Martin Owners

Comment

Comment by Ginger on January 20, 2011 at 12:58pm

I'm almost afraid to step into this debate because everyone has such strong feelings on it & everyone naturally believes they're right. If they didn't, they'd change their minds...that's how it works.

Anyone that's gone thru' my pix here, knows that in this house there's a vintage guitar, but it's one that most would turn their noses up at. A Framus. I personally love it! It's maple with European spruce top I think. We also have a Martin D15, all mahogany guitar. A wonderful sounding little guitar. Then I have a Martin D18 - outstanding & getting better every month I swear! I also have a Guild GAD50, Brazilian Rosewood & Sitka spruce top. This guitar rivals the D15. And I have a Martin D12X1, the guitar everyone loves to hate. It's a terrific guitar. I know those who want to hate them don't want to hear that, but it's a fact, like it or not. Would it out-perform a Martin D 12-28 12? Not likely! But then it didn't cost $3,149.00 either.

It's a natural assumption that the older a guitar gets, the better it sounds because that's a correct assumption.  But to assume that because a guitar isn't the highest end tonal woods means it's a piece of crap, is a wrong assumption.

I think hearing older guitars makes us believe that they sound that way because they were built better. That might apply to some but certainly not all. If you think about that for any time at all, you'll come to the conclusion that's not necessarily true.Like the Martin employee said.

They sound better because the wood is saturated with sound...building a 'new vintage' is not going to give you that no matter what they call it. But like my grandfather used to say, a fool & his money are soon parted. =)

Comment by Edward Sparks on January 20, 2011 at 12:17pm

Great points Michael!  I especially like the Martin employee quote!  I don't look at Martins as being "Pre-war" anymore because those are only going to be bought by people who have a LOT of disposable income or by a collector who is going to lock it in a safe somewhere until it reaches "full market potential"...makes me want to throw up! They say that Steve Stills started a lot of this vintage instrument movement because he didn't just want a Martin back in the 70's at the height of their popularity, he was a vintage one because he said they were better...but then HE was (is) a superstar who could afford something rare! There is a story that he personally outbid a Japanese buyer at an auction for a Pre-was D45 because he heard that the Japanese buyer was going to take it home and dissect it (literally) to copy it!  You know what, that is just scary enough to be believable!  It was rumored that he paid just under a hundred grand for it, but he won!  I also remember a story from a reputable source that of the 90 some D-45's made Pre-war, that he owned at least half of the remaining ones! Again, believable...He has the big bucks to deal with...I have not forgiven Martin since they began installing truss rods...good for them since it will reduce warranty repairs, but isn't the one of the first things Norlin did when they bought Gibson...they began to look at ways to cut back on warranty repairs by making the tops thicker and beefing up the bracing!  When you pout yourself before the customer and your customer are big spenders it eventually bites you in the #^%&!  hasn't that been proven?  Of courser Martin is going to defend the truss rods, of courser they are going to start building guitars using alternative woods, of course they are going to call plastic counter top material with a picture of wood on it "HPL"...it expands their market.  I thinks it's great that they have offerings beyond their "standard" series so more of us can afford a Martin, but don't talk down to us!  When it comes to sound wood is not wood, how you assemble it is going to make a difference.  I love how both Gibson and Martin are essentially competing against themselves by way of people wanting their vintage guitars instead of a new one!  But isn't it funny that they extol on all these new changes (CNC necks are more consistent...ARRRGH! ) and then turn around and offer current models made in the "old way" with hide glue, nitro finish, (Gibson calls it their line "True Vintage") using the best woods, like ebony, Adirondack spruce, Brazilian rosewood, etc.,etc.,etc. and then charge way, way more to get it?!?!?!?  In other words, lets tell people that the old way of making guitars is no good and we have improved on dated construction techniques and then turn around and charge five times more for the dated construction techniques/materials!  It's downright funny!  Okay, I am stepping, no jumping, back off of my soapbox and reducing my blood pressure now...thanks for letting me rant, Edward

Comment by Michael S. Jackson on January 20, 2011 at 9:47am

Both Eds make some good points. I have been involved in conservation all my life and the death nell of anything - flora or fauna - is when the government gets involved. Once they decide to "protect it" we get nothing but lies, propoganda, over-arching controls that don't work, and general lunacy. All usually for the profit or power gain of a few individuals. I personally know a man who, in Brazil, witnessed Brazillian rosewood that was bulldozed to make room for a road and left to rot simply because the government was protecting it. He saw truckloads of it that went to waste or was burned. A freind of mine is an M.D. who had a clinic in Africa; he has routinely seen similar occurences with ebony.

Personally, I would like to see guitars made out of different woods and I agree with what others have said here - play one blindfolded so you can truly open your eyes.

I wonder if the decline in Martin sales has something to do with business in general. I wanted a Martin in the 60s and 70s but there was absolutely no way I could afford one. Later on I also wanted a Harley Davidson and a Smith & Wesson Model 29, but, again I couldn't afford one. Not only were these items cost prohibitive but they were very scarce so even if I managed to save up enough money, I couldn't find one for sale - or at least had to wait a long time (years). I think maybe this drives folks to want certain products.

Then the country went through the late 70s and 80s where every company I can think of (Harley, Gibson, Martin, Fender, et al) was purchased by the bean counters on Wall Street whose goal was not to produce a good product but to "keep it in the black" and make a lot of money as soon as possible.

Sort of like raping the land, so I call it raping the industry.

So they capitalized on their products popularity while cutting corners and letting quality go downhill. Fortunately for a lot of these companies, they were subsequently purchased by either original family members or by folks who were concerned with the original qulaity and reputation; folks who were in it for the long run. A lot of these companies were brought back, literally, from the brink.

About that same time, the foreign manufacturing market began to open up and our companies competed like never before with foreign producers. Sometimes the competition was on the shady side of ethics (e.g., obtaining government import restrictions and taxes). Let's face it, as much as we players would like, the goal of any company is to make money and to stay in business. Some choose to do some or all of their operations across the pond; some do not. But most of these companies have literally flooded the market with their products, Martin included.

In the 60s, if someone said they had a Martin, they would be looked upon as a guitar elite. Nowadays, if someone says they have a Martin, the first question is, "A pre-war?" Anything else is common place. Same thing with Harleys, Gibsons, Fenders (pre- CBS), etc.

I know several beginners whose first guitar was a Martin.

Maybe folks are branching out to other brands? Maybe we now have much more disposable income? I know that most of the folks I know who play Taylors do so because they are easy on the hands; not because they sound better. One of my friends plays one because Taylor signed him as a sponsor but he doesn't particularly like the sound.

Competition is a good thing. However, if you want a good product, choose one from a company who is in it for the long run - one who cares about the products they produce and about their customers.

Final thought: Does this mean the vintage guitars are better than the modern ones? I like to recall what one of the Martin employees said about that in one of the Martin books. She said they have a saying around Martin: "We don't make them like we used to... and we never did."

Comment by Edward Sparks on January 19, 2011 at 5:11pm

I remember that back in the 60's and early 70's the thing was to own a Martin, and I certainly wanted one but couldn't afford one...besides, I was busy breaking in my new Harmony!  When I graduated from High School in 73 I would have given my right arm for a Martin D28, but I needed both arms to play.  I got my first Martin in 1978, a used 1976 D28 that became my home guitar, meaning I did not take it on the stage, I had a fancy new Ovation by then that I used on stage...it had a pickup and the Martin did not!  It still doesn't and I still don't use it on stage!  I am not a Taylor man, just find them to lightweight and thin sounding, I do however have a Baby Taylor which I love.  I now have, and this is not to brag this is just to continue the conversation, two Matins, a D28 and a D28 12 string...I also have two Guilds a JF 30 and JF212XL12 string, I also have two Gibson 6 string acoustics...I a have a bunch of others, Harmonys, Epiphones, electrics etc. and it helps (especially with the wife) that I make an income with them. And buying them comes off my taxes!  My trio travels with about 14 instruments, and that's between three guys!  People will ask us why we need so many guitars and the joke is that we have to let our wives see us play them all or they will sell them while we are sleeping!  

The point I am trying to make here is that I love them all, big or small, old or new, etc., etc., etc.!  They all have their own voice and personality!  If you think I am bad check out Jackson Browne, Slash, Brad Paisley, etc., etc., etc. (insert names of any other big guitar stars) they have so many that they will admit that they don't know how many...

So, yes sales of brands go through their phases, people want what their hero plays, and stores push what they think they can sell and what they have overstocked  (I love the way the Musician's Friend catalog puts "Biggest sellers" next to any model they can't move to draw your attention). A Martin dealer is gonna push what he can sell  and the Gibson and Taylor dealers are gonna do the same...it's their job so we can't hold it against them!

My advice, try before you buy, know what you are buying and how much is fair, know a great deal, and just enjoy it!  When ever my wife says the guitars are getting in the way and taking up too much room, I always remind her that I could collect antique cars or FIREARMS!  Two things I have no interest in!  

Go with what speaks (or sings) to YOU...and don't worry, be happy!  Edward     

Comment by Ed Rhoades on January 19, 2011 at 3:47pm

I remember reading the amount of exotic wood used for guitars is a small amount compared to that used for furniture.

 

I believe in conservation and preventing deforestation, but CITES goes beyond sensible responses. I can't even take my old D18 to Canada without going through a specified border with a special permit, because it has a Brazilian rosewood fingerboard, bridge and headstock plate. It's 40 years old and has no impact of deforestation. Since the embargo, Brasil put on their rosewood in the late 60's, it's gotten beyond reasonable. Even stump wood and old fence posts can't be imported. I'm told that even experts have trouble discerning a plank of Brazilian Rosewood from Madagascar...so you can't take Madagascar across the border unless you can prove it's not Brazilian.

 

Among my Martins, is a model SWDGT  which is made from reclaimed spruce pulpwood and cherry. The grain is close and straight and the cherry is beautiful. It sounds great, but it has no snob appeal. I don't care, I love it. My mahogany D15M sounds incredible, but players want Adirondack or at least Sitka tops. Personally, I think if everyone chose their guitars blindfolded, less desirable woods and even wood substitutes like hpl would gain respect. (Lamination is no longer cost effective according to Chris Martin.) I've got a very nice Martin with Sapele back and sides. If the wood doesn't have stripes, it's mahogany; if it has stripes, it "might" be sapele. Stratabond (butcher block) necks are stronger than solid wood and Micarta makes an incredible fingerboard. 

Would I like a prewar dreadnought, with forward shifted scalloped X braces, Brazilian rosewood, and an Adirondack top? Of course, but I would be afraid to take it out. Would it sound better than all the new guitars with less exotic wood? That's debatable. 

It would be good if a few high profile players would champion some of the great guitars made of less exotic wood. They would definitely become popular.

Comment by Ken Brodie on January 19, 2011 at 3:27pm

I partly heard a discussion on radio yesterday regarding the world wide shortage of certain woods (Brazilian Rosewood and other rainforest woodsfor eg) due to the popularity of guitars world wide. He also mentioned that there are a whole bunch of luthiers who are promoting the use of sustainable woods for building guitars. He also mentioned something about he was able to get brazilian rosewood "illegally" but chose not to on moral grounds. Does anyone have any discussion around this? I seem to remember Yamaha buying up huge stocks of sitka spruce in the early 80's knowing this was coming.

Comment by Mark Baker on January 19, 2011 at 2:38pm

I think it's a combination of people being fickle and changes in the dynamics of the guitar market over the years.  When I first started playing back in the late 60s, everyone I knew wanted a Martin (and most couldn't afford one, including me).  In the early 70s, Gibson appeared to be headed for ruin and Taylor didn't exist yet.  Taylor has changed the game in a huge way, and Gibson appears to be making a serious comeback in the acoustic world - both of which add up to more competition for Martin.

 

Personally, I have no real brand loyalty; I own a Taylor and a Guild at the moment, I plan to buy a Martin in the next couple of months, and next year quite possibly a Gibson (or Collings, or Santa Cruz, or...).  Each of the guitars I own has its own unique sound and character, and I love 'em all.  I'm a guitar lover, not a [insert brand here] lover, although I do insist that the guitars I buy be American made.  No offense meant to anyone who feels differently - that's my personal choice.

 

I have no idea what I'd do if I were forced to stick with one brand; my head might explode...  ;-)

Comment by Mark D Hiatt on January 19, 2011 at 1:23pm

Some of it is just fashion, Michael. You get an "Alpha Picker" who buys a Brand-X guitar and that makes it a lot easier for a lot of people to get one, too. This is why the factories go after talent and give them all of the machinery they need, come up with "Signature" editions and so on. Geeze, I don't know anything about playing a guitar, but Smokin' Joe plays a SuperPlucker and it sounds real purty. I guess I'll get one, too.

 

I don't see how it could be climate or anything like that. "In hot, humid conditions, more pickers earn a living with LoudStrummer Guitars than any other brand".

 

It also makes a huge-but-declining-damnit difference who your local store is and what they carry. If FretBuzzer Guitarworks offers better margins and inventory on credit, a store may pump those out instead of another brand, and so you'll tend to see more of them.

Comment by Michael & Kody on January 19, 2011 at 11:44am

thanks for the feedback, seem to have worked out the groups membership status and my string buzz.  Today ive been thinking an looking at brands of guitars and it made me wonder why Martin seems to be losing its market share.  At least in the S.E. USA, and around the Nashville area, guitarists are leaning toward Gibson and Taylor.  Why do you suppose.   Personally, i have always favored Martin...........

Comment by Robert Baker on January 19, 2011 at 11:30am

Thanks for your reply edward,          I am also glad it worked out, from what i've  seen and read on the Alhambra guitar it is both nylon and steel strings depending on which model . i found the link on accustic guitar community.The easiest way see and hear these guitars is to go to the web link....Alhambra guitarras.com , you can listen and see them in action. I think there mostly accustical and classical. i love to play classical hyms by Bach, Bhrams, Beetovenand  others. Rob

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 204
• 205
• 206
• 207
• 208
• …
• 299
• Next ›
• Page