Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums


All Access
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by sbpark

  1. I own four acoustics...two Gibsons (J45, AJ) and tea Martins (D-18, D-45) My first love was Gibson acoustics, but I am also smitten with my Martins. They all have their own voice and each has it's "thing" it does better than the others. My J45 is growly and sweet at the same time. My AJ is a bluegrass/flatpicking monster and is LOUD. The D45 has this three-dimensional presence, almost like ti has it's own built in reverb, and is killer for both finger picking and singer songwriter stuff. The D-18 is probably the best "all-arounder" of the bunch. I can do everything with this guitar and be happy...flatpicking, fingerpicking, bluegrass, singer-songwriter. It does it all. Very woody and "old school" sounding, if that makes any sense. Old school country, bluegrass and fiddle tunes just beg to be played in the D-18. Yo see a lot of people wanting to compare and agonizing over deciding between J45's and D-18's. To me they're not even close in comparison. Different body shapes,, different scale length, ever so slightly nut width on the Martins (mine are 1 3/4"). I sort of think of the J45 as a small-body guitar in a larger guitar's body and string mine with 12's. D-18's are a flat pickers dream, are monsters with 13's. has a larger body, longer scale neck, overall bigger voice. I've always thought the D-18 is pretty much the Swiss Army knife of acoustic guitars. If you could only have one guitar and play Bluegrass and fiddle tunes in your repertoire it's hard to beat a D-18. The "newer" (post 2012) D-18 Standards when they went to the 1 3/4" nut with, and back to scalloped and forward shifted bracing are pretty darn sweet., If you don't play any Bluegrass or fiddle tunes the J45 is tough to beat. Of course, neither of these are hard, fast rules.
  2. There are many definitions used to determine if a guitar is "vintage", so neither of us is wrong, only a difference of opinion. I'll put it you you this way...just because a guitar meets criteria as "vintage" (use whatever criteria or definition you'd like), doesn't automatically mean it's anything special, desirable or valuable. It can still be defined as vintage and be a worthless p.o.s., and just because you aren't keen to certain guitars made during a certain era doesn't automatically discount them from being defined as vintage. You may not like it, but that doesn't discount it from being something.
  3. Seems a bit excessive to refinish the entire top for a few CA glue drips and dribbles. I'm sure there is a way to fix this to a satisfactory state, and even to the point where you can hardly notice the screw up without having to refinish the guitar. As a previous poster has mentioned, CA glue is used extensively in guitar repair and a skilled repair person should be able to scrape the existing flops down, then do some delicate sanding and finally buffing to get it to a good place. Pictures would really help.
  4. Again, as many have already stated, you can't make blanket conclusions on an entire era/decade/period of guitars based on one example from that time. There will be amazing ones, great ones, good ones and awful ones from every period, new and old, vintage and modern, etc. You're also comparing a 0 size Martin to a 000 size Martin. Only thing in common is the name on the headstock. Would be like comparing a J45 and a LG0 and saying you prefer one over the other thinking it's apples and apples. And jsut because these two guitars in the video look the same/very similar on the outside and both have the "35" in the model name doesn't mean they are even remotely the same or similar under the hood, because they are not.
  5. Looks like Gibson actually acknowledged the issue and remedied it, while Martin, for whatever reason apparently hasn't done a thing about it.
  6. By definition "vintage" usually denotes a guitar greater than 25-30 years old.
  7. Who knows, and if they knew, I'd would think they would have corrected the issue by now. Maybe Martin doesn't see it as an issue. Their neck angles are literally all over the place out of the factory. I had a 2014 000-15M that I bought brand new and after a couple years (like 2.5 years to be exact) the action was so high I ran out of saddle and had nowhere left to go with sanding it down. Took it to an Authorized Martin repair shop and they along with Martin (I was there when the repair person at the shop called Martin and had them on speakerphone so I could hear because he had been dealing with this issue for a while and wanted me other it direct from Martin because he had some very unhappy customers when they refused to warranty a neck reset) acknowledged the issue but would not authorize a neck reset. They instead offered two options, to have Martin send the shop a lower bridge to replace the stock bridge, or have the shop shave down the existing bridge. I opted for the latter (the shop owner also builds gorgeous acoustics so I had no question about his skill and ability) and the guitar came out looking perfect. My only worry was the neck angle would keep settling/moving, so I sold the guitar. I will say this...every "newer" Gibson I've owned (from 2012 to present) have all had basically the same/identical and perfect neck angles from the factory.
  8. Nothing “scary” about it at all. It’s a 40+ year old guitar. The service he had done are basically routine maintenance and par for the course for a guitar that age. A neck reset, refret and gluing loose braces is expected. Like buying an old amp, an old car, etc., expect to put some additional money into it to get it up and running/playable/back to it's former glory. My ‘75 D-28 needed a neck reset, full refret, new pickguard (which was more involved than I thought because the original pickguards were placed over bare wood then the finish applied over it, so they carefully removed what was left of the old, lifting and shrinking guard, filled in the bare spot with lacquer and made it totally flush with the existing surrounding lacquer then applied the new guard) and glued a couple loose back braces. They also “relocated” the saddle about 1/16” because of intonation issues that many from the 70’s Martins have because of the bridges being placed incorrectly. They filled in the old saddle slot and routed a new slot and you could hardly tell after. I was lucky. Many had the bridge a little more out of place and needed the entire bridge scooted. Then a new bone but and saddle all to the tune of $1,200. What is kind of shocking (and scary) about this is Martin didn’t charge him for any of the work, and he's not the original owner,, but if you search there are many “new” Martin owners who are reporting their guitars needing neck resets as soon as a a year to a couple years after purchase! This started happening several years ago and Martins response was to change their warranty to a “Limited” lifetime warranty, specifically stating in the warranty literature that they will no longer cover neck resets. So they’ll reset a neck for free for someone who isnt the original owner on a 40+ year old guitar just because he’s an internet celebrity and owner of a shop that is a Martin dealer, but won’t warranty a guitar that needs a neck reset and had a poor neck angle set from the factory after a year or two to the original owner who shelled out good money. That’s not cool. Don’t get me wrong, I love my Martins but it seems like they have some gross inconsistencies with setting neck angles from the factory these days and it’s been going on for many years now and they still haven’t seemed to correct the issue. There was a several page thread about this recently on the AGF where they discussed this exact issue with new Martins.
  9. I had a 44 year old D-28 and sold it for a profit because (I thought) it sounded like crap. My "new" D-35 and D-18 walked all over the "vintage" Martin. For the record, I'm not poo-poo'ing vintage guitars, but I'm trying to make a point that just because it's old, and I don't care who made it, doesn't automatically mean it's going to sound great. I also don't subscribe to the belief that guitars made during "this" or "that" period are all great, or are all junk. There are duds and gems from every year. And obviously the inverse can also be true where there are vintage instruments that will walk all over new, out of the box guitars. The myriad of factors that have to align to get a really exceptionally sounding guitar are so many that it's really just a roll of the dice. There isn't one thing that will automatically get you "that" sound. And while we're at it, a guitar that might sound like junk to one person might be the next person's holy grail, and that was in fact the case with my old Martin. I couldn't wait to sell it, and the buyer couldn't wait to call it his own. You just have to judge each guitar individually on it's own merits regardless of year. Also, theyr're comparing a D-35 with an HD-35. The D-35 has straight 1/4" braces, the HD-35 has scalloped 1/4" braces. The HD-35 is going to have a bigger low end and thinner/brighter high end, with more of a stopped sound compared to the '72 D-35, which is arguably from an era where Martin dreads were the most heavily braced than ever, larger bridge plates, etc. The HD-35 also has forward shifted bracing, the '72 D-35 is a standard bracing pattern, not forward shifted. Nut widths are also different with the D-35 being 1 11/16 and the Reimagined HD-35 is 1 3/4".
  10. Over $3.9M for the black Strat, making it the most expensive guitar ever to sell at auction. The D-35 also set a record for the most expensive Martin ever to sell at auction. The previous record holder was Eric Clapton's Martin.
  11. But if you factor in inflation it's usually been shown that what they cost new back then was pretty comparable to what they cost now.
  12. I've watched the new Scorsese/Dylan documentary twice. I'm going to just guess here, but I'm pretty sure they worried less about creating a haze on their guitars from their arms, and probably spent less time wiping down their guitars and fixating over every nick, dent and bump and worrying less about resale value, and just had a darn good time playing.
  13. I buy guitars to play, not for their resale value. I'd hate to be that neurotic and waste that much energy and time always worrying about preventing every possible dent, ding and scratch. I just put just play my guitars. I still can't understand those that are so concerned with "resale value" when their guitar shopping, or mores than just playing the darn things.. So many haven't even bought the guitar yet, and you're already thinking about resale value.
  14. All I could think in my head when he was wondering if the top was supposed to be arched was "King of the Flat Tops"!
  15. At least I don't use it to polish my guitars.
  16. I'd be fine with that because I actually know better. People live such sheltered lives these days. Anyone with half a brain could do the research and figure it out for themselves. And with the internet at our disposal, if you were the person who actually did add sugar to your gas tank (or used OFF! insect repellent as a guitar polish) you deserve the results. I never take anyone's word on an Internet forum as gospel. If someone offers advice I'll usually look into it deeper and take time to actually fact check/validate it. If you're the type who just takes random advice as legitimate fact then I feel sorry for you (and I'm pretty sure you're not that gullible).
  17. If you're that gullible and actually use bug spray to polish your guitar, you deserve the results. Harsh, but c'mon people. Nobody has a sense of humor these days. Stop taking yourselves so seriously, people.
  18. Super lame and I\Im disappointed. Are we also going to start cutting the crusts off everyone's PB&J's and start creating safe spaces for Gibson owners who don't have common sense?!
  19. I think we're onto something here... I'm going to start marketing these as a fretboard conditioner and polish in a twin pack:
  20. This works really well for getting rid of that finish (haze):
  21. I don't think it has anything to do with the finish not curing. The arm haze thing happens on ALL of my acoustics, new, old, Gibson and yes, it also happens on Martins, it's just harder to see due to the natural finish. Also happens on Fender electrics, Gibson electrics, etc. It's just something that happens.
  22. My thoughts would be this...stop thinking and just play the guitar.
  23. Whatever you decide to use (I'll leave my own personal preference or recommendation out of the discussion to avoid derailment of the thread), use is SPARINGLY. Whatever amount you think you need, use less, wipe it on, let it dry then do a really good job of wiping off the excess. Too much product will end up collecting gunk and do more harm than good in the long run.
  24. That Country Western looks and sounds great. I tried going down to just one Gibson and one Martin. I still pined for, and regretted selling some the guitars I sold (and I had quite a few), and during their absence I bought and sold others, then was lucky enough to buy back two of the guitars I parted with, both from two totally different buyers. Save yourself some agony and do what I ended up doing...two Martins and two Gibsons, one rosewood and one mahogany from each. Since I did that I have pretty much had no want, need, or desire for any more guitars, and it's been that way for a while now.
  25. That's too bad. You really should just play the living $h!t out of that guitar and worry less about scratching/denting/dinging it. It's meant to be played! I know if it was mine I'd keep it out on a stand and just play it. I keep my Ren-Era AJ, J45, D-18 and D-35 out on stands. Dings and dents happen. I didn't buy the guitars to admire or keep in the case, I bought them to play, but with that said I'm not criticizing you. More like trying to encouraging you to keep it and play the snot out of it! But if I had a guitar that I didn't feel comfortable playing or was super valuable and I was worried about damaging it, taking it out of the house, etc., I'd sell it in a heartbeat.
  • Create New...