - is a renewable resource.

If I were to rank sustainable sources of wood it would be as such:

1. FSC-certified lumber

2. New growth lumber. Only because the quantity of reclaimed material is very low AND typically can’t be reused for normal construction.

3. Reclaimed/recycled material. The truth of the matter - and I know from experience - most lumber we harvest out of an abandon building is not suitable for reuse in new construction. Its too small and could have other serious issues - such as lead paint contamination. Bridges, barns, and old mills will provide some heavy timbers for us. If I were to design a heavy-timber building, I would want to use reclaimed material - or use a engineered product such as a glu-lam rather than newly harvested materials.

Let’s just talk about the two Telecasters using reclaimed lumber. Let’s assume all of the redwood is coming from the Brown’s Canyon bridge.

Reclaiming and re-using this material is certainly “green” and using it for the body material of a musical instrument seems a good use. No new lumber was used, but we get the density and resonance of the old growth redwood. But to me - that’s just being “green” - we need to look at what happens to the material once is leaves its current position on the bridge.

For the manufacture of these Telecasters to be sustainable - as defined by professionals such as myself - we are going to want to certify some other things along the way from the Brown’s Canyon bridge and your local Fender dealer.

First - was any of the material contaminated in past life. Trains are dirty and drip gas, oil and other contaminates. Railroad ties are laden with creosote. If the material was every painted or stained, was it with lead-based or oil-based products. (I can pretty much guarantee that barn in Indiana has lead paint on it. Luckily the timber frame was probable never finished.). So we need to ensure that we are using material that has been contaminated.

Second - the material needs to be milled down to suitable blanks before it is shipped. This needs to be done locally..... somewhere in Sonoma County where the bridge was located. (I think it was in Sonoma County). Otherwise - shipping these timbers to southern California is be milled is going to create a lot of embedded energy. The cost in fuel consumption and fuel emissions will be greater for shipping large timber than 500 24” x 24” inch blanks.

Once the material has reached the Fender facilities in Corona/Fullerton, we need to talk about what happens in the shop and how the blanks are milled into Tele bodies. Sealers, epoxys, paints and stains all need to be no-VOC or low-VOC. This typically will mean any sealer is water-based and the area where it is applied is properly ventilated. Because being sustainable includes the health of the people involved in the manufacture of the item and the end user.

If these guitars are truly going to be sustainable, then the maple used for the necks need to be either reclaimed or FSC-certified.

The metals for the frets, bridge, strings, tuners, and so on is already “sustainable”. The use of recycled metals is inherent in the manufacture of steel. Cooper wiring would need to be from reclaimed material. Brass can be reclaimed/recycled. This can get down to the magnets in the pick-ups.

Now the guitar is made and ready for shipment. If you want to really be sustainable, shipping would only occur within a 500 mile radius of the Fender shop. This is the distance (and one of many criteria) architects use to determine if a material or product can be considered “sustainable”. We want to limit the embedded energy and fuel emissions. (LEED provides a point system.... points are awarded if products are shipped less than 500 miles to the project site)

So in reality - if we really want to discuss sustainability. The Redwood Teles would only be sold in the western part of the country and the Pine Teles only in the midwest and east. Furthermore, the manufacture of the Pine Teles would need to be within 500 miles of the donor barn.

This is being sustainable...... its not just where you get the material. That’s only the start. That's my point. Its how the material is treated and used after it leaves its source point - whether its a railroad bridge in northern California, a barn in Indiana, or an FSC-certified forest. If I use a 1 x 6 for lap siding.... then slop an oil-based primer and high VOC paint, I have defeated the purpose of being sustainable. Installing and ripping out bamboo flooring every year certainly is not sustainable. The embedded energy defeats the purpose. (You know why bamboo only constituents 5% of the flooring right now... because architects and contractors have created a backlash against the manufacturers and are not specifying it. So let me be as clear as I can.... Bamboo is not a sustainable building material if it is used for flooring)

I hope this clarifies what sustainability really is......... at least to most architects. If you think its only about the source, the we can agree to disagree.


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: old growth redwood 60th anniversary Telecaster
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:37 am
Offline
Hobbyist
Hobbyist

Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:26 am
Posts: 2
Well clearly something in the "old growth telecaster" is not 'sustainable'. There is a pun here but I will refrain, I mean why would it just vanish off the Fender website. Is it now the 'Bermuda Triangle Tele' made from exclusive Old Growth Atlantis Pine/Redwood/Ash submerged for centuries?


Top
Profile
Post subject: Re: old growth redwood 60th anniversary Telecaster
Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:53 am
Offline
Aspiring Musician
Aspiring Musician

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:29 pm
Posts: 614
Location: SW Ohio
gaff323 wrote:
Well clearly something in the "old growth telecaster" is not 'sustainable'. There is a pun here but I will refrain, I mean why would it just vanish off the Fender website. Is it now the 'Bermuda Triangle Tele' made from exclusive Old Growth Atlantis Pine/Redwood/Ash submerged for centuries?


:lol: I was thinking Fender could do a LEED Tele with great sustainability :lol:


Top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours

Fender Play Winter Sale 2020

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: