Occasionally I’ve seen rosewood flutes go by, but they are rare and I wonder why there aren’t more of them.
I mean rosewood proper, the stuff guitar back and sides are sometimes made from.
Is there are reason why rosewood flutes aren’t more common?
What “rosewood”, Jim? Were they really?
Antiques dealers, even specialist instrument dealers, often call what we know as “cocus” “rosewood” because it looks much the same as other rosewoods. Doesn’t mean said flutes weren’t actually cocus! But in any case “rosewood” as a term is not very specific - it was/is a cabinet makers’ and timber merchants’ term before it was/is a botanical one. Plenty of info online, including stuff about properties of each species, if you hunt around.
Just for starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosewood
I was thinking about Brazilian rosewood (sometimes known as Rio Rosewood). Dalbergia nigra, it’s called botanically.
Also East Indian (Rosewood (Dalbergia latifolia). Both are widely used for guitar back and sides, I think especially Brazilian rosewood. I’ve played many such guitars.
I believe these are sometimes, but relatively rarely, used as flutewoods by modern makers. I’ve played such flutes. My questions pertain to these Rosewoods. Why aren’t they used more? If someone is skeptical that this wood is ever used for flutes,
the question survives. Why aren’t they used more?
Brazilian rosewood is hard to come by legally and is expensive. Up-charge to use (presumably legal) Brazilian in guitars is often $1,500 - $3,000).
“In the world of acoustic guitars, perhaps no other tonewood holds the same respect and downright mystique as Brazilian Rosewood (Dalbergia nigra). Yet paradoxically, the wood has been virtually loved to death: since 1992, it’s been on the CITES Appendix I, the most restrictive category of endangered species, (even finished products may not cross international borders).”
East Indian Rosewood:
“Sustainability: This wood species is not listed in the CITES Appendices, but is on the IUCN Red List. It is listed as vulnerable due to a population reduction of over 20% in the past three generations, caused by a decline in its natural range, and exploitation.”
“East Indian Rosewood can be difficult to work with tools because of its interlocked grain and density. The wood can sometimes contain chalky deposits that will rapidly dull cutting edges. Glues and finishes well, though color from the wood’s natural resins can inadvertently bleed onto surrounding surfaces when applying a finish, so care must be taken on the initial seal coats.”
They are also sensitizers, with the reaction most commonly skin irritation. But then, so is African Blackwood, though less than cocobolo. Here’s a chart, although data is incomplete:
http://www.wood-database.com/wood-articles/wood-allergies-and-toxicity/
The woods are probably also used less than others we’re used to, as there are other choices that seem better liked by flutemakers and their customers. This might be due to appearance, cost, workability & shrinkage, and personal preference.
I used to make flutes out of Honduras Rosewood until I became allergic to the dusts. Was not a bad flute wood. Kingwood was another one that was nice - but then irritating to the skin. All the others I tried seemed softer and punky. I never tried Brazilian due to the cost and availability.
I last used Indian rosewood about 30 years ago when I was a cabinet / furniture maker - then it was only available in the Uk in small pieces and veneers. These days I wouldn’t use any rainforest timber as we’re f–king up the planet fast enough without me adding to the problem.
I have a (very old) Olwell rosewood flute; I think it’s probably Brazilian. I’ve ordered a keyed version in rosewood, not sure what kind that will be. I’ve had one from Honduran rosewood, a couple from cocobolo. They’re out there, you just have to look in the right places or ask the right questions.
I have a few tens of pounds of Cambodian rosewood, which is both lovely and great to turn. The main drawback is that the color and grain both vary all over creation, so it’s difficult to match one piece to another.
The often denigrated flutes made by East Indian Mfg. are made of Sheesham Wood, Dalbergia Sissoo, a true rosewood. It’s non-CITES, grown sustainably on government plantations, and now commercially referred to as Indian Rosewood. I don’t like it. It is nothing like the Dalbergia Latifolia I worked with thirty years ago.
Bob
i have, and had, rosewood flutes over the years, it’s my favorite wood, i love the look, lightness, and tone which i find more focused the boxwood, also it’s less sensitive to moisture then boxwood.
I’ve seen some antique flutes made of rosewood, on average they seems to have more cracks then cocuswood flutes of about the same age. Might be a coincidence as I haven’t seen enough to make it a scientific observation, but it does suggest that rosewood is a bit more likely to crack. (with antique i mean more than 100 years old, not 10 or 30…)
For clarity’s sake I would prefer not to use the catchall name ‘rosewood’. Cocobolo is a ‘rosewood’, Dalbergia Retusa, Kingwood is a ‘rosewood’, Dalbergia Cearensis,Brazilian ‘rosewood’ is Dalbergia Nigra, the highly perfumed almost dark purple wood from India that I knew as East Indian ‘Rosewood’, beautiful but sometimes coarse grained is Dalbergia Latifolia. So is Sheesham Wood, a dull finishing, light, chocolate brown wood from India sometimes falsely labelled ‘cocus’ a ‘rosewood’,Dalbergia Sissoo. It’s a very large family with colors and characteristics all over the map. ‘Rosewood’, without a scientific name is meaningless. . .
Bob
Quite.
Kindly note the third message in this thread.
the highly perfumed almost dark purple wood from India that I knew as East Indian ‘Rosewood’, beautiful but sometimes coarse grained is Dalbergia Latifolia
Over here in the UK Dalbergia Latifolia is known as Indian Rosewood if it comes from India.
Or if it comes from Indonesia it’s known as East Indies Rosewood or Sonokeling Rosewood - it’s the same tree as Indian rosewood but is a darker and heavier wood due to different growth conditions.
‘Rosewood’, without a scientific name is meaningless. . .
Ouch !
My 1st response point, pretty much.
Here’s a few, then:
http://www.wood-database.com/?s=rosewood
We can proceed now, if there’s anywhere to go.
Kevin, I think I can explain why I think it is problematic to proceed, but you will have to indulge me since my reasons are somewhat verbose.
You are well aware that it is difficult to identify wood without a microscopic examination. Ordinarily we rely on a trusted chain of custody from harvest and correct botanical identification to manufacture. In the absence of that or the examination of the piece in question microscopically. the identification of wood is mostly putative.
Thirty-five years ago I took my turn at making flutes. Primarily cylindrical bore ‘folk’ flutes in the keys of F and G. I sold them at festivals to ‘free spirits’ (hippies). Had I made the intuitive leap Doug Tipple made with regards to the ‘wedge’, I might well still be doing something in that area. (What makes this more curious in retrospect is the fact that I had met Raoul Fajardo and discussed his invention!).
I still have on hand several flutes in cocobolo from that time. They are so dark now that they are indistinguishable from several antique flutes I have which are putatively made of cocus. I made flutes from Dalbergia Latifolia, Macassar Ebony, Dalbergia Nigra (pre-CITES), Honduran Rosewood (Dalbergia Stevonsii) and Padouk. I ‘knew’ what those woods were by the assertion of my supplier. Even here I think the operative word is ‘putative’.
I can speak about the finishing and machineability of these woods, but I cannot speak to their long-term suitability in terms of stability
since I lost touch with many of their owners. In short I’m not sure if there is anywhere to go from here.
Bob
Somehow, Jim will find a way.
