Questions Re the Martin Guitars

I chose my (electro) acoustic by setting a budget (didn't have much choice on that front :)) and then playing every guitar under that budget and picking the one I liked best. There were just about every make I knew in there, and I went for an Ovation knock-off by Stagg. It's an amazing guitar, and I'm still blown away by how good it is. Nice tone, fantastic neck, nice and stable. To be quite blunt, I can't see any reason to buy any other way. Labels schmabels :mrgreen:

However, I think the point what everyone is missing why Martin are the finest guitars ANYBODY'S money can buy, is down to the wood and craftsmanship that goes into them, and actually has nothing to do with price. Martin uses only the finest, choice woods, left to dry for a minimum of 15-20 years before it's even considered good enough to go into one of their guitars.

You mean that extremely high quality tonewood "HPL" that they use in their $500 guitars?

:wink: :P

Yeah, but it's still one of the better $500 guitars out there. There's some Seagulls and other Canadian brands....

One of the things i've noticed about my Martin as compared to my Seagull is the respnsiveness of the strings. When strumming I can get a NICE sound strumming as lightly as possible. The sound is more complex, less boomy, but it's a smaller guitar. As far as fingerpicking is concerned the Marting has helped me to improve my technique. With the Seagull, since it's a dreadnaught, I can get a big sound any way I pick the strings so it encourages sloppy technique. To get the best sound the Martin is capable of producing I actually have to use good technique.

But these are two different guitars in two different price ranges. I'm happy with the Martin. Do I think it's the BEST guitar money can buy? Probably not. There's Lowden, Collings, Bourgious, Santa Cruz and other smaller companies out there now making handmade guitars. But it was the exact thing I was looking for at the time that I bought it. The only other guitar that I liked was a smaller Gibson for $600 more and a smaller Collings for several thousand more.

Martin uses only the finest, choice woods, left to dry for a minimum of 15-20 years before it's even considered good enough to go into one of their guitars.

I'd like to see some proof of this statement please. :) They may have used such wood back in the pre-war days, but I believe they use kiln dryed wood just like all the other brands do, today :?: I do know they are using laminate and man made material in some of their guitars, I've seen that in the advertisements.

Martin uses only the finest, choice woods, left to dry for a minimum of 15-20 years before it's even considered good enough to go into one of their guitars.

I'd like to see some proof of this statement please. :) They may have used such wood back in the pre-war days, but I believe they use kiln dryed wood just like all the other brands do, today :?: I do know they are using laminate and man made material in some of their guitars, I've seen that in the advertisements.

Having toured the plant (I encourage anyone who can... do... even if you hate Martin's) I saw materials in the scrap heap that other companie's would love to haul away to use on their instruments. The level of quality control is outstanding. The 15-20 year aged wood really only goes into the signature models but their kiln dried wood is first rate. Obviously none of this applies to the newer laminate models they are producing... which for the buck sound great (IMO). I love Martin's and have never played a "bad" one... but maybe they were all set up to my liking. I have a friend who has a custom shop SJ200 that I would LOVE to steal from him :wink: I think it is the best guitar I ever played... but the other day I played another SJ200 (Pete Townsend sig custom shop model) at a really great local shop and I HATED it. The way it played, the tone,... almost everything. I guess my point is I never saw this disparity between two "identical" model Martin's

The way it played, the tone,... almost everything. I guess my point is I never saw this disparity between two "identical" model Martin's

I have heard significant differences in same-model Martins and other much more expensive guitars. And in some sonic dimesions, it is expected, and part of the charm and individuality of the instrument. However, Gibson probably suffers more from widely varying quality (in a bad way), than other brands in the same price tier.

It's actually much easier to make consistent-sounding guitars from many of the alternative materials being used today. So a guitar with laminated rims and neck -- or even a substantially non-wood composition guitar -- is less a risk buying un-seen/unheard if one is familiar with the model in general. However, when one considers higher priced guitars, using all solid woods, then guitars of the same model are more likely to have unique sonic signatures. And we won't all like the same ones. It's very much like finding a partner.

Martin uses only the finest, choice woods, left to dry for a minimum of 15-20 years before it's even considered good enough to go into one of their guitars.

I'd like to see some proof of this statement please. :) They may have used such wood back in the pre-war days, but I believe they use kiln dryed wood just like all the other brands do, today :?: I do know they are using laminate and man made material in some of their guitars, I've seen that in the advertisements.

Having toured the plant (I encourage anyone who can... do... even if you hate Martin's)

I'd like to know, have you toured any other top brands plants so you can make a comparison :?: I don't hate Martin guitars, they are fine quality instruments, I just think a lot of their price is based on reputation. It's purely my own subjective opinion, worth absolutely nothing. :wink: On another note if I was going to spend several thousand dollars on a guitar I'd do what the players I admire do. I'd have one truely handmade by one of the artisan Luthiers.

I'd like to know, have you toured any other top brands plants so you can make a comparison :?: I don't hate Martin guitars, they are fine quality instruments, I just think a lot of their price is based on reputation. It's purely my own subjective opinion, worth absolutely nothing. :wink: On another note if I was going to spend several thousand dollars on a guitar I'd do what the players I admire do. I'd have one truely handmade by one of the artisan Luthiers.
No Tim, I only toured the Martin Factory so I have nothing to compare it to. I do manage a subcontract manufacturing shop so I have a good idea that the level of quality they exercise doesn't come cheap... for whatever that's worth. They also have a LOT more overhead than the guy making 10 axes a year... again, is it worth their prices? Having been there and seeing the work that goes into say a D45 and also having a good understanding of the manufactring process and costs involved I'd say a street price of $6-7k is absolutely reasonable. Could you better spend that cash with the one-off custom guy? Not so sure... I'm guessing an axe from the little guy must be around $15k... but I'm guessing. I like Martin's and i think they aren't over to top value wise. My $0.02 :-)

My local luthier will build me a very nice custom guitar starting at €8000.

Hey greybeard , are you the one who has posted a review on Martin D-35 on epinions.com ?

Nope, not me.

I have a Martin and a Seagull. I use the Seagull for camping and the Martin for everything else. I absolutely love my Martin.

My Martin is a D1 with a solid spruce top. I play left handed, so I don't get a chance to sample a lot of different types at the guitar stores like most of you do. But the store I bought mine at (Elderly in Lansing, MI) had a few Martin lefties on hand. I liked the playability and feel of the D1 I bought better than the other D1's they had and even better than one of the higher end Martins they had in a lefty. I also liked it better than the more expensive left handed Taylot they had in stock.

I know there are better guitars out there, but for the money I don't think I could have done better.

I paid $1,200 for my Martin and think it's a great value. I never thought I'd own a guitar as great as this. Martin's aren't going on their reputation but there are now more choices out there. And BTW, my Martin isn't even one of the really great ones, it's just a mid-level one.

My Collings is a great guitar for the money.
My Mermer is a great guitar for the money.
My Fylde is a great guitar for the money.
My Taylor is a great guitar for the money.
My Washburn is a great guitar for the money.
My Ovation is a great guitar for the money.
My Breedlove is a great guitar for the money.
My Martin is a great guitar for the money.

I wouldn't buy a guitar if I didn't think it was worth every penny of the purchase price.

My Collings is a great guitar for the money.
My Mermer is a great guitar for the money.
My Fylde is a great guitar for the money.
My Taylor is a great guitar for the money.
My Washburn is a great guitar for the money.
My Ovation is a great guitar for the money.
My Breedlove is a great guitar for the money.
My Martin is a great guitar for the money.

How very true. The only exception is my Ibanez. I never touch it. It basically serves as a wall decoration. Oh well, at the time I (obviously) thought is was a great guitar for the money.