As you know, I'm working on an update for the Aria Pro specs(it never ends
).
The most difficult part is proofing the specs over several catalogs and years. Now add the fun of having both a domestic and an export market and things get funny.
Oh, and don't forget translating japanese, which ain't all that easy for me. I know some of it but I don't read it fluently.
Example, I spent about an hour just trying to figure out the TS-400, looking through several catalogs from many years(1979-1982), translating, cross-checking, making mental notes.
Then came the snafu that made me hit the wall(almost literally). The specs between japanese catalogs and american catalogs doesn't match.
The non-transisiton models of the TS-400 are listed as a sycamore/maple lamination in american catalogs, while japanese catalogs lists them as chestnut/maple.
The transition model is listed as hardwood/maple, and both chestnut and sycamore are hardwoods, so the wood specs probably were the same during the entire production run.
Anyway, this doesn't make sense to me, so I just let it go, stepped away for a couple of days. I'm back at it now, thinking about it, researching wood...
But I still need your help, what is your theory about this wood issue?
I strongly doubt that they used two different body woods depending on which market they were aiming for, that doesn't make sense at all.
I've also not seen any evidence of any discrepancies between domestic and export in other models, apart from the FS/SH naming and different headstock shape for the Gibson copies.
My theory, is that it is a translating boo-boo in the american catalogs, and that all TS-400's are chestnut/maple.
But I cannot for the life of me understand how you could make such a massive mistake, sycamore & chestnut doesn't look anything alike in japanese writing.
I've been looking at wood grains and chestnut matches the look of the TS the best, imho.
Anyway, any thoughts guys?