Martin Authentic Series

[JuanCarlosVejar]

Check It Out :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JC

[EuroAussie]

So the very first D-28 was a slope shoulder .... well I never knew that.

 

The OM-18 stunning, love that burst, would be great to play.

 

I also noticed that the D-45v sounds very different than the lower grade Martin rosewood dreads, it has a lovelly 'shimmer' that the others dont.

 

Thanks for posting JC, enjoyed that.

[JuanCarlosVejar]

anyone know how much is the actual consumer price percentage ? (60% maybe ??)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JC

[CAMELEYE]

Yes, Martins typically discount at 40% off list.

[Dave F]

anyone know how much is the actual consumer price percentage ? (60% maybe ??)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JC

 

I checked Maury's and he's doing 76%, he's usually 60% on standard models.

[BigKahune]

.

Nice vid on the Authentic Series and an interest group of replicas.

 

The short bit on hide glue put me in mind of discussions on laminates. Makes me think laminates made with hide glue would be superior to laminates made with other glues.

 

 

.

[Dave F]

Check It Out :

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBvoX3Smg38

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JC

 

Nice to see and hear Mr. Boak. He's done favors for me in the past digging stuff out of the Martin warehouse. Real nice guy.

[j45nick]

Check It Out :

 

 

 

JC

 

 

It really is a mind-boggling assortment of guitars. I had not realized that these particular D-45 models were 3/4" larger than a standard D. Can't even imagine the volume and bass coming out of that one.

 

If I had the money to pick any of these, but could only get one, I'm not even sure which it would be.

[JuanCarlosVejar]

It really is a mind-boggling assortment of guitars. I had not realized that these particular D-45 models were 3/4" larger than a standard D. Can't even imagine the volume and bass coming out of that one.

 

If I had the money to pick any of these, but could only get one, I'm not even sure which it would be.

 

Nick ,

 

I hear ya ! that's a really stunning selection of guitars . but I'd pick the D 45 for the same reason you pointed out ... just because of those 3/4"

but then again I don't have 40 grand to lay down for it ... I would be tempted to order a cheaper version with those same specs though =D

 

 

 

 

 

 

JC

[merseybeat1963]

Thanks Juan..great to see..so I can complain about it : )

 

Putting the Authentic label on the Madagascar Rosewood guitars is ridiculous...little by little watering down credibility.

Reminds me of the line my friend uttered once when summing up his part of the world(Middle East) he's from Iran...nothing from that part of the world is genuine.

The carpet dealers will tell you anything to sell a carpet to you. Its what ever you want it to be.

The lady in the back of us is a Jewish lady from there,she says to me, the truth..? What truth???

The truth is just a random thing, not a specific, based on a reality, or what really is...

 

Anyway, the $8500 list price will give a guy/gal a whole lot of guitar for the aprox selling price of $5100.

 

So solid pearl instead of a pearl veneer..when did they all go to that compromise..my oh my.

So the no compromise instrument is retail $59k..yeechs! So maybe $30K at best..

[j45nick]

Thanks Juan..great to see..so I can complain about it : )

 

Putting the Authentic label on the Madagascar Rosewood guitars is ridiculous...little by little watering down credibility.

 

Anyway, the $8500 list price will give a guy/gal a whole lot of guitar for the aprox selling price of $5100.

 

So solid pearl instead of a pearl veneer..when did they all go to that compromise..my oh my.

So the no compromise instrument is retail $59k..yeechs! So maybe $30K at best..

 

A good piece of Madagascar is as close as you can get to Brazilian at a rational price, in both looks and tone. I don't think it's a ridiculous substitution at all, given how little Brazilian is available and what it costs. A good pre-war D-28 will probably set you back $75k or more, so $5k seems like a bargain for a modern "reproduction" whose only flaw is a rational wood substitution, with no attempt to disguise what it is.

 

And those pre-war D-45's are in another league altogether. You'd better have $250k-$500k to spend if you want to look at one of those. They would be too fragile and valuable to use as every-day players. That's the great thing about Gibson's Legends. They're as close as you can get to the originals, but you can play them with a clear conscience and no fear of hurting them from normal use.

 

I'm a fan of reproductions of this type, as much as I cherish the original vintage ones.

[Lars68]

I have a 2011 Martin D-18 Authentic (the 1937 version as compared to the 1939 version currently released at NAMM). It is the best Martin I have ever played. A beast of a guitar if you like Martins. Now I happen to love Gibsons too, and have to say that my new Sheryl Crow SJ is every bit as pleasing but in a different way.

 

Lars

[Del Nilppeznaf]

A good piece of Madagascar is as close as you can get to Brazilian at a rational price, in both looks and tone. I don't think it's a ridiculous substitution at all, given how little Brazilian is available and what it costs. A good pre-war D-28 will probably set you back $75k or more, so $5k seems like a bargain for a modern "reproduction" whose only flaw is a rational wood substitution, with no attempt to disguise what it is.

 

And those pre-war D-45's are in another league altogether. You'd better have $250k-$500k to spend if you want to look at one of those. They would be too fragile and valuable to use as every-day players. That's the great thing about Gibson's Legends. They're as close as you can get to the originals, but you can play them with a clear conscience and no fear of hurting them from normal use.

 

I'm a fan of reproductions of this type, as much as I cherish the original vintage ones.

 

Well put Nick,

 

those PreWar Martins you mention are now simply collectors items and have gone beyond a musical tool.

 

Only the very wealthy or collector who happened to start collecting before the astronomical prices begun, can be so lucky as to own such an instrument.

 

it seems both Gibson and Martin have got to a point where they can create these reproductions to the same standard as the originals.. !!!!! purists may scoff.. and of course the repro's don't have 60 + years of aging

 

but what i have learnt here.. from some very knowledgeable people..is some of the guitars being built now are as good as they hey day of the iconic builds...... given 60 years Im sure they won't be as valuable .. but they should sound just as good. and they sound pretty damn good already.

[EuroAussie]

Well put Nick,

 

those PreWar Martins you mention are now simply collectors items and have gone beyond a musical tool.

 

Only the very wealthy or collector who happened to start collecting before the astronomical prices begun, can be so lucky as to own such an instrument.

 

it seems both Gibson and Martin have got to a point where they can create these reproductions to the same standard as the originals.. !!!!! purists may scoff.. and of course the repro's don't have 60 + years of aging

 

but what i have learnt here.. from some very knowledgeable people..is some of the guitars being built now are as good as they hey day of the iconic builds...... given 60 years Im sure they won't be as valuable .. but they should sound just as good. and they sound pretty damn good already.

 

It really comes down to one thing Del, the 60 years of ageing, and the resulting 'old wood' tone. No doubt Montana can recreate brilliantly the old desing (my AL SJ is a prime example) but man, if you heard that dry, sweet, grumpy tone of the Banner J-45's and SJ's ..... they are in a different league, and I can understand the $8k or also price tags.

Its really moving into the Playboy mansion then rather than just hanging out in a cool strip bar.

[Del Nilppeznaf]

It really comes down to one thing Del, the 60 years of ageing, and the resulting 'old wood' tone. No doubt Montana can recreate brilliantly the old desing (my AL SJ is a prime example) but man, if you heard that dry, sweet, grumpy tone of the Banner J-45's and SJ's ..... they are in a different league, and I can understand the $8k or also price tags.

Its really moving into the Playboy mansion then rather than just hanging out in a cool strip bar.

 

Indeed EA

 

but Nick was giving the examples of the Pre War Martins and these repro's

 

when your talking $75k plus for D-28

 

and $250k + for a D-45...well as Nick says $5k for a really good reproduction..seems a good price..and $8k for those 1940's Gibsons you tried back in Oz..seems justifiable :)

[ParlourMan]

If the pockets are deep enough almost anything is justifiable. Having played some Braz rosewood jobs last week odd, I'm not sure I could justify the increase that commands, based on what I heard. It would be far easier for me to justify the vintage price because it's based on collect-ability and in slowly but ever diminishing numbers.

 

At the end both are limited by the skill behind the guitar anyway...

[merseybeat1963]

A good piece of Madagascar is as close as you can get to Brazilian at a rational price, in both looks and tone. I don't think it's a ridiculous substitution at all, given how little Brazilian is available and what it costs. A good pre-war D-28 will probably set you back $75k or more, so $5k seems like a bargain for a modern "reproduction" whose only flaw is a rational wood substitution, with no attempt to disguise what it is.

 

And those pre-war D-45's are in another league altogether. You'd better have $250k-$500k to spend if you want to look at one of those. They would be too fragile and valuable to use as every-day players. That's the great thing about Gibson's Legends. They're as close as you can get to the originals, but you can play them with a clear conscience and no fear of hurting them from normal use.

 

I'm a fan of reproductions of this type, as much as I cherish the original vintage ones.

 

My complaint is not with the making of those D28 guitars..(Id be making a bee line to one of them had I already done that through they're Custom Shoppe)...but with the labeling of it as "Authentic"... because it is simply a lie.

 

An instrument at the cost of $250k should still be used regularly at home & for recording,on the road no... a lot of classical musicians have violins in those high price ranges & use them regularly.

[merseybeat1963]

If the pockets are deep enough almost anything is justifiable. Having played some Braz rosewood jobs last week odd, I'm not sure I could justify the increase that commands, based on what I heard. It would be far easier for me to justify the vintage price because it's based on collect-ability and in slowly but ever diminishing numbers.

 

At the end both are limited by the skill behind the guitar anyway...

 

I think Braz Rosewood potentially is some 15-20% better but that potential is not always realized in the building of the guitar.

Though this upgrade in magic is not guaranteed..the 75-100% upcharge in cash is echh!

[merseybeat1963]

I have a 2011 Martin D-18 Authentic (the 1937 version as compared to the 1939 version currently released at NAMM). It is the best Martin I have ever played. A beast of a guitar if you like Martins. Now I happen to love Gibsons too, and have to say that my new Sheryl Crow SJ is every bit as pleasing but in a different way.

 

Lars

 

I dont have a mah Acoustic Guitar.. but if I were looking for one the one you have & the antique Cuban Mah guitars made by Lowden is what I would want to try.

[j45nick]

I think Braz Rosewood potentially is some 15-20% better but that potential is not always realized in the building of the guitar.

 

 

And just how do you propose to measure and quantify this "15-20% better"? With all due respect, I find that claim impossible to support by any rational criteria.

[merseybeat1963]

It really comes down to one thing Del, the 60 years of ageing, and the resulting 'old wood' tone. No doubt Montana can recreate brilliantly the old desing (my AL SJ is a prime example) but man, if you heard that dry, sweet, grumpy tone of the Banner J-45's and SJ's ..... they are in a different league, and I can understand the $8k or also price tags.

Its really moving into the Playboy mansion then rather than just hanging out in a cool strip bar.

 

..is it the aging...the old growth natural evironment wood...basic honorable build manner...

Or is it the extensive play it has had..?

In those days I get the sense that a person bought one good instrument..and compared to today it cost in a real sense, quite a bit more than what we think is the same instrument today.

It seemed that a person would more likely have only one good guitar(like these we are talking about)... a pro 2-3 guitars but in those days these were handmade guitars & expensive.

Unlikely there would be people all over the place with 10-20 guitars like now. So the few got played a whole lot.

 

Some 20 years later..in 1959 for example,a Les Paul Standard (less handmade) was $275. (In those days retail was pretty much the price it sold for).

Comparitively, my moms 2 bed apt in Queens NY in 1970 was $100 mth.

I estimated that same apartment in 1959 was about $60 mth. Four & a half times that rent for that new Gibson Les Paul.

These days the rent in that apt is $1700..only because its not as nice an area as it was back then. So comparitively that 1959 Les Paul would be about $7500 new today.

A new quality instrument was really expensive.

Compare that today you can get a J200 for $2800 and people are saying "expensive"..?

 

A similar conversion of the original late 30's J200's would amount to a very expensive guitar..and to make one the same way ..today ..in same woods ..would be equivalent to those prices today.

We are getting more quantity, but less in other ways...but from Gibson for example,a lot for the money.

[Del Nilppeznaf]

 

 

An instrument at the cost of $250k should still be used regularly at home & for recording,on the road no... a lot of classical musicians have violins in those high price ranges & use them regularly

 

 

 

This is simply not the case I believe.

 

A high quality professional violin or cello will cost between $10K - $20k.... I would expect a concert classical handmade guitar to be the same.

 

Of course there are classical instruments 10 times the cost..but most professional concert musicians will have instruments in this price range. It is all relative though isn't it.

 

if you are lucky enough to play for a world renowned orchestra..say The London Philharmonic your salary will be around $150k, as a orchestra member. A soloist will be much higher.

 

The top soloists can demand up to $100k........ per concert even a relatively unknown solo violinist can be paid $30k per concert.

 

So lets say your earning around $200k a year as a professional concert musician... an investment of say $40-$60k in your instrument is totally justifiable.

 

Now unless your Eric Clapton.. you are not going to be sat at home playing a $250 grand guitar..... even if you are Mr Clapton..i think you would save that particular beauty for special occasions :)

 

Any guitar worth over lets say $20k... is really only for the collector..or professional musician making very good money... I really don't think there are THAT many guitarists.. making anything like $100 or $200k a year.

[j45nick]

This is simply not the case I believe.

 

A high quality professional violin or cello will cost between $10K - $20k.... I would expect a concert classical handmade guitar to be the same.

 

Of course there are classical instruments 10 times the cost..but most professional concert musicians will have instruments in this price range. It is all relative though isn't it.

 

if you are lucky enough to play for a world renowned orchestra..say The London Philharmonic your salary will be around $150k, as a orchestra member. A soloist will be much higher.

 

The top soloists can demand up to $100k........ per concert even a relatively unknown solo violinist can be paid $30k per concert.

 

So lets say your earning around $200k a year as a professional concert musician... an investment of say $40-$60k in your instrument is totally justifiable.

 

Now unless your Eric Clapton.. you are not going to be sat at home playing a $250 grand guitar..... even if you are Mr Clapton..i think you would save that particular beauty for special occasions :)

 

Any guitar worth over lets say $20k... is really only for the collector..or professional musician making very good money... I really don't think there are THAT many guitarists.. making anything like $100 or $200k a year.

 

A lot of the violins such as Stradivari that are played by highly-paid professionals are actually owned by foundations or wealthy patrons, rather than by the artists playing them. Except for a few elite soloists, the costs of owning such an instrument are simply out of reach.

 

We have seen repeatedly in blind tests that even they have trouble differentiating between million-dollar instruments and high-quality modern instruments costing a small fraction of the value of the vintage instrument.

 

I suspect that very few professional guitarists (or talented amateurs that perform regularly, as opposed to pure collectors) regularly play guitars valued at more than $50k or so. For one thing, if a really valuable instrument has insurance cover--we're talking something like a pre-war D-45--chances are the the underwriter will have very strict limitations on how the guitar is to be cared for and used if it is to be covered by insurance.

 

I personally would be barely comfortable even picking up such a guitar to examine it, much less play it. It probably takes somebody like Paul Allen to be comfortable owning and regularly playing guitars of that value. I would certainly love to see what he has stashed away.

[Del Nilppeznaf]

 

 

A lot of the violins such as Stradivari that are played by highly-paid professionals are actually owned by foundations or wealthy patrons, rather than by the artists playing them. Except for a few elite soloists, the costs of owning such an instrument are simply out of reach.

 

 

 

Excellent point.

 

I ,and probably most here, would also not feel comfortable handling a guitar worth $50k plus..... even 20-30k would be a little nerve wracking

 

this is probably because we are all so used to putting dings in our loved instruments :)

 

I mean what other kinds of items/ possessions will cost that much ?

 

a car.. well i'm sure a lot of us have sat in expensive cars.. but what can go wrong..unless ya driving it..and then hey its insured

 

a house...

 

a diamond neck lace..haha

 

my point is ..not much can go wrong with these things.. but all us guitar players know how easy it it to put that little ding in our favourite things. :)

[merseybeat1963]

This is simply not the case I believe.

 

A high quality professional violin or cello will cost between $10K - $20k.... I would expect a concert classical handmade guitar to be the same.

 

Of course there are classical instruments 10 times the cost..but most professional concert musicians will have instruments in this price range. It is all relative though isn't it.

 

if you are lucky enough to play for a world renowned orchestra..say The London Philharmonic your salary will be around $150k, as a orchestra member. A soloist will be much higher.

 

The top soloists can demand up to $100k........ per concert even a relatively unknown solo violinist can be paid $30k per concert.

 

So lets say your earning around $200k a year as a professional concert musician... an investment of say $40-$60k in your instrument is totally justifiable.

 

Now unless your Eric Clapton.. you are not going to be sat at home playing a $250 grand guitar..... even if you are Mr Clapton..i think you would save that particular beauty for special occasions :)

 

Any guitar worth over lets say $20k... is really only for the collector..or professional musician making very good money... I really don't think there are THAT many guitarists.. making anything like $100 or $200k a year.

 

 

Cheers Del : )

Being jobless these days id have to agree but if I were earning $200k a year Id spend well over that for the tool of my livelihood.

A lot of these people playing period music are using original period instruments. Those 17th-18th Century violins are damn expensive : )

The price of old instruments is fueled in most cases by collector/speculation/manipulation.. not on what it should be.. (tone). So its kind of not a real value in a way.

 

To me the 1965 Pre CBS I bought in 1983 was a $900 guitar..to others it became at one point a $30K guitar. If it goes up to $100k one day Ill still use it.

My reasoning is what would I do with $30k or $100k..buy a bunch of guitars where none is as good as that one was? Id rather have the one that talks.

 

When I bought that Strat, it cost about 3 1/2 times what I earned for about a 60 hr week(night shift).

One night after I bought the guitar,a short girl comes in with a violin on her shoulder,and eager to talk I mentioned that I could not believe that I just spent $900 on a guitar.

I asked her how much a good violin was these days(1983),and matter of factly she said the violin on her shoulder cost $10,000..I was WHAT?

And she said quote..that is the least you have to pay for a good violin.

If the Strat went up 30 times I wonder what that violin is now.

We were near Carnegie Hall,Jazz Clubs,a block from Broadway/Ed Sullivan Theater,Steinway Hall & Lincoln Center was walking distance.

 

 

If I had the golden era instrument and earned my living at it, I would use those for recording,home,inspiration/writing & rehearsal.

Everyones got they're idea but I see my friend in 22 years has bought cars for $42k..$44k..$40k..and a few others under $30 for his family...I dont drive so to me it seems such a damn waste of money.. : )

Much less leaving it outside..putting it on the road, through NY City bumps & crazy drivers. I sit in the passenger seat & I find myself just waiting for someone to plow into us... : )