Collings D2H?? Need Advice Fast
BluesToad
Hi
I am ready to take the plunge on a new dreadnought and I don't know much about
these guitars. Always had Martins but I just don't like what I'm seeing these
days. Vintage Reissues except the 000-28EC are laden with some serious cost
cutting measures.
I then looked at the Collings and could not believe the difference in quality.
But........
Anyone with some insight??
Thanks
Mike
Ted Simpson
>I am ready to take the plunge on a new dreadnought and I don't know much
about
>these guitars. Always had Martins but I just don't like what I'm seeing
these
>days. Vintage Reissues except the 000-28EC are laden with some serious
cost
>cutting measures.
>
>I then looked at the Collings and could not believe the difference in
quality.
>But........
I scoped out Collings extensively a few weeks ago, and they are superior to
anything else I've played in the dreadnought category. I found that the D1
is a better all-around guitar for fingerpicking, flat-picking and strumming
than the D2H. If you don't fingerpick and are sure you never will as long
as you own it, the D2H is better choice than the D1. If you can afford two
guitars, then by all means get both!
In fact, I just ordered a D1 with a 1-3/4 inch, standard (non-vintage) neck.
I'll post my reaction next week when it arrives.
The owner of the store where I bought it said he had Laurence Juber over to
his house one day and coaxed him into playing a D1, even though LJ said he
didn't like dreadnoughts. Apparently, LJ really liked the D1. You might
want to find his e-mail address on the 'Net and get more details on his
opinion.
I got my Collings from Mass Street Music in Kansas. They have a huge stock
of them.
SteveKlim
I don't know if I have any "insight" to give -- but I do have an opinion.
Recently, I played a ton of dreadnoughts trying to find the one that, in my
opinion, was "best" dreadnought out there, without regard to cost. I wound up
buying a Collings D2H Brazilian with Andirondack top. While I did not like
every D2H (Indian Rosewood/Sitka Spruce) that I played (some were a bit less
warm than I prefer) -- both D2HBA's I played were exceptional. Just my 2
cents. Steve
Jomack
>>>Always had Martins but I just don't like what I'm seeing these
days. Vintage Reissues except the 000-28EC are laden with some serious cost
cutting measures.<<<
Such as?
Joe
Al Sato
blue...@aol.com (BluesToad) wrote:
>Hi
>I am ready to take the plunge on a new dreadnought and I don't know much about
>these guitars. Always had Martins but I just don't like what I'm seeing these
>days. Vintage Reissues except the 000-28EC are laden with some serious cost
>cutting measures.
Would you please tell us what you see as serious cost-cutting
measures? Thanks.
Al
--
Respond to: nas "at" centtech "dot" com
This is an attempt to reduce the volume of unwanted commercial email.
beltran
Hi:
While I was not the poster who made that remark, I will comment
(as a Collings owner) about Martin vintage series. I have a Collings
0003 (000 12 fret). I was blown away by the Martin 00028 vintage
issue guitar. If that guitar had been available when I bought the
Collings, I would have been stymied as to which to purchase. That
being said, I do think the Collings has a smoother, more finished
look with regard to workmanship. This is not to say that the Martin
looked inferior in any way. But, it seems to me that Collings pays
a little more attention to small finishing details. It is difficult to
describe on the net, but easy to point out in person. The Collings
seems to have finer detail, smoother curves, etc when comparing
the 00028 slotted headstock with my 0003. The neck seems a little
better finished o the Collings also. But, these are really small nits.
I think the Martin has a "woodier" sound that seems thicker and
possibly a little more satisfying for certain styles of music. Both
are excellent guitars. To me, both are worth the money (this being
said by somebody who has already decided that a high-end guitar
is worth the money to begin with). This not a put-down of the Martin,
since I think it is a great guitar. But, maybe that is what the other
poster is looking at.
David Brooks
BluesToad wrote:
>
> Hi
> I am ready to take the plunge on a new dreadnought and I don't know much about
Can't go wrong with a Collings. Beautiful workmanship and good
reputation for support. He'll also do custom work if you need a
different fingboard width or some other special feature. As always,
though, some I've played I really liked, some were just OK. Seems to be
the nature of the acoustic instrument (this isn't to say that any of
them were bad instruments, it's just that some weren't suited to my
tastes - they are all beautifully done instruments)
If you get a chance, check out a Santa Cruz Tony Rice model, a Gallagher
(any model) or a Ricky Skaggs signature model (I can't remember at the
moment who makes the Ricky Skaggs - anybody else know?). A couple of
these are patterned after the old Martin that Clarence White played
(with the oversized soundhole). I played one particular Tony Rice last
year in Asheville, NC that was just about as sweet a dreadnought as I've
ever heard. Anyway, all of these makers have some great instruments so
I wouldn't worry about their quality vs. Martin. Which one is for you?
Only your ears and fingers can tell......
Have fun!
db
> these guitars. Always had Martins but I just don't like what I'm seeing these
> days. Vintage Reissues except the 000-28EC are laden with some serious cost
> cutting measures.
>
> I then looked at the Collings and could not believe the difference in quality.
> But........
>
> Anyone with some insight??
>
> Thanks
> Mike
--
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, design a building, write a sonnet, set a bone, comfort
the dying, take orders, give orders, solve equations, pitch manure,
program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
Robert Heinlein - "The notebooks of Lazarus Long"
--
David K. Brooks
Manufacturing R&D, Interiors
M/S 06-KA 266-8806
dbr...@misty.ca.boeing.com
Robert Bowden
The fact is that anybody that knows guitars knows that Martin has not
done this in their upper lines of instruments. The cost cutting measures
that have been implemented in the pursuit of producing less expensive
instruments is just good business for Martin. Not everybody wants a $2500
guitar. Maybe a dealer that doesn't carry Martin told the prospective
Collings buyer that. The mistake was made in believing it.
In article <19971228215...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
blue...@aol.com (BluesToad) wrote:
> Hi
> I am ready to take the plunge on a new dreadnought and I don't know much about
Philip Wheelock
I own a Martin HD-28 (1983) and a Collings D-2H (built this October), and
find both to be superbly finished and crafted. There's a fair difference
in the sound, with the Martin being more open and sweeter, and the
Collings having a powerful, hot sound. The Collings' sound is rapidly
evolving on a weekly basis, though, and for the better. When I first
purchased it, I felt that maybe I'd made a mistake, since it sounded stiff
and hard and a lot like an old plywood beater that I keep around. Now it's
a real joy to play, and I feel that it has the potential for an
outstanding sound as it matures over the next few years. I should add that
Bill Collings' idea of a dreadnought sound is different from the sound
that contemporary Martins are aimed at.
In article <RBOWDE-2912...@ppp88.ns.net>, RBO...@ns.net (Robert
Bowden) wrote:
--
*** Anti-spam tactics used. Please remove *spam_be_gone*
from the return address when replying.
CalliopePA
Well said! The Collings has an incredible attention to detail. They are
immaculate. None of that makes them sound any better (granted, they do sound
great--master grade woods and all) but these are small nits. Either choice is a
good one. Buy the one your ears and eyes tell you to buy, you're going to hold
it close for a long time. Martin is still on top of their game, and when they
set out to build a great guitar, look out. I've played at least one HD-28VR
that was as good as any dreadnought I've ever played. This Golden Age of
Luthiery we are in has really spoiled us--hard to go too far wrong!
Mezorro
BluesToad wrote:
>
> Hi
> I am ready to take the plunge on a new dreadnought and I don't know much about
> these guitars. Always had Martins but I just don't like what I'm seeing these
> days. Vintage Reissues except the 000-28EC are laden with some serious cost
> cutting measures.
>
> I then looked at the Collings and could not believe the difference in quality.
> But........
>
> Anyone with some insight??
>
> Thanks
> Mike
Yes, Mike. I have insight.
You are dead wrong. The CF Martin people are making some of the very
finest instruments they've ever made. Somehow, they manage to build many
many instruments each year, by hand, and maintain the highest of
standards. While on tour last year, I visited their factory, and I was
blown away with their high production values.
The new guys on the block, like Collings, Santa Cruz, Taylor, etc.
generally make fine instruments, too. You refer to Collings in
particular. The ones I've played were terrific. You'll get no argument
from me on that. I'd be pleased to play on a Collings.
CF Martin was officially founded in 1833, but was building for quite a
while before that year. The CF Martin Company established the design,
used of materials, and high quality standard to which these other
builders must answer. Martin is the standard. They remain the standard.
By the way, what are the cost cutting measures to which you refer?
Poor materials?
Poor construction?
Bad frets?
Cheap hardware?
The ones I've played have been clean as a whistle.
Kindly respond with specifics. Also, please remember that it's the
music, not the guitar which is most important. You can learn to be a
fine player on many of the instruments available these days.
Happy new year.
--
To reply, delete 'REMOVETHIS' from my address.
Peter MacDonald
>If you get a chance, check out a Santa Cruz Tony Rice model, a Gallagher
>(any model) or a Ricky Skaggs signature model (I can't remember at the
>moment who makes the Ricky Skaggs - anybody else know?).
Dana Bourgeois.
Peter
BluesToad
Hi:
I read your response and you are not understanding the meaning of my post. As
an owner of 4 Martins over the years, I can say that I find these days, some of
their models reflect a minimum standard that they set out to meet without
offending their well deserved reputation.
I do not feel that a buyer should "settle" for a change in standards of years
past when purchasing a guitar marketed as a vintage throwback. The old
standards should be there, or at least attempted.
On the other hand, I can find no area where the Collings are not finished to
the utmost ability of the manufacturer. No detail is too small and it shows.
Just my perceptions.
MIke
BluesToad
If you examine a D18VM and tell me its as fine a job as MArtin could have done
then fine. Your stardards and value of your $$$ are different than mine.
I purchased a 000-28EC and have no complaints about finisheing and design.
Wood grain is fine. Could be better but it sounds great so no problem.
Picture yourself buying a vintage reissue D-18 and feel the vintage satin
finish. Feel the difference in the neck shape. THis is not vintage at all but
a hybrid. Please, be open to the fact that vinatage toner and a tortoise
pickguard do not = vintage reissue. The whole package should be there except
the sound and that we can accept.
Mike
John Griffin
In article <19971228215...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
blue...@aol.com (BluesToad) wrote:
>Hi
>I am ready to take the plunge on a new dreadnought and I don't know much about
>these guitars. Always had Martins but I just don't like what I'm seeing these
>days. Vintage Reissues except the 000-28EC are laden with some serious cost
>cutting measures.
>
>I then looked at the Collings and could not believe the difference in quality.
>But........
>
>Anyone with some insight??
I am not sure what you mean by cost cutting measures. Back in the '70's
when Frank Martin brought in power equipment to drive the machines in his
North Street Factory, there was a definite drop in quality. Frank M. was
too busy playing golf and selling cars and having a few beers with his
friends to be worried about things at the plant. However since CFM1V has
taken over things have been put back on the rails. Quality has never been
better. They are turning out guitars now that although not revolutionary
(except perhaps the MTV) are consistently well crafted and beautiful
sounding.
Martin will always be the class of the industry.
And I don't even own a Martin! (I could have bought a D-45 back in the
'60's for around $500 Cnd. from a friend but passed it up because I didn't
have the money:~-() But I have toured the plant and I can see the kind of
pride of craftsmanship and work ethic that is evident there.
John G.
--
________________________________________________________
| John and | jgri...@spectranet.ca |
| Valerie | jgri...@astral.magic.ca |
| Griffin | joh...@aol.com |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
| "Still Point" | It's Not Too Late... |
| Moffat Ontario Canada | To have a Happy Childhood |
--------------------------------------------------------
Allan Cook
I've watched this thread for a couple of days, and I can't resist
throwing in my two cents:
I've had a Collings OM2H for almost four years (after several
Martins, including an OM-28) and it still amazes me every time I
pick it up. The sound just keeps getting richer and more beautiful
as the box opens up. The aesthetics are still as classy and
mind-blowing as they were when I first bought it.
For my money I can't imagine a better instrument, and if you're
thinking of an instrument in this price range, you really can't do
better than a Collings. The Martin "vintage reissue" OM-28 was
nice, but nothing really special. It did not have tonal presence of
the Collings.
The Collings operation is first-rate, too. I got a long personal tour
of the plant last November with Steve McCreary, and got to hang
with Bill for a long while afterward and ask questions as he
conducted some testing (for another manufacturer, interestingly).
Bill checked over my guitar and pronounced it A-OK. I'm sure if
there were any adjustments required he would have done them
on the spot without hestitation. I was left with huge respect for
Collings's professionalism, his craftsmanship and his
commitment to building the best guitars possible.
The anxiety I sense in these questions "Martin or Brand X?"
seems to be that people are afraid to take a chance on a
non-Martin instrument, either out of fear of service problems or
resale difficulties. The Martins are fine instruments. They are
durable and consistent across the board. You can always sell one.
But my opinion is that their quality establishes the floor, not the
ceiling, of the luthier's art. There are a lot of other makers out
there, including Collings, who are doing extraordinary work who
deserve to be considered.
Mezorro
BluesToad wrote:
>
> Hi:
> I read your response and you are not understanding the meaning of my >post. As
> an owner of 4 Martins over the years, I can say that I find these days, some of
> their models reflect a minimum standard that they set out to meet without
> offending their well deserved reputation.
>
What????? I repeat: "What????" Describe the problems.
I do not think that Martin will offend their reputation. A reputation
cannot, in my estimation, be offended. Anyway, how do you know what CF
Martin sets out to do? Mez thinks that CF Martin sets out to make the
best acoustic guitars in the world. And they succeed at it, by the way.
They can't keep up with the demand. They are sold out a year in advance.
> I do not feel that a buyer should "settle" for a change in standards of > years
> past when purchasing a guitar marketed as a vintage throwback. The old
> standards should be there, or at least attempted.
Their quality control is better than ever, Mike. Their new guitars are
made to the highest of standards.
>
> On the other hand, I can find no area where the Collings are not > finished to the utmost ability of the manufacturer. No detail is too > small and it shows.
>
Mike, I have to agree with you there. Collings makes great guitars. They
are made in the finest tradition of American luthiery, which was
established by C.F. Martin & Company in 1833.
> Just my perceptions.
> MIke
Just the facts.
Mez
Mezoro
>
>If you examine a D18VM and tell me its as fine a job as MArtin >could have
done then fine. Your stardards and value of your $$$ >are different than mine.
Martin has not changed. Their new standard series (18, 28, etc) is as good as
ever. I do this for a living, and am not associated with this manufacturer.
Their vintage reissue stuff is fantastic, at worst.
>
>I purchased a 000-28EC and have no complaints about finisheing >and design.
Wood grain is fine. Could be better but it sounds >great so no problem.
"Could be better?" What's wrong? I never see sloppy glue joints. I never see
finish flaws. I never see goofs in any areas on these guitars. "Wood grain is
fine?" What does that mean? Martin would never put a poor grade of wood on this
guitar.
>
>Picture yourself buying a vintage reissue D-18 and feel the >vintage satin
finish.
These guitars have a glossy finish.
> Feel the difference in the neck shape. THis >is not vintage at all >but a
hybrid.
Neck shape is not a function of quality. Old Martins, like all old guitars had
the necks shaped by hand. Some are "v" shaped, some are not. Some are skinny,
some are wide.
>Please, be open to the fact that >vinatage toner and a tortoise >pickguard do
not = vintage reissue.
What's wrong with "vintage toner". I think they call it "aging toner". It has
no effect on the sound or structure of the instrument. I'm confident that it's
just supposed to be appealing to the eye. Regarding the pickguard: As time goes
by, little details change, and are sometimes modified based on availability of
raw materials. If the new builders are in business for 164 years, like Martin,
they might experience some changes in plastics, metals, etc. Don't you think?
>The whole package should >be there except the sound and that >we can accept.
>
What? What does this mean? Is this some new form of vernacular or dialect?
The whole package is there. CF Martin is a stand-alone company in the music
world. 164 years of producing first class, blue ribbon instruments. Who else
can boast about this???
Another guitar company? No.
Woodwind? No.
Violin? No.
Percussion? No.
Brass? No.
Piano? Maybe. Steinway, Bosendorfer. Perhaps Baldwin?
Mike,
Take a second look. I think you'll see what I'm talking about.
Let me repeat: There are lots of great guitar builders out there right now.
It's a big time for guitar building these days. It's a lot of fun. You can see
lots of well made guitars in the stores. It wasn't like this years ago. Most of
the instruments were pretty marginal. Kay, Silvertone, Stella, Harmony. They're
"kitchy, and collectable, and quaint" but it was slim pickins for most wanna-be
guitar players. Much of the lower priced stuff nowadays is pretty darn
playable. The premium stuff is fantastic. But.....Martin has always been the
leader. Top of the heap. First in quality and sound. They're still right up
there.
Mezoro
MosesTey
I've followed this thread with interest and here are my observation to add to
the thread. Please, no flames- it is my sincere opinion, and hopefully a
relatively informed one.
Martins do makes some excellent instruments and a couple of the all time great
instruments I've ever played tonally were Martins. One was even a 70s 12th
fret D-28.
However, I agree with those who maintain that currently, Martins are not
necessarily tops of the field in terms of material and workmanship. (Of
course, this does not take into account other factors such as historical
significance of the Martin name, etc.)
I have gotten a great range of guitars from various makers, gone to NAMM shows,
frequent guitar shops etc. I also own a nice little stash of guitar woods from
which I have had numerous guitars completed by other luthiers. The point is
that I've had a good sampling of guitars from many of the smaller makers.
There are some objective comparisions that one can set for workmanship (i.e.
precision of joinery and purfling, cut of wood at the joints etc.) .There are
also some relatively objective standards one can set for the quality of
material for each species or else suppliers (i.e.Luthier's Mercantile) and
luthiers would not have any way to charge more for one board of wood than
another of the same species. (This is also why one gentleman who frequents
this news group flew from CA. to Kentucky where I was at that time and
personally selected a phenomenal set of Koa that he would not normally find in
a guitar shop. There is a way to grade material that most can agree on.)
From my observation, for the same priced guitars, many of the smaller guitar
makers (i.e. Thompson, Ryan, Collings, Santa Cruz, Breedlove etc.) consistently
have better workmanship and use better material than Martin.
One evidence for this is a simple step I go through. I invite people curious
about handmade guitars to bring their Martin/Gibson etc and compare them to the
handmades that I show them. Then, without any instruction on how to grade
workmanship or material, I ask them which has better workmanship and material.
This includes Martins the guitars that they have seen in stores. INVARIABLY
(sorry for the double emphasis here), without one exception, all have agreed
that the ones by the smaller makers are better made and have better material.
The observation is more pronounced with a few friends of mine who are wood
workers. They can really tell the difference even more dramatically. Am I
overstating my case? So far, I've not met one in person who have disagreed....
Of course, statistically, my observation is only a small part of the population
and my conclusions may be inaccurate with a larger population.
Blessings,
Moses Tey
Norman Draper
BluesToad wrote in message
<19971228215...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>Hi
>I am ready to take the plunge on a new dreadnought and I don't know much
about
>these guitars. Always had Martins but I just don't like what I'm seeing
these
>days. Vintage Reissues except the 000-28EC are laden with some serious
cost
>cutting measures.
>
>I then looked at the Collings and could not believe the difference in
quality.
>But........
>
>Anyone with some insight??
>
>Thanks
>Mike
Some great stuff written in these replys; here are my 2 cents.
I was at the Martin factory today, and played ,among others, a D18VS
that was great. And a D-41. And an HD-28. All really great guitars.
However, as the current owner of Martins, Collings(plural) and Santa
Cruz(plural) guitars, the fit and finish contest goes to the smaller
companies. Look and compare the inside of the three makes, especially the
Santa Cruz; both SC and Collings seem to pay closer attention to the very
small details.
If you are patient and look around, you can find Martins that are the
sonic equal of any of the small companies at a price that is well below a
similar model from a small company.
As so many others say, let your ears and heart be your guide. Oh, yeah,
and your wallet. You may only buy one great guitar in your life, so don't
be afraid to spend major money. That's what I told myself 12 guitars ago!
DodsonJohn
In article <19971231055...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, mose...@aol.com
(MosesTey) writes:
>The observation is more pronounced with a few friends of mine who are
>woodworkers. They can really tell the difference even more dramatically.
>Am I overstating my case? So far, I've not met one in person who have
>disagreed....
Hi Moses, I'll also chime in and agree with what you say. I'm a woodworker and
the Collings craftsmanship is superb. I toured the Collings factory about a
year and a half ago (a 30 minute private tour for my wife and myself, while
they were tryin got getting ready for NAMM! Nice folks, Steve McCreary is a
very cordial host) and the attention to minute detail was evident everywhere.
One place everyone can see this attention to detail is in the vintage faux
triangular joint in the back of the headstock. Compare a Collings to a Martin
and you'll see that Collings maintains a very crisp line in this decoartive
feature, whereas Martin oversands it, rounding over all of the edges. A small
point, but it is reflected everywhere in a Collings instrument.
John
Dodso...@aol.com
Bozo
... Compare a Collings to a Martin
> and you'll see that Collings maintains a very crisp line in this decoartive
> feature, whereas Martin oversands it, rounding over all of the edges. A small
> point, but it is reflected everywhere in a Collings instrument.
> John
> Dodso...@aol.com
...and take a real close look at the Herringbone on the top. The Collings
is very tight and clean. My recent Martin HD-28 was a bit sloppy in this
area.
mi...@cellbio.wustl.edu
In article <19971231174...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
dodso...@aol.com (DodsonJohn) wrote:
> In article <19971231055...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, mose...@aol.com
> (MosesTey) writes:
>
> >The observation is more pronounced with a few friends of mine who are
> >woodworkers. They can really tell the difference even more dramatically.
> >Am I overstating my case? So far, I've not met one in person who have
> >disagreed....
>
> Hi Moses, I'll also chime in and agree with what you say. I'm a
woodworker and
> the Collings craftsmanship is superb. I toured the Collings factory about a
> year and a half ago (a 30 minute private tour for my wife and myself, while
> they were tryin got getting ready for NAMM! Nice folks, Steve McCreary is a
> very cordial host) and the attention to minute detail was evident everywhere.
> One place everyone can see this attention to detail is in the vintage faux
> triangular joint in the back of the headstock. Compare a Collings to a Martin
> and you'll see that Collings maintains a very crisp line in this decoartive
> feature, whereas Martin oversands it, rounding over all of the edges. A small
> point, but it is reflected everywhere in a Collings instrument.
> John
I have to throw in my half cent worth. There are many interesting
opinions expressed in this thread, but I am very surprised that no one has
pointed out the most important difference between Collings and Martin. It
is true IMHO that Collings guitars have somewhat better "fit and finish"
compared to Martin, but to many players that is a relatively unimportant
difference. If you are mostly playing an acoustic guitar unequalized and
unamplified, by yourself or in a small group, the raw timbre of the
instrument is what is supremely important to most players, not whether
there is a minor defect in the purfling (or whatever). I have never come
across a guitar of any make that closely mimicks the classic Martin
dreadnaught tone. If you don't care for that tone, and perhaps prefer the
more discrete, less boomy, and less woody sound of a Collings, then buy a
Collings. If you love the Martin sound, then buy a Martin. If you can
afford it, buy both and have fun exploring the difference in tone of two
great guitars. I do think it is a mistake to recommend a Collings over a
Martin just because of the somewhat superior workmanship. The timbre will
most likely be much more important to the owner over the long run, and if
it is the Martin sound that you like, you will HAVE to buy a Martin--no
one else has duplicated it (at least that I have ever experienced). On
the other hand, it is true that Martins are notoriously difficult to mike
and record because of the prominent mid bass. So, if you are going to buy
only one dreadnaught, you have to consider what it will be used for and
what timbre is most pleasing to your ear and the style of music that you
play.
DodsonJohn
In article <mike-01019...@128.252.206.221>, mi...@cellbio.wustl.edu
writes:
>opinions expressed in this thread, but I am very surprised that no one
>has pointed out the most important difference between Collings and Martin.
<snip>
> I have never come across a guitar of any make that closely mimicks the
classic
>Martin dreadnaught tone. If you don't care for that tone, and perhaps prefer
>the more discrete, less boomy, and less woody sound of a Collings, then buy
>a Collings. If you love the Martin sound, then buy a Martin. If you can
Hi Mike, I was not forgetting sound differences, I was just pointing to
differences that can be easily and objectively observed. When you talk sound,
I think it is much more difficult to be objective. I've heard comments:
"Collings makes better Martins than Martin", "if you want a pre-war
dreadnaught, buy a Collings", "Collings guitars sound better than prewar
Martins" etc.. Currently, in this newsgroup, folks are recommending (for that
Martin pre-war sound), Goodall guitars, Schoenberg guitars, Santa Cruz guitars.
So it makes comparison difficult, but perhaps it is not quite fair to compare
a new guitar to a 60 yr old guitar (no substitute for time) or maybe not fair
to compare workmanship quality in a company that makes 75 guitars a month with
one that makes 500 guitars a month(?). In any case, I have no doubt in my
mind, that any of the above master luthiers can reproduce a vintage martin
sound (and probably do it on their lunch break!)... just my opinion.
I was in NY this past summer and of course went to Madolin Bros. to check out
guitars in their "boutique" guitar room. Played lots of guitars, Martins,
SCGC, Collings, Gibson, Lowdens etc... great to be in a shop with so many great
guitars. To my ear, the consistency of great sound and the rich, resonant
quality of Collings guitars compard to others was amazing. After 30 minutes,
playing these various boutique guitars, I was approached by an Italian luthier
who had entered the shop after I did and he wanted to know which guitar I was
playing (after playing about 10)... after pulling several off the wall, the one
that captured his ear was a Collings 0002H.
>It is true IMHO that Collings guitars have somewhat better "fit and
>finish" compared to Martin, but to many players that is a relatively
>unimportant difference. If you are mostly playing an acoustic guitar
>unequalized and unamplified, by yourself or in a small group, the raw timbre
>of the instrument is what is supremely important to most players, not
>whether there is a minor defect in the purfling (or whatever).
I disagree. When paying $1500-2500 for a guitar, I don't think it unreasonable
to expect superb craftsmanship, especially given the current competitive
market. I also think the thought, care and attention given to the outside of a
guitar is reflected in the construction details (which produce the 'raw
timbre') given to the inside of the guitar. I just wish I could afford them!
;-)
Happy New Year.
John
John
Dodso...@aol.com
Mezoro
>>>I have to throw in my half cent worth. There are many interesting opinions
expressed in this thread, but I am very surprised that no one has pointed out
that Collings guitars have somewhat better "fit and finish" compared to Martin,
but to many players that is a relatively unimportant difference.<<<
It is very important! Martin's "fit & finish" is first class.
>>>If you are mostly playing an acoustic guitar unequalized and unamplified, by
yourself or in a small group, the raw timbre of the instrument is what is
supremely important to most players, not whether there is a minor defect in the
purfling (or whatever). I have never come across a guitar of any make that
closely mimicks the classic Martin dreadnaught tone. If you don't care for
that tone, and perhaps prefer the more discrete, less boomy, and less woody
sound of a Collings, then buy a Collings. If you love the Martin sound, then
buy a Martin. If you can afford it, buy both and have fun exploring the
difference in tone of two great guitars. I do think it is a mistake to
recommend a Collings over a Martin just because of the somewhat superior
workmanship.<<<
Martin guitars are made with superior workmanship. I have not read one
legitimate comment with regard to specific flaws in their workmanship.
>>>The timbre will most likely be much more important to the owner over the
long run, and if it is the Martin sound that you like, you will HAVE to buy a
Martin--no one else has duplicated it (at least that I have ever
experienced).<<<
If you have talent, you can play effectively on just about anything. A Martin,
Gibson, Guild, Taylor, Collings, Santa Cruz, Yamaha, Fender....
>>>On the other hand, it is true that Martins are notoriously difficult to mike
and record because of the prominent mid bass.<<<
Eric Clapton, Paul Simon, Clarence White, Doc Watson, Brownie McGhee, Joan
Baez, and many others never have had a problem recording on a Martin. Engineers
love Martin Guitars.
>>>So, if you are going to buy only one dreadnaught, you have to consider what
it will be used for and what timbre is most pleasing to your ear and the style
of music that you play.<<<
Buy just guitar and spend the rest on learning tools. Books, lessons, pencils,
lots of erasers. For those speculators out there, try the stock market. Last I
heard, Microsoft hasn't produced a dreadnaught yet.
Mezoro
Paul Ebersman
In <19980101184...@ladder02.news.aol.com> mez...@aol.com (Mezoro) writes:
>Martin guitars are made with superior workmanship. I have not read one
>legitimate comment with regard to specific flaws in their workmanship.
From your various posts, you are obviously completely in love with
Martins. That's great for you. However, Martins are not the only great
guitar and not everyone loves everything about them. If you like the
Martin sound, buy one. If that's not what you're looking for, shop
around first. There are dozens of top notch makers these days.
As for the noted difference in finish and workmanship, Collings guitars
are made in much smaller numbers and a number of things they do
(someone mentioned the very sharp pyramid volute compared to Martin)
Martin can't because Martin has to mass produce. Comparing
mass-produced guitar (even top-quality like Martin) to smaller makers
is not a valid comparison.
Martin is trying to get high quality, consistent sounding guitars out in
suficient quantities to satisfy the large demand. Collings is trying to
make guitars that sound like the best pre-war guitars and is not as
concerned with cost or market share.
They are trying to satisfy two different markets with products produced
with different philosophies. Viva la difference.
Think back to the 60s and 70s where if you weren't Martin or Gibson,
you couldn't make it selling acoustic guitars. Even with 20 or 30 years
of playing, most of these guitars can't compare to anything that anyone
makes now, including Martin and Gibson. With no competition and no
sophisticated, picky customers, they turned out shoddy products.
Be grateful that folks like Gurian and Franklin started a trend that
pulled Martin out of their slump.
--
Paul
Mezoro
>From your various posts, you are obviously completely in love with
>Martins. That's great for you. However, Martins are not the only great
>guitar and not everyone loves everything about them. If you like the
>Martin sound, buy one. If that's not what you're looking for, shop
>around first. There are dozens of top notch makers these days.
Maybe you weren't reading my posts carefully, Paul. It was not a matter of
being "completely in love" with any guitar. I was responding to a contributer
who claimed that Martin was using cost cutting measures, which were hurting
quality. I specifically stated that there are MANY fine instruments available
today from many manufacturers. I just went to bat for Martin. I believe that
they are a terrific company, making terrific instruments.
>
>As for the noted difference in finish and workmanship, Collings >guitars are
made in much smaller numbers and a number of things >they do (someone mentioned
the very sharp pyramid volute >compared to Martin) Martin can't because Martin
has to mass >produce.
I did not address this issue. When a guitar is prepared with very sharp edges,
like the pyramid to which you refer, and other areas such as the peg head
edges, those particular spots will not take very much lacquer. The pointy,
sharp areas have little surface area, and they will tend to "wear through" and
not take little bumps & scrapes well. It is a thoughtful descision to slightly
round these areas. It is not a matter of quality control. The sharp corners
look great when they are new.
>Comparing mass-produced guitar (even top-quality like Martin) to >smaller
makers is not a valid comparison. Martin is trying to get >high quality,
consistent sounding guitars out in suficient quantities >to satisfy the large
demand. Collings is trying to make guitars that >sound like the best pre-war
guitars and is not as concerned with >cost or market share. They are trying to
satisfy two different >markets with products produced with different
philosophies. Viva >la difference.
I must take exception to this line of thought, Paul. If Martin produces a 000
size rosewood/spruce/ebony guitar for say $3,500, and so does Collings,
Alverez, Santa Cruz, Goodall, Gibson, Taylor, Breedlove, Larrivee, etc., then,
they are competing in the same ballpark, for the same customers. They are
trying to satisfy the same market. They are sold side by side in the same
stores. No difference.
>Think back to the 60s and 70s where if you weren't Martin or >Gibson, you
couldn't make it selling acoustic guitars. Even with 20 >or 30 years of
playing, most of these guitars can't compare to >anything that anyone makes
now, including Martin and Gibson.
It's not hard for me to think back. I was there. There were some fine
instruments produced during that period. Not all of them were great, but that's
the way it always is. Many contributers to the message board speak very highly
of their guitars, which were made in the '60's & '70's.
>With no competition and no sophisticated, picky customers, they > >turned out
shoddy products.
I was pretty darn picky back then.
>Be grateful that folks like Gurian and Franklin started a trend that >pulled
Martin out of their slump.
Grateful? I appreciate talent. If they build good instruments, they should be
rewarded with high sales, high demand, and a good reputation. When a well
meaning contributer took a shot at Martin, I defended them. They are the oldest
and most consistently well crafted guitar in America. Maybe anywhere. They
compete well in any price category. Their top stuff is as good as it gets.
The other guys who have been mentioned here, like Collings, Goodall, etc.
appear to make a great product. The Collings I've played were really terrific.
I said it before. There it is again.
By the way, some of these smaller, boutique builders have larger numbers than
we may be aware of. It is a credit to their products and reputations.
>
>--
> Paul
>
>
Mezoro
SteveKlim
A quick question regarding Collings guitars -- after playing my Collings D2HBA
for the past month or so -- I have noticed that I have to press harder to fret
the strings (and my hand gets tired more quickly) than on my other guitars
(mostly Taylors). In fact, though my Collings has an identical set-up to my
Taylor 810, and has the same strings (D'Addario EJ17's) -- the Taylor frets
with much less effort (although it doesn't sound nearly as good). The only
difference I can point to is that the Collings has a 25.5" scale, while the
Taylor's scale is 25.4". Can that 1/10" makes that much of a difference?
Thanks. Steve
mi...@cellbio.wustl.edu
In article <19980101180...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
dodso...@aol.com (DodsonJohn) wrote:
>
> Hi Mike, I was not forgetting sound differences, I was just pointing to
> differences that can be easily and objectively observed. When you talk sound,
> I think it is much more difficult to be objective. I've heard comments:
> "Collings makes better Martins than Martin", "if you want a pre-war
> dreadnaught, buy a Collings", "Collings guitars sound better than prewar
> Martins" etc.. Currently, in this newsgroup, folks are recommending (for that
> Martin pre-war sound), Goodall guitars, Schoenberg guitars, Santa Cruz
guitars.
> So it makes comparison difficult, but perhaps it is not quite fair to compare
> a new guitar to a 60 yr old guitar (no substitute for time) or maybe not fair
> to compare workmanship quality in a company that makes 75 guitars a month with
> one that makes 500 guitars a month(?). In any case, I have no doubt in my
> mind, that any of the above master luthiers can reproduce a vintage martin
> sound (and probably do it on their lunch break!)... just my opinion.
John, I have read these types of comments on the newsgroup, too, and I
strongly disagree with them. To me, Collings guitars don't sound anything
like the equivalent Martin, new or pre-war. The other manufacturers you
mention also have their own characteristic guitar timbre, each unique,
although some sound more alike than others. But none, to my ear, sounds
like a Martin. I recently purchased a Martin 000-28GE rather than a
Collings 0002 (a very similar model to the Martin, both being patterned
after the circa 1930 Martin 12-fret). The Martin 000-28GEs I played had
much more prominent mid-bass and greater resonance than any of the
Collings 0002's I played. I think the difference is due at least in part
to the use of a dovetail joint by Martin, as opposed to the bolt-on neck
used by Collings. I am not saying that one sound is better than the
other, only that they are quite different. I actually like and enjoy both
types of sound. Shoenberg guitars used to be made at the Martin factory
(I don't know if they still are), so they do sound like Martins since they
are essentially high-end Martins, but, again, to my ear, Goodall and Santa
Cruz guitars also don't resemble the Martin sound.
>
>
> I disagree. When paying $1500-2500 for a guitar, I don't think it
unreasonable
> to expect superb craftsmanship, especially given the current competitive
> market. I also think the thought, care and attention given to the outside of a
> guitar is reflected in the construction details (which produce the 'raw
> timbre') given to the inside of the guitar. I just wish I could afford
them!
> ;-)
I agree, but it is also true that you will pay significantly less for a
new Martin versus a new, equivalent model Collings with the standard
discounts that are available. I would have paid $300 more for a Collings
0002 than for my Martin 000-28GE. I would have purchased a guitar with
somewhat better fit and finish and importantly, with a compensated saddle,
but with a substantially different timbre. I just happened to like the
Martin sound in this particular instance. I also purchased a Collings
OM2H rather than a Martin OM28VR for the same reason. That extra $300
definitely gets you something with regard to appearance and attention to
detail, but, to my ear, a Collings dreadnaught or auditorium will never
sound like a Martin.
Bozo
.... to my ear, a Collings dreadnaught or auditorium will never
> sound like a Martin.
You are f*&$%ing nuts!
How can you generalize that much, given the hugh variation between
guitars, pre vrs post war, strings, etc. ? I don't know what kind of
Martins you have been playing (70's ?), but the Martin pre-war 'bones that
I have heard sound pretty darn close to a Collings D2HBA to me.
Al Sato
mez...@aol.com (Mezoro) wrote:
>>As for the noted difference in finish and workmanship, Collings >guitars are
>made in much smaller numbers and a number of things >they do (someone mentioned
>the very sharp pyramid volute >compared to Martin) Martin can't because Martin
>has to mass >produce.
>
>I did not address this issue. When a guitar is prepared with very sharp edges,
>like the pyramid to which you refer, and other areas such as the peg head
>edges, those particular spots will not take very much lacquer. The pointy,
>sharp areas have little surface area, and they will tend to "wear through" and
>not take little bumps & scrapes well. It is a thoughtful descision to slightly
>round these areas. It is not a matter of quality control. The sharp corners
>look great when they are new.
Even Martins from the 1920s and 1930s have that volute slightly
rounded. I agree with Mezoro, it's a design decision.
Al
--
Respond to: nas "at" centtech "dot" com
This is an attempt to reduce the volume of unwanted commercial email.
Paul Ebersman
In <34b120f3.30757396@proxy> ple...@nospam.us (Al Sato) writes:
>Even Martins from the 1920s and 1930s have that volute slightly
>rounded. I agree with Mezoro, it's a design decision.
All production decisions are design decisions. Martin is very consistent
in their building because they think a lot about changes in design and
what that will mean in production. Smaller builders can do things that
work well for them but don't scale to Martin's level of production.
If there is something that looks nice or works well but doesn't scale,
Martin would probably have to find another way to do it. Part of the
additional cost with a "boutique" guitar is that lack of scale allows
for more design possibilities. The down side is that you lose
efficiency of scale overall, so cost of production is higher.
--
Paul
SteveMik
Collings' sharp edges can actually be painful. Just bumping the bridge on my
D2H (sloppy technique I know) while playing brings a blister.
those crisp edges are pretty, but very unforgiving.
Philip Wheelock
All the better to keep the rest of the band from crowding you onstage :-)
In article <19980106224...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
stev...@aol.com (SteveMik) wrote:
--