The prewar sound is VERY MUCH talked about and sought after 8n the world of Guitars. They are talking about Martin acoustics not Gibson though.

Chinese made guitars like blueridge use it as their main sales strategy, basing design and build off of 1930s and 40s Martins.

Electrics, notsomuch.

I think the “pre-war sound” in the generic sense is a bunch of hokum. If we take the “pre=war sound” to be that of a new instrumnt prior to WWII, no one knows what they sounded like. Recording technology wasn’t tha tgreat, and new instruments aged out in a few years. The sound of a pre-war instrument post war varied for all the ususal reasons. Note that a 1960s Gibson Mastertone flathead was a very well-made instrument. Those are now some 60 or so years old—far older than the 30s MTs played by first-gemeration bluegrass banjo heroes in the 1950s and 60s. I think the “pre-war sound,” for whatever instrument, is mostlly basd on age. Others will disagree. So t goes.

From a market price perspective, the pre-war Martin guitars and Gibson Loar mandolins always outpaced pre-war Gibson banjos during the second half of the 20th century. The pre-war Gibson banjos did however catch up in price fairly quickly at the start of the 21st century.

As far as the "pre war" sound , I somewhat agree w/ Bill . It's more of a price gauge than a consistent sound reality especially w/ banjos w/ so many variables . I pay close attention to demos , especially Ceres , & there have been a few "holy grails' " I was not impressed by .
Guitars are more of a consistent nature whereas an older Martin u pretty much know it's going to sound great !
B & G guitars are new to me but not the craftsmanship from Israel .

In 1979 when I was a Saga dealer , Dick Keldsen , Saga's owner , offered its dealers some Yuval guitars handcrafted in Israel , dreadnaught Martin copies .
I bought 2 w/ decent hard cases for $190 each , sold one & kept one I still have .
It's a beautiful guitar , solid rosewood & spruce , w/ the tag inside signed by its builder & I lightened up the top X bracing thru the sound hole . It's a barn burner !

Is it pre war sounding ? I don't know as I think it may never end over there .

I inherited 3 prewar guitars. They dont sound bad, but my 200 dollar epiphone I bought in the 90s plays better for me and sounds better for what I play.

I did play 100s of guitars to find that epiphone. The martins were my papi's.

It seems to me that in the guitar world, "pre-war sound" is most often used as a seller's term. I do occasionally her "vintage sound" used by players.
But "pre-war specs" is used a lot by players. Some are obsessive about the smallest details, sometimes to the point of madness.

Now there's a builder that calls themself the "Pre-War Guitar Company." One of their features is finish with various "distress" levels. Their heavy level looks awful. I haven't played any of their instruments, so I don't know whether or not they sound good.

I don't hear the term much in the mandolin world. Instead, I hear "traditional sound." But I don't know exactly what they mean by that. That's because from what I've been able to glean, most folks using the term are describing tonal characteristics that don't have much in common with those of an early 1920's Gibson F-5.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

" . . . it may never end over there."
I fear that you might be right about that.  

Around 2010 I bought 6 dreadnaught guitars.Siver Creeks and Flint hills.
I sold 4 and kept a mahogany and a rosewood.All solid woods with scalloped bracing and forward shifted X bracing.
Great sounding guitars that my guitar playing friends often compliment me on.
If a blueprint is closely followed the end product is predictable.
The blueprint doesn't know anything about wars.

"The blueprint doesn't know anything about wars . . ."

True. But war affected the supply chain, labor force, and available materials. And that affected the instruments.

And now there's a shortage of old growth lumber. Some species are nearly extinct. That's because of a different kind of war-- war against forests.

I'm not an acoustic engineer or banjo expert, but I tend to agree with Bill.

Is the post-war wood that much worse? Are the tone rings that much worse? If so, why?

Is wood from the pre-war era the only wood that's aged well enough to sound great? Surely that's a sliding window, with wood from subsequent decades slowly aging into similar great sound.

Have all of the great banjo makers died and not passed on their knowledge?

Have banjos gone backward while everything else has gone forward?

There's still plenty of good maple around. That's good for banjos.
Not much good for guitars, it's not used all that much.

Honduras mahogany is now heavily regulated, and old dense trees are scarce. There are substitutes. Does that affect banjos? Depends on how much one thinks neck or resonator wood affects a banjo's sound. Does it affect guitars? I think so.

Brazilian rosewood is gone unless you have deep pockets. That might not have an effect on banjos, but it does affect guitars. And while banjo players aren't concerned about the stiffness of a piece of spruce, it makes a great deal of difference on a guitar.  And really good, stiff spruce is harder to find than it used to be.

Wood does make a difference. Craftsmanship is equally important.

I don’t know. It’s all rather subjective? I have played a prewar D-28 that was truly amazing but whether it was from materials or craftsmanship or simply age I have no way to tell. Modern manufacturing techniques increase the consistency but maybe there is a price to pay for mass production. Martin production figures are through the roof now.

I was told I have excellent black spruce for violin building growing on my land.
All great wood didn't somehow disappear after WWII.
Wood is wood.
Selecting and storing good wood is an art.

My friend's D-28 with torrified top (early 2000s) sounds really good when compared to old Martins.

Bourgeois (sp) guitars use torrified wood,too.Much quicker results compared to sinking logs in sea water for 20 years.

I havent seen wood being that important compared to the skill of the maker. Taylor built a run of guitars made from pallet wood and proved they sounded the same as the premium woods using a Fourier spectrum.

Martin, in 2014, went back to building them like they did in the 40s after several decades of negativity.

Both companies realized its the design and luthier more than the wood.

Had to look it up …. https://blog.taylorguitars.com/buyers-resources/guitarology-solid-layered-laminate-acoustic-guitar-woods
“ That said, the tone of Taylor’s layered wood guitars will still improve as the guitar gets played in and ages, due to the solid wood top. And keep in mind that the quality of the materials is just one element of a guitar’s construction. There are plenty of other design strokes that contribute to a guitar’s sound profile, including the body geometry, internal bracing structure, and more. That’s why the nuances techniques of a skilled builder matter. In fact, Taylor Guitars co-founder Bob Taylor once built a guitar out of repurposed wood from a beat-up shipping pallet to prove that very point. (And yes, it sounded good.)”

Taylor Guitars have several interesting different top bracings .
taylorguitars.com/guitars/acou...s/bracing

Speaking ONLY regarding guitars -- NOT banjos -- I've come to think that for guitars, what is called "prewar" sound comes from:
- good materials
- good design
- careful assembly
- age combined with "playing time".

Good design and careful assembly can be done today just as in the past.

Good materials? As mentioned above, quality wood was easier to get "back then", and some is almost impossible to find today (Brazilian, although I believe that's a political issue rather than an environmental one). But there is still decent wood.

Age? Until recently, that is something that couldn't be "re-created". But the torrification processes of today may be [at least slightly] closing the gap on that today.

And I would assert that a guitar that's been played fairly regularly for 80 years is going to sound good, as well.

I sense that one of the reasons those old guitars can sound so good is because... well... they're OLD and have been played. And that 70-80 years from now the best of TODAY'S guitars will sound just as good -- though we won't be playing them !

Deforestization of the rainforests in Central and South America is a very real thing, whether the reasons are because of politics, trade manipulation, or to provide grazing land for hamburger meat.

Be prepared to kiss really dense ebony and Honduras mahogany goodbye not very many years from now.
Maple and spruce will last longer as long as the US and Canada maintain passable relations.

Maine doesn't need Canada for maple,spruce,poplar,birch or walnut.

Could they avoid the import restrictions on exotic wood if they get it from a jungle instead of the rainforest?

A friend of mine plays a maple dreadnaught.Pops like a rosewood.

We don't see many maple flat tops. Players just haven't had much interest in the idea.

Gibson has made them from time to time, some of them quite good, others not. The J-185 was/is[?] probably their best maple  model, along with a few maple J-45's built during WWII. Some of the 30's Century of Progress guitars were quite good, but others were awful.

Martin built around 900 maple guitars during the 1980s and 90s, then quit, probably due to lack of interest. They didn't use any color to speak of in the finish, and they had a rather bleak appearance. Perhaps if they had finished them in a warmer color, it might have helped.

Martin also experimented with cherry some years ago, but there was little interest in them.
While maple and cherry are both viable tone woods, guitarists seem pretty stubborn about sticking to mahogany and rosewood. 

I have a Martin made with cherry back and sides. And the sitka top is supposedly "diaper wood" because the logs were destined as pulp, before they were rescued. The thing sounds totally great, but of course not very traditional looking.

I know when I bought my Martin (on the boss's dime!) I must have played over a dozen examples until I found the right one. Kept telling the sales person to bring more up from the cellar. One chord was all it took to make the decision - like an orchestra it sounded! So there is variation from instrument to instrument, even for Martin. That was 25 yrs ago and it sounds better than ever. Pre-war? Dunno, never played a pre-war guitar or banjo. Got a fiddle thats from 1879, but its just OK, when it gets warmed up. Got a 12 yr old fiddle I bought at the workshop in China which has a nice tone, just doesn't project all that well, good for recording, not live performance. I believe each instrument is a unique creation unto itself, more so with crafted ones rather then mass produced. Even then ...

Blathering stopped.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wrench13

I know when I bought my Martin (on the boss's dime!) I must have played over a dozen examples until I found the right one. Kept telling the sales person to bring more up from the cellar. One chord was all it took to make the decision - like an orchestra it sounded! So there is variation from instrument to instrument, even for Martin. That was 25 yrs ago and it sounds better than ever. Pre-war? Dunno, never played a pre-war guitar or banjo. Got a fiddle thats from 1879, but its just OK, when it gets warmed up. Got a 12 yr old fiddle I bought at the workshop in China which has a nice tone, just doesn't project all that well, good for recording, not live performance. I believe each instrument is a unique creation unto itself, more so with crafted ones rather then mass produced. Even then ...

Blathering stopped.

---

not blathering ,   you're right , they are unique , some in small ways , some in large ways 

Guitarists have always had mahogany and rosewood to choose from.
If those woods become unavailable fine guitar making won't die.
I'm glad my friend's maple dread isn't a dud.