"Sinker" on Sigs

Ok, I'll ask. This has been a pretty hot debate elsewhere so it's probably time to go right to the source and ask. Many guys are bummed to find out the "sinker" necks they have on both PS and Core Sigs are not what is generally accepted in the industry as "sinker."

I realize Paul put out a video that clarified PRS sinker vs. river/lake sinker. Just seems that, possibly with the popularity of river loggers on TV:), more than a few guys bought into Sigs because of the cool factor of 200+ year old growth being recovered and used in a killer guitar.

Now, we realize that isn't the case, and the Sigs still rock but have we lost some of the cool?

Define cool?

Given that your Siggy is for sale, I'm guessing your answer is "yes." :(

I liked mine when I thought the neck was "Sinker" mahogany (by typical industry definition of the word). I like it just as well now; knowing that it is just regular old (but heavier than usual) mahogany.

Ha, no, my Sig is honestly for sale because I got the 2Tek Thorn bug the Sig will cover that. I'll sell my Schroeder just as I would my Sig but it isn't worth what the Sig is. There is a 50/50 shot that the Sig stays and the Schroeder goes, I don't care either way.

I posted because a few are saying "what would happen if this were on the PRS owned forum" why speculate. Just post it right?

As for me, yeah was honestly bummed, recovered sinker was a neat novelty. Does it change my guitar? Obviously not.

Here is Paul's video.

http://www.prsguitars.com/index.php/blo ... r_mahogany

I am a little confused. The video suggests the "sinker" term as generally used is new, but I heard about sunken wood being used in guitars approximately ten years ago and I assume the concept was not new then. Is the term "sinker" itself that new?

Also, had someone said "sinker" to me, I would immediately have guessed it meant recovered wood. Why would that have not occured to them?

He sounds a little exasperated over the issue. Perhaps to Paul and the guys at PRS concepts like sunken mahogany are minutia, like washers around sweet switches, and they just didn't make the connection.

I'm speaking in general terms here. I am pointing no fingers, taking no swipes, engaging in no nonsense of any kind. I respect myself, my fellow members here, the PRS company, and music & guitars in general far too much to engage in such behaviour.

I've been following this topic at the other forum, and what I take away from it is this: It never ceases to amaze me how some people seem to get upset/irate/troubled over such relatively small things. In my opinion, that's what has happened in this case.

My personal take on this subject is that it's another example of a mountain being made out of a molehill. Apparently, there was enough of an 'issue' made about the term 'sinker' that Paul Reed Smith himself took the time and made the effort to address it. He was concerned and wanted to set the record straight. He stated his position, explained the origin of the term as it pertains to his company, and that's the end of it. I know of no effort whatsoever on the part of anyone to intentionally con or mislead or misrepresent anything to anybody, be they consumers, writers, or whomever.

Again, IMO, this topic says far more about the society we live in and the ways in which it has changed than it does about what a guitar company chooses to call the wood it uses.

Today, 'sinker mahogany', tomorrow, perhaps 'Korina'. That's an invented name too, thought up by some folks at Gibson a long time ago. Why? Because they didn't like the name 'African Limba'. Their wood, their guitar, their choice. They came up with the name 'Korina' and people ended up really liking guitars made out of it. Why? Because of the great sound.

Then, there's the age-old matter of 'tremelo'. Guitars don't have tremelos, unless they have some very unique electronics built into them. The correct term for the guitar hardware commonly known as a whammy bar, or Floyd, or what have you, is vibrato. Yet, guitars with some sort of mechanical device used to raise and lower the pitch of the strings have been referred to as having a 'tremelo' for many, many years. It is technically incorrect, but so what? The name stuck. Lots of people dig guitars with one. Why? Again, because they can sound great! Does the almost universal acceptance of the incorrect term indicate some sort of conscious decision on the part of builders to mislead the public? Not by my standards.

In the end, what difference does it make whether the wood is called 'sinker' by Paul's definition, or someone else's? To anyone who feels misled, duped, etc., I would ask the following: How does the guitar sound? Do you like it? Do you LOVE it? If the answer to any of those questions is yes, then what else matters? If a person is truly upset over a matter such as this, then my advice to them would be that with the next guitar they buy, they should let their displeasure be known by going with another brand.

Again, if anyone has taken offense with what I have said here, please go back and reread the first paragraph of my post. After that, play the guitar(s) you have, enjoy every moment with them, and quit being so concerned with terminology. Listen, touch, experience, enjoy, and make up your own mind based on that input. THAT is what's 'cool'!

Goldtop

Goldtop, you put it very succinctly and I agree with everything you said.

The term "sinker" is relatively new. But the use of reclaimed sunken wood is not.

I have a Tacoma EK-36C. The top is made from reclaimed "sunken" Cedar.

Here is Tacoma's description of the wood, from some 10-15 year ago:

Quote:

---

The Cedar top on this guitar came from a tree in Washington's Clearwater-Salmon River area. This tree was salvaged from a swampy flat about ten miles inland from the coast. It had been totally submerged for over 600 years. We know this because it had a 600-year-old tree growing on top of it. The tree was over 2000 years old when it fell. It had a slight left-handed twist in the trunk, which meant it was non-phototropic, grew more slowly, and packed its growth tightly.

---

PRSH has given his explanation of what the wood is. You can either accept that, or not. Your choice...

That's mt $0.02...


Jamie

I love my Siggy Ltd. I sounds great! The sinker neck did not dictate my purchase decision. It was getting the 408s!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMintzer

PRSH has given his explanation of what the wood is. You can either accept that, or not. Your choice...

---

It would have been better if the explanation had come up front with the PS 100 Sig run, not after the 400 Ltds. I factored the reclaimed wood definition (and therefore the rarity/extra price) into my cost/benefit decision when buying my two PS Sigs. Much as I love both the guitars, I do feel cheated to a certain degree...

I had no idea what "sinker" mahogany even was until I started shopping for a Sig Ltd. Once I read up on it, the potential history of the wood was very interesting to me. I can't say if true sinker wood would effect the sound or not. Never played any. A very brief search from my phone found a post about drying sinker wood dated in 2000. When the term first came about is beyond me. I did buy a Sig Ltd and traded it off, but parting with it had nothing to do with the type of wood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LSchefman

Goldtop, you put it very succinctly and I agree with everything you said.

---

Thank you very much LSchefman. I appreciate that.

Goldtop

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Twinfan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMintzer

PRSH has given his explanation of what the wood is. You can either accept that, or not. Your choice...

---

It would have been better if the explanation had come up front with the PS 100 Sig run, not after the 400 Ltds. I factored the reclaimed wood definition (and therefore the rarity/extra price) into my cost/benefit decision when buying my two PS Sigs. Much as I love both the guitars, I do feel cheated to a certain degree...

---

And that's the best way to put the "other" side of this without starting a big fight here. The term "sinker" did factor in on some purchases.

Thanks Buickrob. It was certainly a factor for me.

Like I said, I have no dog in this fight. I first heard about sinker wood about 12-15 years ago, and I have to admit, when I first heard about the PRS sinker mahogany, I assumed it was old water-logged lumber.

In my opinion, use of the word "sinker" to describe a mahogany neck was misleading. The guitar building industry commonly uses this term for a particular purpose—to describe wood that has been recovered from underwater. Moreover, the industry has touted “sinker” as having certain qualities that make it better than regular wood. PRS should have known that buyers and dealers would draw this conclusion. Whether the wood they used is in fact better than true “sinker” wood or the guitars are the best sounding guitars in the history of the word is irrelevant to the fact the PRS was irresponsible for using the word “sinker.”

I'd be interested in knowing which of the people who are touting their knowledge of what is, or is not, standard "industry" practice are actually qualified by training or experience to determine exactly what "by typical industry definition of the word" is.

To my mind, these accusations are unfounded and a bit obnoxious.

PRS clearly had no motivation whatsoever to mislead a soul. If they'd called it "private stock mahogany" they know darn well that people would still have been all over it, and no one would be complaining.

Just my two cents. Mods, if this post is against the rules, please delete it and let me know I've overstepped my bounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LSchefman

I'd be interested in knowing which of the people who are touting their knowledge of what is, or is not, standard "industry" practice are actually qualified by training or experience to determine exactly what "by typical industry definition of the word" is.

To my mind, these accusations are unfounded and a bit obnoxious.

PRS clearly had no motivation whatsoever to mislead a soul. If they'd called it "private stock mahogany" they know darn well that people would still have been all over it, and no one would be complaining.

Just my two cents. Mods, if this post is against the rules, please delete it and let me know I've overstepped my bounds.

---

But they did not call it Private Stock Mahogany which has no other meaning outside the PRS universe. Instead they called it "Sinker" which has a meaning in the wood andguitar industry in include wood that has been recovered from lakes and rivers. It is not unreasonable to forsee that people would conclude that the use of the word "sinker" in combination of mahogany means that wood was reclaimed from the water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ACE

But they did not call it Private Stock Mahogany which has no other meaning outside the PRS universe. Instead they called it "Sinker" which has a meaning in the wood andguitar industry in include wood that has been recovered from lakes and rivers. It is not unreasonable to forsee that people would conclude that the use of the word "sinker" in combination of mahogany means that wood was reclaimed from the water.

---

Ace, what I'd like to understand is why no one will state their qualifications and experience in the "wood and guitar industry" to have the background to render an opinion as to what a particular term's accepted industry meaning is.

If you're an experienced industry vet with training in forestry or whatever expert subject one needs to pontificate about this stuff, great. Maybe your opinion should be listened to.

If not, you're just another guy wearing a tin foil hat talking about how aliens built the Pyramids.

Here we go again. Get out of lawyer mode and google sinker mahogany. You will see why people thought it was something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buickrob

Here we go again. Get out of lawyer mode and google sinker mahogany. You will see why people thought it was something else.

---

If your assumption was that I'd see this thread and not express my opinion, you were wrong.

Let me know when the Internet becomes the authoritative source on industry practices or truth.