Went to Gc today

Salesman might be getting a bigger cut on the Seagull. Doesn't make it a bad choice though. I have a S6+ Spruce and love it. It is probably better to get one of those than a cheap Martin. (I do love the Martin sound, the point I'm trying to make is that the Seagull is a better value for the price). I do not know the particular Takamine you're talking about but I do like Takamines in general and do know that there's a Takamine GS-330S which I think is a great sounding guitar at $300.

The Seagull has a peculiar neck which is wider (without being thicker). I like it because I find it easier to fit my fingers on the strings without muting neighboring strings. If you have shorter fingers it might be a bit problematic to stretch though.

By the way... guitar center carries Seagulls ?

oktay

Big vote for Seagulls - I just love 'em! The S6 is a modern classic, and the 6+'s are just better! (I prefer the sound of the cedar ones - but the spruce is more "mainline dreadnought" in sound, IMHO)

Seagull are designed & made by Godin, who make some of the tastiest electrics around. The LG series is one of the best-kept secrets!

Go for the Seagull - you'll never match the sound and the build quality at that price - Takemine & Martin both make wonderful guitars, but the really good ones cost a lot more than the Seagull S's.

I know the takamine an-10 - it's all solid wood -
the top is solid cedar. back and sides are solid mahagony.
great guitar - I'd go for it. In fact i have the n-10 model which is only top solid cedar and it has a great sound. so I guess an all solid guitar would be even better.

i don't think the martin or the seagull are all solid.
the seagull is only solid top I think. The martin is not from solid wood, but a laminated pressurized stuff - I wouldn't buy it, just because it's written martin on it...

so TAKAMINE

Don't look at solid vs laminated, listen to what it sounds like. My solidtop Ortega does sound different from my laminated Yamaha but it is by no means 'superior'. I happen to like it but others may prefer the yamaha.

I vote for the Seagull, again! 8) Sweet sounding, excellent craftmanship, affordable price. Just my 2 cents though, you buy what your heart, and ear, tell you to buy. Good luck.

Yes yamaha's acoustics are very good.My classical guitar is just sweetest. :D

Another vote for Seagull. Those guitars rock. I had a buddy with one and I really wanted one myself when I was last shopping for an accoustic. I couldn't find one so I got a washburn (its okay).

Of course, the local guitar shop starts carrying Seagull within 2 months of my purchase. My bad luck.

P.S. Seagulls are not all solid. Lam sides and back but they still sound excellent.

I think there's some confusion here guys about laminated vs solid.

Those of us who play solid electric guitars think of laminated as implying those horrible plywood "solid" electrics you sometimes get in beginners' outfits, along with a pitiful 10W transistor amp and a thin 6' wire for a lead :( Any halfway decent solidbody will have a body of solid (sometimes a single piece, sometimes 3) hardwood - alder most commonly, but ash, mahogany, agathis, all sorts get used, and each has its individual tone. Some cost more than others, but that's mostly a matter of scarcity rather than that one's "better" than another.

But in acoustic guitars, as in hollowbody electrics, there's no such stigma. If you care to look up the specs for the legendary Gibson ES-335, a guitar that sells for +/- £1500 in the UK, you'll find it has laminated top, back and sides. Anyone tell me that's a 2nd rate guitar? And what about a Martin CF2, for a mere £3,499.99? Second rate? But it has a laminated alpine spruce top, and a laminated maple back!

Laminated is just one way to construct hollow-bodied guitars, be they acoustic or electric. Some manufacturers use solid on one instrument, laminated on another. Just depends on the exact method of construction, bracing etc. Any luthiers on the forum could tell you more - all I know is some great instruments, some of the finest sounding instruments, use laminated construction - and some use solid wood.

laminated wood does not age in "tone" over time.
your "better" acoustic guitars are solid tops.

hollowbody electrics are a different creature altogether imo.
i was under the impression that almost all but the very top of the line hollwbody electrics had laminated tops because of production costs, and the fact that once the guitar is amplified you wouldn't hear the differance in tone.

Another vote for the seagul here. I got the exact same guitar (except mine is a/e) for christmas and I just love the sound/feel of it. I think you'll be hard pressed to find a better bargain these days but should still listen to your ear/hands when making your final decision.

If you decide to get a Seagull, get a price quote from Elderly instruments, print it out and ask your local store to give you a deal. If they don't you can show them Elderly's price. When I was buying mine (Rudy's on 48th str, NYC) I had the print out but didn't have to pull it out because they gave me the same exact deal just for the asking.

oktay

My two cents on the laminated vs solid discussion. Based on what I've been reading around, having a solid top is a good compromise since that's the part that influences the sound most. As for the sides and back being laminated, that doesn't always mean it's plywood or some sort of other composite (like what Martin calls HPL on their guitars). I think Seagull's for instance have 3 pieces of wood joined together to form the sides and the back. (but don't quote me on that). These won't "open up" with age like a solid piece of wood would (tongue twister) but it's still "wood" albeit costs less.

By the way, the general consensus seems to be that it's easier to take care of non-solid wood instruments since they humidity factors don't seem to effect them as much.

oktay

PS: HPL. I don't really know what this is but it doesn't feel like wood at all. It's supposed to make for a pretty durable instrument and since they use it on the sides/back only it should be allright. But like I said before. It doesn't make much sense to me to get a cheap Martin. $500-600 is still a lot of money and you can get a lot more guitar for that money.

HPL just stands for High Pressure Laminate - glued & pressed at high pressure I guess.

I'd like to jump in and defend the Martin.

I own one. The back and sides are made of HPL, which is compressed wood fibers, mahogany in my case. it's not the same as laminated wood, which is thin layers of wood held together by glue. The back and sides of the Martin have a faux-mahogany photographic finish...it's basically formica, only much thinner. it means they made a crappy looking, but VERY sturdy high pressure laminate (HPL) and glued a plastic picture of mahogany grains. Believe me, it's strong. the neck is made in a similar fashion...it's basically layers of wood glued together and is essentially waterproof, as is my understanding. this guitar feels light, but it's built like a tank. the top is solid, very little finish on it, so it's prone to dirt.

physically, it may not be the best guitar there is. it has a very simple look, which i like. when i bought it i played takamines, fenders, seagulls, anything under $700. and even a few $1500 and up. Granted, the Martin wasn't quite as nice-sounding as the $1500 and up group, but it blew the $700 and under group to tiny bits. it's such a joy to play. sure, it's a "cheap" martin, but it's still a martin and the martin quality is present in it. and if you have a problem with it, the MArtin Customer Service is second to none. I had one tuning gear stop working, and they sent me an entire, 6 piece set for free.

Personally, I recommend the Martin, but only because I own it. play them all, and buy what feels "right" to you. have some other people play it for you, and listen. the right one will tell you when you hear it. mine did. and it's awesome.