Username: Password:

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - woodrat

Pages: 1 [2]
16
General Discussion / Re: WG26 variations
« on: March 21, 2016, 08:57:33 PM »
This "new" WG26s clearly has dark rosewood showing inside the back & sides. I even had to check if the grain pattern on the inside matched the outside!... nope. Hefty feeling body tho, and the maple/shell binding & trim is very nice. The cedar top has straight med. wide grain, while the "old" WG26s (? ser#) had highly figured cedar top ,scalloped braces, & less sound projection.  Since the ser. # of the "new" WG26s begins with 1106, I assume manufacture date as June 2011, relatively low sequence digits 0768, so perhaps an older body with new neck?  Or maybe different factories?  The similarities to the neck construction of my recent WP11 (2015) are striking, and the label says made in China (not Indonesia as the R320swr). Also, I can't recall seeing a Washburn before with tapered (non-scalloped) braces.  so, I'm really liking this WG26... plays nicely and sounds great.

17
General Discussion / WG26 variations
« on: March 20, 2016, 07:32:15 PM »
I recently purchased a second WG26s.  This new guitar (C11060768) shows rosewood inside, in contrast to the mahogany showing inside my first WG26s & WGO26s. (A paper-thin rosewood exterior layer covers WGO's mostly mahogany body-- resulting in a   woody "mahogany" sound).  The neck on the new WG26s shows a different scarf joint at the peghead, rather than under the 2nd fret. Neck is slightly beefier as well, (more similar to neck features of WP11sns parlor).  "New" WG26s' bracing  tapered rather than scalloped, sound like rosewood guitars I've played.  Tight and crisp, just plain loud.  Fit & finish are flawless and shell trim & maple binding very classy.
   So, is this a "new" neck? alternative top bracing? different factory? What's with the rosewood interior lam body wood?

18
Announcements & News / Re: production numbers for acoustic guitars
« on: November 24, 2015, 07:27:12 PM »
USMC responded in an email that the total production of WGO26s models was 1800. Also I'm told First two digits of ser . no. = yr of manf., next two digits = month; following digits = total factory output -- all models --  cumulative for that year-to-date.  (but, the ser. nos. of my collection reveal later "dates" earlier in sequence numbers.... go figure.)  I'd love to see the production numbers for the acoustics in the WMJ and WG models.  I suspect that fewer of these nice Chinese made Washburns exist than fear of a flood of "knockoffs" might have led one to expect... I'm very fond of all my Washburns, especially my WGO, most recently a WJ45s, and my trusty WMJ21.  Not so much my R321swr, soundwise. recently looking at a WG26S again....as pretty as any guitar made.

19
Announcements & News / production numbers for acoustic guitars
« on: November 19, 2015, 02:37:50 PM »
I have a WGO26s #110708165. tag dated: 11-07-14. I understand this guitar was manufactured July 14, 2011. Am I correct that 8,165 represents the run sequence for this model? Approximately how many WGO models were produced altogether?

20
Folks!  Now that I've had my WGO26s for a while I've got several nicks on the edge of the top...(wacked by screen-door, dropped items, etc).  Absence of binding and soft cedar top make this model vulnerable to injury!)  I tell myself this is just character building, as the tone is good as ever.  I have continued to tweak the setup, replacing the nuts with un-cut bone which I  optimize for maximum string spacing, removing any fretboard "hump" at the 14th fret, and getting the action low as possible.  The bound fretboard on the WMJ21s has the sleekest feel of all, nearly effortless fretting.  I have added an undersaddle p/u to the 21 without any notable deterioration in the acoustic quality.  Yikes! I havenl't bought a guitar in nearly a year!  The WMJ21s is still my fav player, but the WGO hae slightly more bass and volume.... just a tad....but doesn't feel as comfortable to play as the WMJ.

21
I agree with the benefits of solid top/ lam back & sides configuration -- best of both worlds and not so costly.  Even Martin used lam back & sides on my D2832.  Let me suggest another great sounding guitar with cedar top, lam mahogany B&S:  Kapok SG200.  Similar size to mini-jumbo Washies, with solid cedar top, fantastic projection, deep toned  (just plain loud), rosewood binding & soundhole trim.  Priced under $200.  Made by Pearl River piano company in China, found on ebay.  My most recent Washie is a WGO26s.... plain but elegant, solid cedar top, little bling (no binding on top or neck).  A bit deeper tone than the WMJ21s (slightly larger body).  Very nice  Then consider the R320SWRK: all solid wood, but small size and small sound, more money.  for my taste the WMJ21s is "just right."

WMJ21s, WGO26s,  WG15s, Kapok SG200, R320swrk, D18, D2832, ML50sc, others....

22
Guitar Care, Repair, Modification & Lutherie / Re: Bridge Glue
« on: February 10, 2014, 01:51:40 PM »
I left my WMJ21s in the hot afternoon sun last summer and was devastated to notice that the bridge had begun to pull up (gap ~ 0.12").  I was able to work a sufficient amount of Gorilla glue into the gap (using a thin blade knife and strips of business card).  This glue expands as it sets, and my intention was to have it push further into the gap.  I then clamped the bridge down thru the sound hole using two large C-clamps against the bridge plate on the inside of the top.  Let it set up for 24 hrs.  (You May have to chase out the bridge pin holes if glue squeeze narrows them.)  I made this repair last July and it has held 6 months without issue.  The tone and action  are good as new.  I'm very fond of my WMJ21s and now more careful not to leave it in the sun!

23
just noticed this thread.  I too have a WG15s among other Washies. Actually, my WG15s is similar in trim & dimension to my WG26s  which has cedar over rosewood.  The WG15 has more volume and punch, but my particular WG26 has the most highly figured (cedar) top I've ever seen -- very complex grain, swirls, lots of shimmer & wavey bursts.  For a player, tho, my goto is a WMJ21s, which is also cedar over rosewood with a fine balanced sound, sweet and mellow, long sustain. The bodies of the WMJ and WG Washies are similar in shape with the WG having a more rounded lower bout, and 1/2" deeper body.  Necks are similar, but the additional binding on the WG fingerboard makes the overall width at the nut a tad wider.  I utilize this "extra" width to move the string spacing out by recutting the nut.  This wouldn't seem to be much change, but my experience is that fingerpicking is really facilitated.  Anyway I think everyone should have a set of  nut files and use them on everything.  The Washie acoustics are generally well designed and built,  arrive playable, but setting up the action to personal preferences, string choices, etc, optimize these acoustics' sound potential.  I'm amazed how inexpensive these Washies are, and grateful to have several. I might have my wmj21 buried with me, just in case you CAN take something with you~~

24
General Discussion / Re: R320SWR vs R320SWRK
« on: September 22, 2013, 03:31:16 AM »
WG15s is spruce over mahogany... sounds a bit louder and crisper than the cedar tops, but similar in feel.  I have widened the string spacing at the nut on all my guitars (recut the 1st string groove and file the 6th groove, adjust others, to gain about 1/16" additional spacing)  Also lowering all the strings at the nut (got some handy nut files) and adjusting the bridge saddle height and neck tension rod for smooth fretting and light, low action.  Nice.  The Washie necks are pretty good as delivered, but especially those with multiple layered fingerboard binding  (eg WG26s, WG15s) have enough "un-used" width to allow more comfortable string spacing, especially conducive to fingerpicking.  (Martin necks are too narrow for my stubby fingers!

25
General Discussion / Re: R320SWR vs R320SWRK
« on: August 21, 2013, 01:18:53 AM »
Thanks for info. I'll be glad to get a case.  I've wanted a parlor sized guitar for quite a while (fingerpicking ragtime & blues) then fell for an R320SWRK online last week, expecting arrival at weeks' end.  Currently owning 3 Washie acoustics: WG26s, WG15s, and not least, a WMJ21s-- my default player.   good instruments for the very modest cost,  comfortable  neck & action, well crafted, solid-topped, tastefully trimmed....  Not too hard to look at either.  I'm a fan of the cedar tops.
   

26
General Discussion / R320SWR vs R320SWRK
« on: August 20, 2013, 03:47:11 AM »
What's the "K" and the end of model designation signify?  What's the difference between "SWR" and "SWRK"??

Pages: 1 [2]