bobouz
-
Posts
3,933 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by bobouz
-
-
4 hours ago, Sgt. Pepper said:
I'm not mad or upset about the stupid guitars that Martin makes. I've see them in person and on the web. My WTF moment was when you were having an issue with your p/g on a Gibson, yet another member wanted you to post it on the UMGF. What point does that make to Martin owners? Gibson's p/g are too thick and flubbery and that makes Martin look bad how? Oh thats right due to binding and neck resets.
So my assumption re the “put it on UMGF” comment, was that there are a lot of Gibson owners who frequent that forum, and they would benefit from the information.
Regardless, when Gibson imperfections become a source of contention on this board, comparisons are frequently made to Martin as the gold standard - which is a holdover myth from the past. The overall point is that none of these companies are perfect, or produce a perfectly constructed product every time. They’re simply trying to turn a profit and remain in business, and the days of skilled craftsmen spending their lives with these companies is now long gone. The guitar-building playing field has leveled in many ways.
But what sets Martin’s binding & neck reset issues apart in the last decade, is that Martin has simply turned a blind eye to these systemic build quality issues. They won’t acknowledge the problems, and don’t offer their customers a clear path to address these issues should the customer’s guitar suffer one of these fates. So if you follow the bazillion posts on UMGF regarding the binding issue in particular, Martin owners are typically scrambling to figure out their repair & cost options. I have seen other companies do this in other fields to avoid recalls or high volume warranty work, and imho it’s not kosher, especially from a company that I believe used to have pride in the build quality of it’s products - but unfortunately seems to have been coasting on it’s reputation for a long time now.
-
3 hours ago, Sgt. Pepper said:
Ask them if Martin has pick guards that are as thick as my car windshield.
Sorry, but that boat won’t float. I haven’t seen any recent acoustic guitar industry screw ups to compare with Martin’s binding & neck reset issues. And it’s not that I don’t like Martin’s - they make good guitars, just like Gibson, Guild, Taylor, and others. But the myth of Martin perfection needs to be debunked, and it would be especially nice to see them man up, take the high road, & formally acknowledge these problems.
-
1 hour ago, Sgt. Pepper said:
Yeah that will show those Martin guys what’s up.
Indeed, for just a moment, they can turn away from a current Technical Info section hot topic: Whether or not Martin’s problem with loose binding has an effect on tone.
-
1
-
2
-
-
We just recently had a thread about adjustable saddles & plastic bridges, complete with luthier-bashing video. I’ve been hearing the exact same generalized stuff from luthiers & self-described experts since the ‘70s. Now we have the internet to spread an identical one-size-fits-all assessment of this bridge system.
I quickly discovered back in the day that I loved the slightly metallic tone of my Kalamazoo-made 1964 Epiphone Cortez (FT-45n) - goofy adjustable plastic bridge & all. If a guitar is satisfying to your ears, it’s all that matters - ideal construction techniques be damned.
-
1
-
-
Very interesting bit of info - Good to know!
-
3 hours ago, c70man said:
it is 5mm thick or .196" at the sound hole. pretty thick. I'm pretty sure its laminate because of the thickness. hard to tell looking at it.
The ladder horizontal bracing is clearly visible. When coupled with the thick top (most likely laminate), you’re bound to get the muted acoustic tone this model is known for. No matter, you’ve got a golden era P90 mounted on there, which should be capable of producing some gorgeously unique tones as it sits on that platform. We surely know of at least a few guys who made darn good use of it!
-
IIRC, some of Kalamazoo’s earliest J-160e instruments had solid tops. But thereafter, the tops were laminated, very thick, and had ladder bracing (the focus being on it’s electric viability). The few laminated top examples I’ve played were absolutely dead on arrival as an acoustic guitar.
J-160e versions produced in Bozeman have sometimes had solid tops with X-bracing (essentially a typical J-45 with a P90), while others have attempted to accurately recreate Lennon’s laminated-top version.
-
Such wonderful instrument to inherit from your mom - Enjoy!
-
Yes, OWF is surely missed. Whenever an old thread like this comes up & I see his avatar, a reflexive smile immediately appears.
-
The original saddle, if it is still on there, would be ceramic. If the plastic bridge is structurally sound and you like the tone, my advice would be to leave it as is.
We’ve seemingly had this discussion here a million times, but it’s worth repeating: The adjustable plastic bridge was a goofy idea, but an unintended byproduct is that it can create a slightly metallic & unique tone that some folks are quite drawn to. In my case, it’s a tone that I actually crave.
If the guitar’s current tone doesn’t work for you, then by all means, experiment away - but I’d do the reversible stuff first!
Edit: After watching the posted luthier’s video, I have to disagree with a few key points. The NON-adjustable plastic bridge does indeed represent a tonal kiss of death scenario - but the adjustable version is a whole different ball game. The two adjustable metal posts & metal seat for the saddle create somewhat of an archtop-like bridge arrangement - thereby delivering that unique tone (and relegating the plastic bridge to no more than a seat for the six pins). Additionally, as for the luthier’s generalized concerns regarding structural stability, some examples of the adjustable plastic bridge have remained stable for decades. My own from 1966 is in perfect structural condition after 56 years, which I dare say is longer than many traditional bridges have survived!
-
Beautiful guitar!
FYI - The 2001 catalog listed the HRF version III, with 490 R&T pickups - so the model was around for a while in that configuration. One major difference in ‘01: the sweet-looking natural finish version was not available at that time - Just cherry, ebony, & sunburst.
-
2
-
-
Yes indeed, I have one, and it’s a super nice guitar, imho. The short-scale is what I was initially after, and it’s very comfy - but additionally, the overall low-but-wide neck profile adds positively to the 23.5” scale’s playability.
So you get the neck of a Byrdland, mated to a rather unique body that’s far removed from a Byrdland. Similar to other Midtowns, the body is a semi-hollow, with a flat top. Throw in the ‘57 classic humbuckers with coil taps, and tonally you’ve got a number of interesting options.
Congrats on finding one of these, as they rarely come up. Mine’s certainly not for sale!
-
First Gibson, purchased at a flea market around 1974, was a 1948 L-48 acoustic archtop with a pressed solid mahogany top, solid mahogany sides, and a solid mahogany fully-braced flat-back. It had a wonderful sound & was unique enough that I’ve never come across another one like it. Still regret letting that one go!
Since then, I’ve gone with Gibsons over & over again (along with a few nice Martins & Guilds). Gibsons have consistently delivered what I’m after, both in tone & playability - including even a couple of very nice Norlin Era guitars (Dove & Heritage Custom). There’ve been a few duds along the way that got returned or sold - but my current group (spanning 1922-2015) includes three made in Kalamazoo, three made in Nashville, four made in Memphis, and six made in Bozeman. All are stellar instruments and have given me a ton of musical joy.
So many many thanks to the men & women who built these instruments, going back to 1922, that I continue to be inspired by today (nuts & all!).
-
1
-
-
You are fortunate to have the chipped piece as intact as it is. If it were mine, I absolutely would want it back in place - it’s still part of the guitar.
-
As mentioned above, almost certainly Japanese-made from the ‘70s. Typically, these utilized all laminated wood for the top, sides, & back - but some higher end models sported solid tops. Whatever name was on the headstock is obviously now gone, but regional distributors could order them with just about any name desired. Ibanez, Aria, Suzuki, Ventura, Lyle, & others featured instruments like this in the USA throughout the ‘70s & early ‘80s, until entry level production switched primarily to Korea in the mid ‘80s.
-
The serial number you gave does indeed date to 2000.
A picture of the label would be helpful. In 2000, the correct label would have the Gibson logo, with the words “Tone, Feel, Appearance” surrounding it in a circular manner. It should be orange in color, and have a serial number matching the headstock.
In 2000, the standard production Hummingbird did not have an adjustable bridge, but a special order or limited run may have occurred.
-
Yes, 1965 was the transaction year, and included both nut sizes.
My since departed ‘65 B-25n had a 1-11/16” nut.
And welcome, from one old geezer to another!
-
Go to UMGF’s Technical Info section & read the ongoing “So this is how to remove the top from an old Martin (Rosa String Works)” thread. Five pages worth of clarity on the dangers of leaving a guitar with Rosa, as he absolutely destroys a vintage 00-18.
Imho, he’s a potential menace to any vintage instrument that crosses his path. Spread the word, so hopefully more instruments won’t have to suffer untold indignities.
-
2
-
-
In the ‘70s, I owned a L-48 that I dated specifically to 1948. It had to have an identifying number, and iirc a stamp that said L-48. It had a solid pressed mahogany top with parallel bracing, solid mahogany sides, and a flat & fully braced solid mahogany back (as if parts had been mixed & matched). I’ve never come across another one like it.
-
4 hours ago, Sgt. Pepper said:
So it looks like one yes and another because of a house fire, so I think unless I am an idiot, and of course you guys think I am, fire is hot and probably had an effect on the glue.
For any meaningful info, the question needs to be asked specific to the years in question (2012-2018 & perhaps beyond). And by asking for feedback about Martins on a Gibson forum, you’re pretty much guaranteed a limiting handful of responses.
Another key consideration: THIS ISSUE IS ONGOING. It may be many more years until the binding problems from this period have run their course. To date, there have been numerous threads on UMGF about loose bindings for at least a couple of years, and new cases are being brought to light as we speak.
Case in point: A portion of a new post from this morning on UMGF:
”I’m in a total quandary concerning how to repair my OM-28A (3of 4 waists have come loose). I’ve sent messages to 4 different luthiers, and 3 replied with different fixes from completely removing and replacing the binding and refinishing the guitar, to just CA gluing the limited areas and worrying about future repairs at a future time.”
Meanwhile, Martin continues to sidestep publicly acknowledging the issue, most likely to avoid any kind of recall activity. As a number of UMGF members have noted, Martin’s highly valued reputation for quality seems to be a thing of the past.
-
10 hours ago, Sgt. Pepper said:
I now want to pose a question to the members here who own those lousy Martins - How many who own both or just a Martin have had their binding pop off? One vote here - a big nope.
If you’re trying to say that there’s essentially no issue, just go get the facts in the many threads on this subject on the UMGF. People are posting on the Technical Info section of UMGF time after time to get help with a problematic defect that’s going to require repair, and often on very expensive models. If they purchased the item used, everything will be out of pocket - including potential finish repairs. If under warranty, they’re wondering what may or may not be covered, and what repair options might be in play - such as having all of the binding replaced on the instrument in order to avoid having a different section popping loose after the initial repair. And if there are finish issues, will the warranty cover any of that?
These folks never thought they’d have to deal with such repairs on a new & expensive Martin, but now they’re having to dive in & muck through the process.
Veering off into a chat about CEOs, or a poll about Martins on a Gibson forum doesn’t change or minimize the reality of the issue. Sure, we’re not talking about every solitary Martin, but it remains a documented factor to consider if contemplating a purchase - which is what initiated the revival of this thread.
-
53 minutes ago, Sgt. Pepper said:
Any maybe just like you with Gibson, non of those things that people complain about on my Martin have never happened to me, and I have owed 14 or so all from between 2001 - 2020. I own one in that time frame and its one of my favorite of off them all.
Hope your good luck continues, but that doesn’t help any of the folks who’ve been & continue to be burned by this problem. Yes, Gibson had a CEO with dilutions of grandeur, but given years to do so, Martin’s yawning brain trust neither formally acknowledged or fixed a systemic problem that has directly impacted scores of purchasers - and the rippling testimonials continue to this day.
Again, anyone considering the purchase of a Martin should spend some time researching threads on this subject in the Technical Info section of the UMGF.
-
16 hours ago, Sgt. Pepper said:
What company is that?
It’s the company that has a systemic problem with bindings popping off - I think you know the one! Sorry to bring it up once again, but reading the Technical Info section today over on the UMGF forced my hand. More poor & unhappy souls all the time having to contemplate their approach to getting it repaired (sometimes including damaged finish), or perhaps just selling the guitar at a loss. Potentially afflicting any USA-made Martin from approx 2012 to 2018 (& perhaps beyond), it seems to be happening to a lot of very expensive instruments, which is of course all the more maddening for their owners.
Imho, anyone considering a Martin vs Gibson acoustic purchase should thoroughly read up on this issue before plunking down their hard earned dollars.
-
In the late ‘70s, I owned an early ‘70s Dove - which at the time sported the wide mustache bridge as seen on that era’s J-200 and Heritage Custom. Double-X braced, it had a very pleasing tone.
J-200 pickguard de-flubberized
in Gibson Acoustic
Posted · Edited by bobouz
Edit to clarify: The original comment to put the Flubber Fix on UMGF was not made by me. I interpreted the poster as saying it would be an opportunity to share information with more Gibson owners. Regarding the rest of your post:
Unfortunately, those poor folks on the UMGF are continuing to discover these problems randomly when they open their guitar cases, sometimes years after the purchase of their Martin Authentic or other high priced model. They no longer have an option to return their guitar as if, by comparison, a finish flaw on a new purchase were the concern. And after years of this occurring, Martin still continues to bury it’s corporate head in the sand.
It’s great that to date you haven’t had any of those issues with your Martins. I similarly can point towards the immaculate health of the eight Gibson acoustics & nine Gibson electrics I have here at home - along with two very nice Martins. Both companies have made some great guitars, and both have made some clunkers. Again, that’s my bottom line point - Martin is inherently no better than Gibson, and Gibson is inherently no better than Martin. They are simply companies making good guitars. Find the guitars that work for you & keep you musically satisfied. And when that happens, (as the former FZ FAN who left this forum vowing never to return, you should know this better than most): It’s just a matter of shutting up and playing your guitar!