Martin guitars.

[1965]

Here's some photos of my OM's bridge. Slotting and ramping the bridge takes all the pressure of the bridge pins, in fact, I could bring it up to tune without the pins in at all if I wanted to. This is because the strings aren't wedged in under there by the pins. The ball ends are actually resting against the backside of the guitar's top, allowing them to seat themselves much more solidly.

[leftybass]

Who here is a fan of the Martins? Holla.

I had a '51 00-17 for the longest time, and am now thinking about a D15-S. Most of the Martins I've played have been absolutely wonderful, with a few scarce exceptions.

Speak now!

I have two, a left-handed 000 and a righty '72 D-12-20....

If you choose a D-15-S, you won't be making a mistake. They are resonant, light-weight and cool. TONE monsters.

Do it, Kenny. Get the D-15-S.

[wj350]

My first Martin was a used DM I found at a GC in Charlotte. It was the first time I ever held one, and I really liked it.

The following year, my wife surprised me with a used D-28 for Christmas. It was from a shop up in VA--the guitar was immaculate, supposedly sold to a guy who brought it back a day or two later to trade for a higher-end model. It's just the stock D-28, nothing fancy, but it's a wonderful, wonderful instrument--almost plays herself (which is good--at least one of us can play! ).

Can't go wrong with Martin, IMO.

Bill

[sloop_john_b]

I've always been a huge fan. I've got one of the cheapie USA-made DM models from about seven years back and have played the s**t out of it. It's just begun coming apart at the seams, literally - the synthetic back and sides have begun separating.

I also happen to live a stone's throw away from the world's foremost Martin dealer, Mandolin Bros., so I've got ample experience with them - they always have a solid 40-50 new and vintage Martins in stock at any given time.

Man, I think I'm due for a new acoustic. Thanks, Kenny.

[eatswodo]

Here's mine - a 1963 0-16NY. Over the years, it's had a new bridge, new tuners and a crack in the top cleated. One day, it will need a neck reset, and I'll gladly make the investment. I've owned it for over 20 years, and will never part with it.

[sloop_john_b]

In my searching for a new Martin, 70's models come up fairly often. 70's anything in the guitar-buying world is always a red flag for me (and most I think), but has Martin ever had a particularly "bad" period, like Gibson and Fender?

[1965]

In my searching for a new Martin, 70's models come up fairly often. 70's anything in the guitar-buying world is always a red flag for me (and most I think), but has Martin ever had a particularly "bad" period, like Gibson and Fender?

Yes, (surprise surprise) the '70s!

[winston]

Strange. I have a 1971 Stratocaster that I would not trade for all the tea in China. My Takamine from 1975 is also one of the best acoustics that I have ever played.

[1965]

Strange. I have a 1971 Stratocaster that I would not trade for all the tea in China. My Takamine from 1975 is also one of the best acoustics that I have ever played.

There were some great guitars made in the '70s, but the ratio of great to horrible guitars was skewed towards the latter in that decade.

Martin, in the '70s, was cranking out more guitars than ever. Because of this, quality suffered. The necks were flimsy and bent heavily over the years, the tops were also made from poorer quality woods and many have bellied significantly under the bridge. To top it off, many had their bridges placed in the wrong location, and with acoustics of course, the saddle isn't moveable.

So in general, Martins from the '70s are weak and flimsy feeling, don't project as well or sound as good as other Martin vintages, and when you try to sell em you won't be able to get much. So, John, that answers your question on why there are so many '70s Martins out there. Steer clear, my friend, the newer ones are much better.

[collin]

Strange. I have a 1971 Stratocaster that I would not trade for all the tea in China. My Takamine from 1975 is also one of the best acoustics that I have ever played.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.


I get ya though- for every dozen really bad guitars from the 70s, there are some choice examples as well. Fender gets a really bad rap for the 70s, but I think the Norlin era Gibsons and 70s Gretsch were FAR worse......I actually dig some of the mid 70s Teles etc...quite good guitars, if you don't mind glossy necks!

[winston]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

True.........

[shamustwin]

I have a D-25. Very nice, lots o' sustain. Don't know if you really need that in an acoustic. It just surprised me.

[goofyfoot]

Dig my old D12-28 and HD-28. Peace, out.....Goofyfoot.

[bottom4]

Love my HD28!

[rickosound]

I'm looking at a 000-28 but haven't got my grimeys on one as yet. Anybody had a chance to caress one?

My dad and I split one for me in 2006. The Martin salesman at our local guitar store, who is a complete Martin obsessive, loved it and still tells me he should own one. Why he hasn't actually bought a 000-28 I'm not sure.

My opinion:
Great all-around guitar. Has a nice, "ringy", acoustic sound; more wide open/free sounding than other acoustics. (It's hard to describe sounds, okay! ) Once we had it set up, it became very easy to play. Considerably easier to play than my dad's HD-28. Comfortable neck and body size. The 000-28 is good for recording as well.

Attached is a picture I took of a few guitars (with included paraphernalia) for a school project. Note the 360/12 in front and the Martin on the couch.

Matthew