Vintage Martin uke

[fongie]

are they lighter in weight than the current models? I've read the vintage are built lighter.

Anyone know the reason for that? Is it the wood, bracings, etc? Tah guys

[pops]

I find most vintage instruments especially from the 20's and 30's are lighter and would say it is true of uke's too. Wood maybe has dried out more, but is usually thinner than newer stuff. Old world craftsmanship in making the instrument allows the thinner wood and better sound. I could be wrong there are many good builders building as good as the old, but have not seen any as light.

[fongie]

Originally Posted by pops

I find most vintage instruments especially from the 20's and 30's are lighter and would say it is true of uke's too. Wood maybe has dried out more, but is usually thinner than newer stuff. Old world craftsmanship in making the instrument allows the thinner wood and better sound. I could be wrong there are many good builders building as good as the old, but have not seen any as light.

Tah pops......interesting, never thought of the dryness of the wood.

I just purchased a Kiwaya uke and the weight of these ukes just blow me away. So feather weight, a delight to hold and play.

[pops]

I have a 20's 2-17 Martin and it is feather light. I have had some old parlors from earlier and later some were heavy, some were light. The better made ones i think are lighter.

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by fongie

are they lighter in weight than the current models? I've read the vintage are built lighter.

Anyone know the reason for that? Is it the wood, bracings, etc? Tah guys

Until the last few years, "current" Martin ukes were the SO models, made outside the Martin factory and generally considered disappointing by uke-heads.

But with the continued progress of the `ukulele boom Martin has returned to producing real Martin ukes in house. I haven't handled one but they've been generally well received.

Light build is not necessarily a positive attribute, it may result in uneven response or boxy tone. Better to handle the instrument and evaluate it on its own merits.

Fran

[fongie]

Originally Posted by pops

I have a 20's 2-17 Martin and it is feather light. I have had some old parlors from earlier and later some were heavy, some were light. The better made ones i think are lighter.

Nice pops........I'm yet to play a 20's, 30's built, hopefully someday soon. Do you think the feather light instruments are prone to cracking?

[fongie]

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

Until the last few years, "current" Martin ukes were the SO models, made outside the Martin factory and generally considered disappointing by uke-heads.

But with the continued progress of the `ukulele boom Martin has returned to producing real Martin ukes in house. I haven't handled one but they've been generally well received.

Light build is not necessarily a positive attribute, it may result in uneven response or boxy tone. Better to handle the instrument and evaluate it on its own merits.

Fran

Tah Fran........Yes, I have read about the inconsistency of these Max ukes.

I wouldn't mind a Martin factory built myself but with the lack of ukulele shops here in my home town in Australia who don't carry highend Martin ukes, it can be very hard/frustrating.

Hopefully, someday soon, one will turn up. Tah mate

[pops]

Originally Posted by fongie

Nice pops........I'm yet to play a 20's, 30's built, hopefully someday soon. Do you think the feather light instruments are prone to cracking?

I don't think they are any more prone to cracking than anything else. My 2-17 is not perfect, but not bad by any means, very little cracking. I have seen newer guitars with way more cracks. Mahogany is more prone to cracking i think than spruce. I used to have a '24 0-28K Martin but it was not as light as the 2-17 so even tho it had plenty of time to dry the density of the Koa made it heavier. Not that it was heavy, but not as light as the 2-17 which is of course slightly smaller too.

[fongie]

Originally Posted by pops

I don't think they are any more prone to cracking than anything else. My 2-17 is not perfect, but not bad by any means, very little cracking. I have seen newer guitars with way more cracks. Mahogany is more prone to cracking i think than spruce. I used to have a '24 0-28K Martin but it was not as light as the 2-17 so even tho it had plenty of time to dry the density of the Koa made it heavier. Not that it was heavy, but not as light as the 2-17 which is of course slightly smaller too.

Pops that 0-28K sounds fantastic. I have never own a Koa guitar before only ukuleles.

I love mahogany myself, my favourite wood. I do worry about the cracking on my guitars and ukes, it is always my fear. Tah mate

[syrynx]

Perhaps if enough of us post the weights of our ukuleles, we can arrive at a useful answer to fongie's question.

My Martin Style 1 soprano was made between 1916 and 1926. (It has wooden friction tuning pegs; Martin switched to metal tuners in 1927.) It weighs 8.90 oz / 253 g, according to the electronic kitchen scale.

[pops]

Originally Posted by fongie

.I love mahogany myself, my favourite wood. I do worry about the cracking on my guitars and ukes, it is always my fear. Tah mate

Cracking should only occur if it gets too dry. My 2-17 really only has the center seam that looks like it was repaired some time ago and really doesn't have other cracks. I fine old mahogany guitars crack, especially if they are not expensive, but i assume that is due to care of the guitar more than the wood itself.

[sweiss]

I have a 1950-something style one soprano that weighs almost nothing. It has some repaired damage on one side, but otherwise no cracks. I also have a 1931 1-17 guitar that is extremely light. No cracks on it either.

I'm pretty sure they did build them lighter way back when simply because they sound better that way. Today, I think they build them a bit heavier to avoid cracking which leads to warranty claims which leads to lost money for the maker.