Martin 000-42 vs 000-28EC
DanielleOM
I have seen a few posts where people have suggested the guitars in the
subject line are the same except for cosmetics?
Is that really the case?
Please excuse my generalization for the purposes of this post. I realize no
two guitars are identical.
Thanks
Danielle
Tony Done
"DanielleOM" wrote in message news:iuj18j$q2j$1...@dont-email.me...
Thanks
Danielle
A bit OT, but one of the worst sounding guitars I ever played at any price
was a 000-42. If it is basically the same as the EC model, then either I
tried a complete dud, or the many buyers of EC's are tone deaf.
HTH,
Tony D
DanielleOM
I have seen a few of the 000-28EC guitars at my local big box music store.
I thought I saw a few that I like but then others did not seem to impress.
Lately all of the ones seem to have arrived at the store with wimpy strings
on it. I have not yet put my hands on an 000-42.
I have been enjoying that Eastman E10-OM. (in spite of the name it has a
24.9 in scale length). I might try other guitars with the same scale
length.
Danielle
Tony Done
"DanielleOM" wrote in message news:iujfla$d3n$1...@dont-email.me...
Danielle
******
I have the same problem with light strings, often coated on new store
guitars, and usually think "this would sound better with mediums". It really
is a question of finding one that does it for you, and it is often guitar-,
not make- or model- specific, but it helps to have a basic idea of what you
want, eg short scale, medium size in your case. Just out of interest, have a
look at the Gibson Blues King if you get the chance. This is their L-00 (00
size), it has a short scale, and the one I tried a couple of weeks ago
sounded better than the Martins I've played recently.
Tony D
Bob Dorgan
"DanielleOM" <danie...@reply.to.group.com> wrote in message
news:iujfla$d3n$1...@dont-email.me...
Well, they are shorter scale guitars, so I'd have mediums on them just to
drive them properly.
Those 00028 ECs are an enigma. I have played 3 or 4 that were outstanding,
but I've played another dozen or so
that sounded as dead as Risner's brain.
dorgan
Carl
system to Martin guitar model numbers.
"000" indicates a particular body size, generally one size below a
Dreadnaught ("D").
The number following the size indicator is the level of adornment (cosmetics
as you put it). A "15" is a low level of finsih work and wood, a "45"
generally the highest.
So, for example, a 000-18 would have a particular body size and would be
finished with a rosewood fretboard, dot markers, and mahogany back and
sides. A 000-28 would be in essence the same guitar, but would be adorned
with an ebony fretboard, body binding, and rosewood back/sides. A 000-45
would have more intricately inlaid markers, more layers of binding, etc.
Of course, these days there are other factors in many of the models which
weren't issues in prior years, so some models might have scalloped bracing,
some might specify Adirondack spruce for the top or Madagascar rosewood (or
even Brazilian) for the back/sides, some may have forward-shifted bracing,
others rear-shifted, and others the more standard.
To me, a 000-28EC is just a standard 000-28 but with a different shaped
neck, vintage toner on the top to make it look aged, and EC's autograph
inlaid somewhere around the 15th fret or something. There may be other
features that I might be overlooking at the moment, but I'm sure they're
replicated in some other Martin model, perhaps a 000-28 Marquis or Golden
Era for example.
I don't like people's autographs on my guitars so I would be looking at one
of the higher end 000-28's (ie. a Marquis) before I'd consider an EC.
I don't know what the 000-42 would be missing to make it not a great guitar.
It's all there for personal choice.
hank alrich
You gotta take these instruments one at a time. QC in some areas is all
over the map. One might be awful and the next one amazing. The 000-28EC
with which I'm most familiar is a nice sounding axe, though there are
fit and finish details inside that do not impress.
--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri
Tony Weber
Different bracing, 1 3/4" nut vs 1 11/16. So, in otherwords, they play
and sound different.
>
> I don't like people's autographs on my guitars so I would be looking at one
> of the higher end 000-28's (ie. a Marquis) before I'd consider an EC.
And some of us look at the specs and don't care if it is a "fred
Flintstone" sig model if we like those specs. Different strokes.
>
> I don't know what the 000-42 would be missing to make it not a great guitar.
>
> It's all there for personal choice.
>
Aba-yabba-dabba-solutuely!
TW
John Sorell
news:w8mdnUEQa5QsppPT...@speakeasy.net:
Talk about yer ancient redwood.
John
Tony Done
"hank alrich" wrote in message
news:1k3q0oz.6a84o91b4nfcgN%walk...@nv.net...
Tony Done <tony...@bigpond.com> wrote:
"One at a time" is indeed the important thing.
I don't worry about internal looks as much as I used to, but I do look at
grain runout in the top and the braces I can see through the soundhole. For
those who don't know, you can see runout in spruce tops by holding them up
to the light, the bass and treble sides will appear different colours,
depending on the angle of observation. The worst case of top runout I have
seen was an expensive Tak (a Santa Fe) with a cedar top. You can't see
runout in cedar tops, and this one had broken, with clean runout going about
2" in the thickness of the top. That, and non-resettable necks turned me
right off expensive Asian guitars.
Tony D
Carl
nuts and 14 frets to the body whereas older 000's had 12 frets to the body.
The narrower nut width of the pre-1934 000's was restored in late 1939.
Any 000 based on the "golden era" ('30's) design will have a 1-3/4" nut. A
1934 000 will have the same exact specs as a 1933 OM since they discontinued
the "OM" designation for awhile in 1934.
If the EC is based on a mid-'30's 000, then it would have a 1-3/4 nut.
True, they would "play" different based on the different nut widths, but any
two 000-28EC's can "sound" different too, so you get no points for that....
;-)
Tony Weber
The ECs are not spicific reproductions of the 30s guitar the way an
Authentic would be, although I think that it is based on Claptons 1939
(?) 00-28. I was just pointing out that there are specific differences
in the specifications of an EC and a standard 000-28. Those differences
will will effect both tone and how it plays. My "point" was that some
of us value those differences more than whose name may be inlaid on the
12th fret. For some it is the reverse.
And of course two different guitars of otherwise identical
specifications can sound different. No two pieces of wood are the same,
so how could that be different? But a difference in design
specification is probably going to cause a greater difference in
tonality than the difference between two sequentially serial numbered
guitars of the same design, although there will be a difference.
So you lose a point for that one. <G>
TW
DanielleOM
"Tony Done" <tony...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:ewrPp.7723$CS3....@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
I guess I will have to re-read this in the morning. I am not getting the
concept of good grain runout vs bad grain runout. I am going to call it a
night.
Danielle
Tony Done
"DanielleOM" wrote in message news:ium1uk$r8m$1...@dont-email.me...
Danielle
**************
OK, here's the drum.
The grain in the braces should be straight and run parallel to the length.
If you hold a spruce top up in the light you shouldn't see any difference in
colour between the two sides of the top when you move it to different
angles. If you see differences in colour between the two sides of the top,
it means that there is some grain runout.
Tony D
Mouldytone
series Martins is obviously well known from a cosmetic point of view.
40 series having the mother of pearl purfling and headstock detail as
well as bound fingerboards but what I have often wondered as you
obviously do as well is the question of other differences. If it`s not
cosmetic it can only be to do with the quality of tonewoods used in
the particular series. I`ve heard and read on many occasions that
series 40 Martins are made using 'special' tonewoods (spruce tops in
particular) put aside by the company for that particular high-end
series but I`m not so sure that can be the case. Put aside by whom? I
recon someone with the experience of the manufacture process at Martin
is the only one who could tell us. With any luck Mr Kevin Hall may see
your post. On a personal level I own 18, 28, 41 and 16 series Martins
and they are all great and all slightly different. All D models except
for the little 0-16. Love to own a vintage 000-18 on day tho!
Tony Moulder
Ed Edelenbos iPad
I think I've played one 28 that was ok but the other 20 or so have all been
pretty dead. I don't even pick them up any more when I see them in stores.
Ed
--
This is posted from my iPad
Mouldytone
guitars must mean something different to different players 'cause I
can honestly say that in over thirty years of playing many steel
string acoustic guitars I`ve never thought of any of them as sounding
'dead'. Even the high action, Taiwanese made dreadnoughts that I
started out playing. Sorry mate but I don`t believe that you`ve played
over twenty Martin 28s and found only one that wasn`t dead. Sounds to
me like you just don`t like C F Martin made guitars. As far as me
being some sort of defender or apologist for C F Martin goes I`m lucky
enough to own guitars made by ten different manufacturers and my only
allegiance is to the beauty of acoustic instruments. Come on Ed, 'one'
28 that was 'OK'? Sounds to me like you just don`t like Martin guitars
for some reason.
Tony Moulder
DanielleOM
Specs on the Martin web site list the 000-28EC and the 000-42 as having 5/16
bracing vs 1/4" in the OM guitars. Perhaps with the heavier bracing they
need a heavier string or more agressive style of play? (Of course that does
not explain all of the ones I see in stores with wimpy strings on them)
Danielle
Ed Edelenbos iPad
No, I like Martins fine, just not this model. The one that was ok, still
wasn't one I'd care to own. Fwiw, I prefer D-18s over D-28s (or HD-28s)
almost exclusively. And, i prefer 00's over dreads. Maybe my ears are
just broken. It's a good thing there are so many different makes and
models to accommodate the multitude of players preferences out there.
(grin).
Tom from Texas
> "DanielleOM" <daniell...@reply.to.group.com> wrote in message
>
> news:iujfla$d3n$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tony Done wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey, I resemble that remark!! And I'll have you know that my brain
pan has great resonance. The echo and reverb are superb.
Tom (clear-headed) from Texas
Tony Weber
However runnout is not an indicator of if a guitar is tonily good or
not. I have played a large number of guitars with the two-tone top that
are wonderful, including a McAlister siting on a stand on teh other side
of the room.
TW
Steve Hawkins
I always asked Lance for tops he couldn't sell to his "finicky"
customers. Kathy and I went back and forth several phone calls before I
finally convinced her to use a very old German top that had been
gathering dust in her stash because of it's looks. I got great sounding
guitars and they were able to recover the cost of that wood.
Steve Hawkins
Tony Weber
You got a Wingert for the cost of the wood?
Kevin Hall
"Ed Edelenbos iPad" <ed...@huh.wha> wrote in message
news:2008113315331306980...@news.individual.net...
Now that's interesting. Martins' mahogany models are often completely
ignored by a lot of players, probably a product of many years of them being
thought of as Martins' "entry-level" stuff. Some of the best sounding
guitars I've ever played have been old mahog. Martins, especially the
prewar stuff when they were built feather-light and oh so responsive.
For years trying to sell mahogany guitars in Canada was like pushing on a
rope. I recognized the 'snob factor' of rosewood vs. structurally
identical mahog. models and tried to get our market to respond to mahogany
by dressing my mahog. boxes up a bit. I built some pretty close repros to
pre-war 18s but with original design weaknesses like underbraced upper bouts
and notched X braces eliminated. I dressed 'em up with first rate top
woods, herringbone top trim, ebony boards and bridges with the old inlays,
ebony or rosewood bindings etc.
Those guitars were cannons, but even with the upgraded cosmetics I could
hardly get Canadian players to pick them up and give them a fair trial. If
I took the same instruments to a US vintage guitar show the most common
reaction from players was "This thing is an old sounding guitar!". I'd
sell what ever I took the first day and book enough orders for them to keep
me going for the following 12 months. It seems US players were much less
troubled by the 'down-market' aspect of mahogany guitars than their Canadian
counterparts.
Eds' preference for 00 models is also interesting. To my ear, the vast
majority of 14-fret small bodied Martins made after the early 50s sound
thin, verging on tinny. Every now and then you'll bump into one which for
what ever reason, sounds 'alive' but many fall far short of my
expectations. I've owned a number of 14 fret 00 and 000 18s and 28s over
the years and have only been happy with a very small percentage of those
built after the early 50s. They are just too heavily built to get the best
out of those small bodies, and in my opinion the design is too shallow
relative to the body width. The single-0s are proportionally deeper and the
sound is less harsh to my ear. The long-bodied 12 fret versions of the
same models have a greater air capacity, so even though they are still
relatively shallow they seem to have a better-rounded voice.
I like small guitars a lot, but frankly have never understood the general
awe in which the original OM-28s seem to be held. I've worked on and played
a number of those very valuable instruments but have never been overwhelmed
by any of 'em. I've known many players who virtually worship the things,
but I just don't get it.
It's a good job we don't all like the same things, or we'd be killing each
other over the same woman, guitar, banjo, car, motorbike etc. ;-)
KH
Kevin Hall
"DanielleOM" <danie...@reply.to.group.com> wrote in message
news:ium1uk$r8m$1...@dont-email.me...
>
Hi Danielle;
To understand run-out you need to know a bit about how guitar wood is cut,
and need to understand some of the terminology. What most players think of
as 'grain' in tops isn't really grain. The alternating light and slightly
darker lines running vertically down the top are actually the annular rings
of the tree, which when the billet of wood is quartered appear as straight
lines.
When a good block of sitka is cut perfectly 'on the quarter' you will also
see a slight 'shimmer' of small lines across the blank. That 'shimmer' does
not appear on blanks which are not perfectly quartered, so if you look at
the inside edge of the soundhole the annular rings won't be sitting
perfectly straight up-and-down but will be slightly canted to one side or
the other. Ideally you want 'em straight up and down.
Run-out is another factor, caused by the growing tree twisting in its'
competitive search for sunlight in a stand of other similar trees. Over the
many years ( several hundred in the case of big sitka) of it's growth that
tree stem may make a full or even more than one full 360 degree rotation
over the length of its' full height, so the grain of the tree will be in
the form of a very long spiral. If such a log is then sawn straight along
its full length the resulting planks will have the grain running from one
flat surface to the other on an angle through the board, rather than
perfectly straight along the length. That journey from one flat surface to
the other is known as 'run-out', and of course if the spiral was tight
enough to make the journey a short one, it greatly weakens the plank ( or
top blank).
When selecting top blanks luthiers will examine the narrow edge of the blank
in an attempt to guage how far it takes for the grain to run from the one
flat surface through to the other; the longer the better, obviously.
Same thing is true for braces of course.
Large commercial logging and lumbering operations may well quarter-saw
timbers intended for musical instruments, but chances are very good that
they'll do it with the logs in long lengths for ease and economy of handling
in bulk.
Smaller operators however will cut the log into more manageable 'wheels'
first, then split those wheels using a froe and mallet so that the billets
( blocks hacked out of the rounds or wheels) split along their natural
cleavage lines, following the true grain rather than following a huge saw
carriage.
Does all that make sense so far? When billets are split from the rounds or
wheels in that manner you have a much better chance of getting less run-out
because the billets have to follow the grain. They are irregular shaped of
course, and it's a lot more work to process each billet. There's more
handling involved and more waste so a lower yield in terms of tops, but the
resulting top blanks are stronger because of the truer 'quartering' and
greatly diminished run-out.
If you look at the edge of a thin commercially sawn plank carefully you'll
see that the grain may travel from one flat side through the body of the
plank to the other flat side in as little as 2", making that plank quite
weak. If you look at the edge of a first quality guitar top blank or length
of brace stock which has been re-sawn from a froe-split billet you should
see that the grain travels through the plank from one surface to the other
over a much longer length, making the board much stronger along its' length
and far better able to cope with the stresses which string loads impose on
tops.
When guitar top blanks are sawn they are said to be 'bookmatched' because
each one is sequentially sawn from a billet, then individual pairs are
opened like the pages of a book to produce a mirror image of each other
along the centre seam. Ideally this produces a top which is as close to
being exactly the same from one side to the other as possible.
If you have run-out in the top blank (as you inevitably will) then the
angle of grain 'travel' from one flat surface to the other will be in
opposite directions in the two halves of the top because of the process of
'bookmatching'. If the run-out is short that top will be quite weak and
the difference in apparent colour between the two halves as the light shifts
will be fairly obvious. If the run-out is long, as in the best tops, the
top will be much stronger and the difference in colour between the two
halves in differing light will be much, much less evident. It will still
be there, just not nearly as obvious.
That opposing run-out also creates a bit of a problem when removing old
bridges or bridgeplates since the grain will be running 'uphill' on one half
of the top and 'downhill' on the other half, making it easy to run a
bridgeplate probe up into the top on one half, or easy to lift grain if
attacking a bridge removal job on one side.
Run-out in braces can often be seen through the soundhole, and it's a good
idea to avoid guitars which show it prominently, since it can lead to
serious structural damage in the future.
I know this is a tad complex to understand without the aid of pictures or
diagrams, so I hope you haven't nodded off during my dreary exposition. I
highly recommend Bruce Hoadleys excellent book 'Understanding Wood' to
anyone remotely interested in this stuff.
KH
hank alrich
The back of McC #147 is Brazilian that lance got in a barter with
Harvey. The sides are from a different tree, and with a wonderful touch
of sapwood. Saved me a grand on the upgrade. The guitar is superb, and
beautiful, too.
Steve Hawkins
Nah, I bought the world's most expensive t-shirt, the guitar was
included.
Steve Hawkins
rayboyce
>> Tony D
>
> You gotta take these instruments one at a time <snip> all over the map.
>
As in any factory guitar, any vintage. Hand made small shops don't
eliminate the enigma, but some are better than others.
Several of us went to Dusty a few years back, and were playing some
consignment vintages.
(2) vintage instruments, 1941 and 1943, Martins, IIRC 000-28's, consigned
from the same collection.
They might have even been OM's but I just don't recall, but they were the
same model. It was the differrence between them in tone that stands out.
Both were good but the 41 was distinctly better, to everyone playing and
listening. A week or so later... I was in the store, and they got another
in... Not sure if from same person but same year as the later version of the
previous... It was as good as the best of the other 2 and cosmetically best
of the 3. It was sold the same day it came in, I heard later.
The store recognized it too, and pointed out that just appeared to be
"different guitars... all 3 have healthy tops".
This was right before the first really big jump in values... where such
pieces doubled or tripled in value and seemingly all of a sudden, everything
in pre or even early war years went to 5 digits overnight.
~ray (who prolly will never get another "shot" at one)
rayboyce
"Tony Weber" <mycro...@SOCKSspeakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:wsmdnWiMw86LspLT...@speakeasy.net...
I want that one back.
Tony Weber
Come and take it, big boy. <G>
JD
He won't kick your ass, he'll litigate you to
death <G>
Tony Weber
Yep. .44 caliber briefs.
Tony Done
"Tony Weber" wrote in message
news:wsmdnWiMw86LspLT...@speakeasy.net...
On 7/1/2011 9:28 PM, Tony Done wrote:
TW
No, runout isn't an indicator of tone, but it can be an indicator of the
care and attention paid to timber choice in a factory guitar. It is also an
indicator of potential top strength*, as in the Tak example I quoted, where
the collapse was at least partly due to severe cross-graining. Given Roy's
reputation, I wouldn't take it as an indicator of anything except cross
grain in his guitars. I would nevertheless come in the "picky customer"
class and avoid it on cosmetic grounds in a big $ guitar.
*Is that true? Kevin? What about bear claw, for which big $ is paid?
Tony D
hank alrich
> What about bear claw, for which big $ is paid?
Lance told me that europeans would pay more for claw, but that in
general Americans wouldn't have it. Said that screwed up a lot of tops
long about final sanding when athe claw showed up.
I didn't say a thing to Lance about wood, really. I trusted him to build
me something I'd appreciate.
Kevin Hall
See my other, long dreary explanation in the post just above yours. Yes,
run-out is definitely not good for strength of a top along the grain. Not
good for much else either. ;-)
I understand classical guys in Europe have liked bear-claw spruce for quite
a while, but on this side of the pond the current trend was started as a
bit of a joke during a break at Martin. The late Mike Longworth ( who had
a wicked, dry sense of humour), Pres Rishaw who was at the time Martins'
sales manager, and a couple of other guys were sitting around one day
pondering the ills of the world when one of 'em brought up the topic of bear
claw tops. At the time those strange blemishes in the wood were regarded
as flaws which greatly diminished the value of the top blank and they tended
to be used only on lower models.
Someone, either Mike or Pres, suggested jokingly that perhaps they should
start a campaign to popularize the 'flaws', provoking pickers to sit
around saying things like ' My guitar is better than yours because it has 3
bear claws in it and yours only has two'. According to Mike they all had a
good yuk about it but the concept stuck somewhere and bear claw tops started
appearing in better models. I remember noticing a number of D-18s with the
figure in the tops around the late 60s.
I never put much stock in it either way, but around 1990 or so Frank
Finnochio who was plant manager or some such similar title at the time sent
me a present of 3 highly bear-clawed tops he'd bought in the Pacific
Northwest. It was sitka which had been part of some sort of native salmon
traps for about 50 years, so immersed in salt water for much of that time.
Not a strong believer in the effects of phases of the moon or chipmunk
droppings etc. on tonewoods I examined the tops purely on their merits and
found them to be superb spruce. They were extremely stiff both with and
along the grain, perfectly quartered and generally ( other than for the
'claw' marks) damned good tops.
I built those up into 3 of my deluxe type D-18 clones and all three were
thunderous things. Ever since then I've paid more attention to bear-claw
type tops and have so far not encountered a bad one. The figure certainly
doesn't interfere with top stiffness or strength, and I could be talked
into thinking that perhaps it only appears in tough, stiff trees.
I don't pay premium prices for it, but when I come across it in my raw
billets do tend to rate it a little higher than I would otherwise.
KH
DanielleOM
I just printed this and will try to digest this slowly this evening while
sitting out at an outdoor open mic near a small Connecticut lake. I will
bring that D18 with me that I bought at Waddingtons. It has not been out
for a while and a lot of people in my open mic community have never seen it.
I am sure the dreadnought fans will love it.
Danielle
Ed Edelenbos iPad
I'm glad I'm not the only one who does this.
Blind Broccoli
I'm still kicking myself that I did not buy the D-18 GE that I tried in
my friend Ed Taublieb's String Shoppe here in Buffalo. I was certain I
wanted a triple-O or OM model, preferably a short scale guitar. I was so
fixated on what I thought I wanted that I neglected to register that
this guitar had the most wonderful tone, for me, of any I had ever played.
BB
Kevin Hall
"Blind Broccoli" <blindb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:iuo1td$1ei$1...@dont-email.me...
Eds' old OM is one of the ones which I found underwhelming, considering the
age and value of 'em. About 3 or 4 years ago a client of mine allerted me
to the fact that Ed had one of my D-18s for sale in the shop. It was a
relatively plain one, but braced much like a pre-war. Since I didn't have
one of my own dreads to play at the time I bought it back from him.
I'd built that guitar in about '90 for Dave Stutzmans' shop and somehow Ed
wound up with it years later. I still have that old box and play it
regularly.
KH
Kevin Hall
We sold a fair number of D-18s while I was at Waddingtons, from Jan. '71 to
about fall of '74. Averaged a Martin a week, every week for that time
period, mostly D-18s or 28s. Not many in comparison to a lot of big US
dealerships but in those days it was enough to make us the second largest
dealer of Martins in Canada.
KH
Mike Brown
"Kevin Hall" <timbe...@webhart.net> wrote:
Another one for the file.
Thanks Kevin.
MJRB
Mike Brown
"Kevin Hall" <timbe...@webhart.net> wrote:
One of my Tim Wright guitars has some pretty bearclaw. I bought it
second hand because it was a great guitar. Bearclaw certainly hasn't
reduced the quality of the instrument in any way. Whether it is any
better for it I have no idea.
Thanks again for the post.
MJRB
Mike Brown
<324e5efd-a2e0-4189...@j14g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Mouldytone <avmo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ed I can only speculate that the term 'dead' with regard to acoustic
> guitars must mean something different to different players 'cause I
> can honestly say that in over thirty years of playing many steel
> string acoustic guitars I`ve never thought of any of them as sounding
> 'dead'. Even the high action, Taiwanese made dreadnoughts that I
> started out playing. Sorry mate but I don`t believe that you`ve played
> over twenty Martin 28s and found only one that wasn`t dead. Sounds to
> me like you just don`t like C F Martin made guitars. As far as me
> being some sort of defender or apologist for C F Martin goes I`m lucky
> enough to own guitars made by ten different manufacturers and my only
> allegiance is to the beauty of acoustic instruments. Come on Ed, 'one'
> 28 that was 'OK'? Sounds to me like you just don`t like Martin guitars
> for some reason.
> Tony Moulder
I suspect that Ed is using the term "dead"�in a comparative way.
I've certainly played a lot of guitars that are "dead" in comparison to
any of my three custom guitars, and some of them have been Martins. On
the other hand to somebody who didn't have a top line custom guitar as
their standard they probably sounded fine.
My Martin HD28V sounded great, it was just too big and the fingerboard
was too narrow.
MJRB
rayboyce
Wow, what to be said for the recognition and relevance of subject matter
experts? This one has got to take the cake for me. I don't get rattled
often, but...
I'll take Roy's selection, craftsmanship, and voicing of top-woods and
tonewoods over anybody else's on the planet. I've watched and marveled at
his tap-tone abilities to make it ring seemingly beyond the limits of
physics. And then he can tell you what situations the wood will be good
for. And I've seen his predictions prove true. If he puts it into his top,
it's worthy, and it was selected and often saved for years with the utmost
care, waiting for the best overall fit of a player, wood, body-size, or
other properties. If it has a little runout, it's still worthy and might
likely be tonally the best possible ever choice, simply because he chose it.
Why should any "factory" guitar be any more defective simply based on one
factor?
It's wood. It differs piece to piece.
IMNSO people should shop for whatever appointments they want, and whoever
they want, based on layers of sound testing and trust for the builder's
skill, and their budget... Not based on their experience with one example of
a production guitar of disimilar wood type or somebody else's elaborations
on usenet.
David Hajicek
"Tom from Texas" <tris...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3d96aa83-f1ba-4e56...@fr19g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
Tom (clear-headed) from Texas
----------
Plus amazing sustain.
Dave
Mike Brown
"rayboyce" <nospamraymond...@frontier.com> wrote:
That's how a good luthier works.
With the two that were built for me I did have some input (apart from
dimensions and appointments). For the first one I particularly wanted
cedar and walnut, which the luthier had never used before. Because he is
a great builder, and knew the sort of stuff I wanted to play it is a
brilliant guitar, and one that he particularly enjoyed building.
For the second, I went to Jack Spira who has a wonderful reputation, and
who loves one off guitars in Australian timbers. Again I chose both top
and body timbers that he had never used before, Bunya Pine and Gidgee,
and the guitar is a masterpiece. He was also very grateful for the
opportunity to try the timbers.
As you say, if the luthier really knows his (or her) stuff you are
pretty sure that the guitar will be at least great, and often brilliant
(unless you ask for something that is really stupid).
Not all luthiers are good and factory guitars are a lucky dip, even our
most revered brands.
MJRB
Tony Done
"rayboyce" wrote in message news:iuoedi$b8m$1...@dont-email.me...
*****************
I really can't understand what would upset you about my POV or comments. My
interest in guitars is technically inclined, so grain runout would aggravate
me in an expensive guitar. Additionally, I have no personal interest in
luthier guitars (as I have made clear many times), or exquisite tone for
that matter. Rather, I tend to put a lot of weight on mojo and certain kinds
of look. We're just on a bit different wavelength.
Tony D
rayboyce
> I really can't understand what would upset you about my POV or comments.
> My
> interest in guitars is technically inclined, so grain runout would
> aggravate me in an expensive guitar. Additionally, I have no personal
> interest in luthier guitars (as I have made clear many times), or
> exquisite tone for that matter. Rather, I tend to put a lot of weight on
> mojo and certain kinds of look. We're just on a bit different wavelength.
>
> Tony D
Basically the whole POV, pretense, and comments that all runout should be
considered a liability, because you had one guitar with a known, more
fragile material, fail from a notably cheaper manufacturer, was considerably
insensitive.
>>If you hold a spruce top up in the light you shouldn't see any difference
>>in colour between the two sides of the top when you move it to different
>>angles.<<
That's purely inaccurate. The fact that you phrased to represent your POV
as fact, instead of opinion, and called on one person to ratify it, rubbed
me wrong. This was especially abrasive to me when several others with more
valid (in my opinion) and extensive experierence have told me runout isn't
always serious.
These folks make their living at it, do it very very well, and your "facts"
p'd all over their expertise, practices, and hard-earned reputation to me,
with careless (whether by commission or omission) keystrokes.
The path that you chose, to request KH to ratify your views, as if his were
the end-all opinion, didn't help my demeanor. His opinions aren't the
end-all, and aren't always well regarded by others of the handmade craft.
I've heard him dis techniques by one of the best respected parlor builders'
in recent history (that of the stacked, Spanish heel & join), as if he had
the only POV that counted. That you sought his sole help, rubbed me wrong
too. If you need his opinion as authority, over others'
manufacturing/supply choices, it might be best exchange offline.
When those Spanish heel comments originally happened, I took exception to
it. After I did, I had several other luthiers write me and show support
offline. The reason that they did so was not that they themselves preferred
the Spanish heel... IIRC none of them had ever used it. They just had due
respect for different approaches, from positions of knowledge, to resolve
certain challenges. The fact that this other luthier could do it, reset it
just as quick, understood the technique in depth, as they could a dovetail,
had their respect. They also agreed with some of my points in the
discussion, that the shorter span of a parlor top meant that it (the
original neckset) would likely last twice/thrice as long as a conventional
sized instruments 1st neckset, especially on shorter scale necks.
>so grain runout would aggravate me in an expensive guitar. Additionally, I
>have no personal interest in luthier guitars...
Ok, if you don't buy them, why compare at all in experience with a cheaper
guitar, with cedar top, hinting as though its properties might transfer to
other levels of choices, other woods, with negative impact?
My point is, its usenet and you can say whatever you want. I'm not
questioning your intent.
But when you state your opinion spun as physical fact by a distant
example... Especially if that spin may (even if unintentionally) mislead
others to errant perspective, with negative impact to hard working folks,
some of my friends, who've given their life to their craft... Then, you
might expect someone to respond and call you on it round these parts. This
time, I did.
>We're just on a bit different wavelength.
I think generally, Tony, we aren't. I've appreciated many of your posts,
positions in threads in the past. I've noticed compassion that impressed
me. I just couldn't let this one go, because a lot had gone unsaid
upstream, and further silence might have signaled consensus. And I flat out
don't agree with you here.
~ray
Mouldytone
re 'dead' Martin 28 series guitars. My love of steel string acoustic
guitars started with a Maton CW-80 in 1980 but really amped up when I
bought my Martin D-18S ten years ago. I arched up at your criticism of
the 28 series 'cause deep down, even tho` I now own many stunning
steel string acoustic guitars by various manufacturers, Martin guitars
still have a very special place in my particular steel string acoustic
heart. As far as this thread goes, thanks Kevin for your comments.
Still wondering tho`. Do Martin put aside particular pieces of
tonewoods for their higher end models?
Tony Moulder
DanielleOM
> Tony Done wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I have seen a few posts where people have suggested the guitars in
>> the subject line are the same except for cosmetics?
>>
>> Is that really the case?
>>
>> Please excuse my generalization for the purposes of this post. I
>> realize no two guitars are identical.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Danielle
>>
>> A bit OT, but one of the worst sounding guitars I ever played at any
>> price was a 000-42. If it is basically the same as the EC model, then
>> either I tried a complete dud, or the many buyers of EC's are tone
>> deaf.
>> HTH,
>>
>> Tony D
>
>
>
> I have seen a few of the 000-28EC guitars at my local big box music
> store. I thought I saw a few that I like but then others did not seem
> to impress. Lately all of the ones seem to have arrived at the store
> with wimpy strings on it. I have not yet put my hands on an 000-42.
>
> I have been enjoying that Eastman E10-OM. (in spite of the name it
> has a 24.9 in scale length). I might try other guitars with the same
> scale
> length.
>
>
> Danielle
I did make it out to my local big box music store yesterday where I played a
000-28EC and also an unexpected Larrivee 000-50 guitar. They seemed more
similar in tone to each other than they were to my Eastman E10-OM. I found
the guitars played at the store required more effort to get any volume.
They both had a tone at the lower end that I would describe as woody? They
were nothing like my mahogany Eastman when it came to tone and response.
Danielle
DanielleOM
I had people at the open mic looking for twists in the trees last night. We
didn't have any spruces trees to look at. Everyone loved the D18. Of
course I had a few people tell me how old they were when I bought it and one
young man told me he wasn't even alive yet.
Danielle
Ed Edelenbos iPad
Tony, No harm here. (grin). Just to clarify... specifically those
000-28EC's are the ones that I've found to be less than spectacular (maybe
"dead" is a little too strong). While I usually prefer mahogany, that's
not to say I haven't played some rosewood guitars that have taken my breath
away. And a bunch of them have been Martins!
Kevin Hall
Hi Danielle;
Not all that easy to spot twist in standing trunks. It is most common in
large stands, where trees grow close to each other and have to compete for
sunlight. No doubt you've seen garden plants gradually turn their blooms
in the direction of the sun; sunflowers in particular. Same deal, only
bigger.
I was thinking about how to better express the idea of grain vs. annular
rings for the purpose of the run-out discussion last night. Think of the
standing tree trunk as a series of hollow tubes or big drinking straws, one
inside the other, each slightly smaller in dia. than the last. Those would
be the concentric annular rings which make up the pattern you see when you
saw the end off a log. The Brits in the crowd will be able to relate to the
concept of Blackpool rock; a stick candy in which lettering runs through
the entire length of the stick. The wood fibres run straight up and down
in each layer or straw from one end to the other. Now imagine twisting the
whole shebang like wringing out a wet cloth so that the fibres in each straw
form a long spiral. If longitudinal slices are then cut from that
collection of straws or log, the wood fibres will not run straight along
the full length of the resulting planks but will be diagonal through it.
Incidentally, run-out was a big problem for early aircraft builders who
used spruce for wing spars etc. When timber was cut for those high-stress
applications without regard to run-out people died as a result of unexpected
wing failures.
All the best,
KH
Kevin Hall
"rayboyce" <nospamraymond...@frontier.com> wrote in message
news:iup8nl$1vi$1...@dont-email.me...
Ray;
If you work hard enough at it it is possible to be offended by almost
anything. Tony asked a legitimate question and I did my best to provide an
answer which I offer only as one mans' opinion.
Your characteristic of a long-past exchange over stacked heels is distorted
and inaccurate. I have a great deal of respect for builders who
successfully use the traditional stacked-heel/slippered foot approach but
like many working luthiers don't choose to employ it myself.
If memory serves I commented that resetting neck angles on guitars
constructed in the traditional Spanish manner is more difficult and time
consuming than it is with dovetail joints, at which point another repair
tech offered the info that he does the job in roughly the same amount of
time. I have no doubt that he's telling the truth, but I stick by the
opinion that for most working repairmen resetting a Spanish heel type neck
is more difficult and time consuming, partly due to the need for touchup
refinishing. No doubt there are individual techs who find installing old
style bar frets as easy as tang types as well, but those chaps will also be
in a tiny minority.
This concept of 'dissing' seems to have taken root in the minds of many in
modern society, and is being grossly overused. If I choose to be
disrespectful toward someone or something, believe me you won't have to
engage your imagination to determine it.
To get back to the topic in hand; virtually all top wood will have some
degree of run-out because of the very nature of wood and how it grows.
Greater or lesser degrees of run-out are acceptable for different purposes
in timber, to the point where there are strict written standards for it in
the aircraft industry. These standards are not figments of anyones'
imagination or a matter of personal opinion. In the case of structural spars
in aircraft and sailing vessels run-out can and has cost lives.
In musical instrument tops short or steep run-out is greatly detrimental to
strength and longevity, no matter how good or experienced the builder. The
best builders will have enough experience and confidence to know how much is
acceptable in which applications. In many areas the difference between a
pro and an amateur is that the pro knows through experience which shortcuts
to take and which to avoid.
You seem determined to reduce things to a strictly black-and-white basis and
imply that anyone who differs with your own personal take on the topic is
somehow 'dissing' you or your chosen heroes. Nothing could be further from
the truth. Neither Tony or I have implied any criticism of your favourite
builder either directly or by inferrence. He is aware of run-out ( as many
players are not) and seems to have concluded that it is not a good thing in
guitar tops. He's right. In the case of run-out less is better but there
is likely to be some in virtually every top you pick up no matter who cut
the wood, built the top or wrote the book.
Just in case you somehow construe that as being disrespectful to anyone, it
is offered only as my personal opinion. It costs you nothing and you can
either take it on board or kick it to the curb as you see fit. It is
intended only in the hope that it may be of some small help to those in the
group who are interested in such information. I have great respect for the
finer feelings of such people and great confidence that they will be able to
sort the wheat from the chaff for themselves.
KH
JD
Been there. In my other life as an aircraft
mechanic I built a spar set for an old J-3 Cub.
While the mil spec allows for 1:15 runout and no
fewer than 6 annular rings per inch, I held out
for 1:25 and 10 rings/inch. Fortunately the owner
wasn't in a hurry.
Tony Done
Of
course I had a few people tell me how old they were when I bought it and one
young man told me he wasn't even alive yet.
Danielle
*****************
<g> Two of my guitars are older than me. They're starting to fossilize.
As a generality, I have found more plain braced Martins, like the D-18, D-28
and 000-18 that I like than scalloped braced ones. Also, you mention
elsewhere in this thread the "woodiness"of rosewood Martins. I prefer the
brighter mahogany sound, so it's "tight and bright" for me. <g> But before I
get jumped on again, it all comes down to personal preferences and
individual guitars.
Tony D
Tony Done
"rayboyce" wrote in message news:iup8nl$1vi$1...@dont-email.me...
~ray
*************
I don't like to leave things hanging in the air, so I'll have another try at
this.
First off, I always assume that my opinion only has one vote, the same as
everyone else's, so anyone seeking advice here should look for consensus -
but it would be smart to put more weight on what the luthiers write than
what I do. I asked Kevin's opinion if because he had already contributed to
the thread, if any of the other luthier regulars had raised their heads, I
would have asked them.
What I should have said about the appearance of runout is "tops that don't
have runout will not display different colours, any that did would put me
off buying". Careless use of English on my part, I'm usually more cautious
than that.
If Roy told me that the best top he had for what I wanted had a big knot
hole in the middle of it, I would ask him to use it. This is because I would
trust his opinion and honesty, but I would not buy one off the shelf from a
luthier I didn't know (at least by Usenet repute) that looked like that. It
is a tricky concept of the relationship between mojo, cosmetics and
mechanics. Not all of this is logical, nor is it reasonable to expect it to
be, eg I have no objection to somewhat wide or uneven grain or a bit of
asymmetric bear claw, while on the other side a lot of silking would
favourably influence my choice.
Tony D
David Hajicek
out of line or wrong for that matter nor any attempt to dis Roy in any way.
Yes, you can see runout by the difference in light reflection. Nearly all
guitars have this to some degree. It isn't the kiss of death.
Runout is weaker than no runout. Not opinion, but fact. How much is ok?
That is where judgment comes in. Some is ok, I just don't know where the
line is and it is probably different for every guitar and how close to the
edge it is built. Is it a plonker or a hot-rod? It makes a difference.
Kevin, good explanation of runout.
Dave
David Hajicek
"JD" <jdblac...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e10a28d$0$9795$c3e8da3$1cbc...@news.astraweb.com...
> On 7/3/2011 9:04 AM, Kevin Hall wrote:
>> "DanielleOM"<danie...@reply.to.group.com> wrote in message
>> news:iuppui$qks$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Kevin Hall wrote:
Check out Aircraft Spruce if you need some more spars. They do a good job
of selecting for runout.
Which reminds me that guitar bracing also has to be selected for minimal
runout as that is more highly stressed than the tops, in some cases.
Dave
hank alrich
JD
That's who supplied them. I just wanted a little
better than minimum Mil Spec.
rayboyce
"Kevin Hall" <timbe...@webhart.net> wrote in message
news:IaudnbeTG6V6AY3T...@posted.vianet...
>
>>>>If you hold a spruce top up in the light you shouldn't see any
>>>>difference in colour between the two sides of the top when you move it
>>>>to different angles.<<
That's wrong, and you should have said so early on, rather than the rest of
your brainy trumpet. Since you didn't, I did.
> Just in case you somehow construe that as being disrespectful to anyone,
> it is offered only as my personal opinion. It costs you nothing and you
> can either take it on board or kick it to the curb as you see fit.
From here, I'll leave where it lays. Someone in coveralls will sweep it up
later. And the last thing I need or want is a life-lesson about what's
respectful and what's a dis, from you.
Aircraft... that's laughable.
> KH
PS- You don't even remember when/what, do you? <rhetorical> It had nothing
to do with the stacked heel itself, it was the spanish joint in lieu of
dovetail. It's ok, your words didn't hurt my poor little feelings. I
didn't agree with your reasoning that's all, same as several others. I felt
it was shortsighted of you and your delivery was pretty self-centered.
FWIW, it was about someone else, who'd never even posted on rmmga... Not any
"hero" of mine, just someone who had a ton of respect from many a peer, as
a builder. And I didn't twist anything in my mind. It stuck there pretty
firm on specific content, and I haven't replied or given you much thought
since ...Save when someone else used your opinion as benchmark.
RB
hank alrich
Sheesh, Ray, have you considered growing up? It might still be an
option. This is some pretty silly bullshit.
rayboyce
> Sheesh, Ray, have you considered growing up? It might still be an
> option. This is some pretty silly bullshit.
Hank,
Think back... Even when we disagree, you and I have always managed respect
between the replies, or found silence. In fact, even in blatant
disagreements, or when I knew I could stay in, I've never really gone after
anyone here, and wasn't planning on it this time.
But there's substance here, at least to me, in the history. And after
getting freshly lectured and my intent being social-analyzed, for trying to
point out dis-information...
Well, I'll choose and spend my saved bluechips as I please. Even if it
wastes my time. It's my dime.
~ray
Steve Daniels
compelled "rayboyce" <nospamraymond...@frontier.com>,
to say:
> And I didn't twist anything in my mind.
Well, no. It's the phototropism in the tree what does it.
hank alrich
That's a bracing statement, but it sheds light on the subject before the
thread suffers runout.
David Hajicek
I think your 1:25 is a pretty good rule of thumb.
Dave