I don't get Pre War Guitars

[KevWind]

We are a funny bunch here.

To answer the OP questions No it is not illegal to mfg a drednought shaped guitar .

Now as to headstock shape ? Which has recently been trademarked by Martin ,, but the question is how enforceable that trademark really is given Martin did not enforce it for so many years .

And given Martin has apparently not gone after Pre War I would speculate either they have agreement to use the headstock shape or Pre War produce so few guitars a year that Martin does not feel it worth while especially if its enforceability is in question .

As to why people would want a pre war Martin either authentic or modern copy, is simple and just like why people want anything ---Because the do,,,,

[Silly Moustache]

Originally Posted by hubcapsc

My D-18 1939 Authentic Aged has this:



And this:



It seems a very good guitar. I think they put a desirably thin coat of lacquer
on them before they drag them behind a bus and the dents don't add to
the sound, it's the thin finish coat... I remain a skeptic ...

-Mike

Well, thanks for these pics, but I have to say that I don't get these added aspects of damage.

what I mean is, I would not want to be associated with causing damage by hitting a guitar above and below with a pick!

Whoever would so poorly/inaccurately miss strings like that surely would have considerable playing issues.

[zoopeda]

Originally Posted by KevWind

We are a funny bunch here.

To answer the OP questions No it is not illegal to mfg a drednought shaped guitar .

Now as to headstock shape ? Which has recently been trademarked by Martin ,, but the question is how enforceable that trademark really is given Martin did not enforce it for so many years .

And given Martin has apparently not gone after Pre War I would speculate either they have agreement to use the headstock shape or Pre War produce so few guitars a year that Martin does not feel it worth while especially if its enforceability is in question .

As to why people would want a pre war Martin either authentic or modern copy, is simple and just like why people want anything ---Because the do,,,,

I'm the farthest thing from a lawyer. Can you trademark something that's been in public domain for so long? I'm certain Martin didn't invent the square headstock. Kind of like Gibson trademarking the open-book headstock that's been around for so long. Can they really trademark these old and rather universal designs?

[hubcapsc]

Originally Posted by KevWind

We are a funny bunch here.

Now as to headstock shape ? Which has recently been trademarked by Martin ,, but the question is how enforceable that trademark really is given Martin did not enforce it for so many years .

I can see Gibson trademarking the open book look. But Home Depot trademarked
2x4s a long time ago!

-Mike

[davidd]

Originally Posted by KevWind

We are a funny bunch here.

To answer the OP questions No it is not illegal to mfg a drednought shaped guitar .

Now as to headstock shape ? Which has recently been trademarked by Martin ,, but the question is how enforceable that trademark really is given Martin did not enforce it for so many years .

And given Martin has apparently not gone after Pre War I would speculate either they have agreement to use the headstock shape or Pre War produce so few guitars a year that Martin does not feel it worth while especially if its enforceability is in question .

As to why people would want a pre war Martin either authentic or modern copy, is simple and just like why people want anything ---Because the do,,,,

They have even trademarked loose binding...

[Rosewood99]

Originally Posted by Silly Moustache

Whoever would so poorly/inaccurately miss strings like that surely would have considerable playing issues.

Oh really?

[sinistral]

Originally Posted by Silly Moustache

Well, thanks for these pics, but I have to say that I don't get these added aspects of damage.

what I mean is, I would not want to be associated with causing damage by hitting a guitar above and below with a pick!

Whoever would so poorly/inaccurately miss strings like that surely would have considerable playing issues.

I’m often puzzled by the wear on some vintage guitars—here’s an example:



1946 Martin 000-18

Who plays like that?!? The plectrum must’ve come from a snapping turtle!!!

And then there are other vintage guitars that are in much better condition than a level 3-distressed PWGC guitar.

Originally Posted by Rosewood99

Oh really?

Total poser.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by zoopeda

I'm the farthest thing from a lawyer. Can you trademark something that's been in public domain for so long? I'm certain Martin didn't invent the square headstock. Kind of like Gibson trademarking the open-book headstock that's been around for so long. Can they really trademark these old and rather universal designs?

Apparently you can

https://www.guitarbench.com/2011/06/...adstock-shape/

[sinistral]

Originally Posted by davidd

They have even trademarked loose binding...

Here is a listing for a “near-mint” 1996 TJ Thompson OM that sold for $19k with—you guessed it—mild binding separation:

1996 TJ Thompson OM Near Mint, OHSC, $19,000.00

Form the description:

Getting a TJ guitar can involve years of waiting. This is a superb modern instrument that sonically competes with fine vintage instruments. Back and sides of figured Koa and select Englemann spruce top. Herringbone top trim and a 45 style torch inlay On a bound peg head complete the picture. Pyramid bridge with an abalone overlay and gold banjo tuners. Rich , thick trebles and perfect action. The only thing keeping this from mint condition is a tiny binding separation at the waist. A great guitar.

Doesn’t get more authentic than that…

[Sage Runner]

Originally Posted by sinistral

I didnÂ’t get Pre-War Guitar CompanyÂ’s guitars either when I first came across them several years ago. So hereÂ’s a little story, an odyssey of sorts.

One of the first nice guitars I purchased was a reimagined Martin 000-18. I have since bought a bunch of other guitars, many of which cost much more than the 000-18, but for some reason the 000-18 has some sort of tractor beam that keeps drawing me back to it.

Like many here, I like to visit guitar shops and try out guitars. While itÂ’s not Nashville, Manhattan has a decent number of shops, particularly if you are looking for (or just want to try out) guitars in the nosebleed high-end.

A while back I demoÂ’ed this guitar, a 1943 Martin 000-18:



While 1943 Martins are not as coveted as those built in the 1930s, they are still among the finest guitars ever made. Playing this guitar, I could tell the obvious tonal lineage between my 000-18 and its great, great grandfather, so to speak. But just picking the guitar up, it felt like it weighed half as much as my 000-18. Pretty much every piece of wood on the 1943—except for the neck—is thinner and/or lighter than on a reimagined Martin, and it felt and sounded like all of the moisture had been sucked out of it over the last 80 years. And when you plucked, picked or strummed the strings, it was as if the guitar was alive—the guitar vibrated like it had a ToneRite attached to it. Strum it hard, and it kicks you like a mule. Playing this guitar and several other vintage Martins made me realize why these guitars are so sought after. Even in 80 years, a reimagined 000-18 won’t sound as good, because even though it is lightly built, it is still overbuilt by comparison.

There were only two things wrong with the guitar, first, it was right-handed (IÂ’m a lefty), and second, this:



As much as I love guitars, IÂ’m just not prepared to spend even a fraction of that on a guitar. Perhaps IÂ’m lucky that IÂ’m left-handed, because I canÂ’t succumb to this kind of temptation.

Here are a couple of short samples that capture the tone of 000-18s from this period pretty well (listen through headphones or good speaker):





^ That guitar is one of those that a professional guitarist searches for to find their sound. I have a hypothesis that the more a guitar vibrates in his hands, the more Carl Miner moves his head.

And a not so short review:



That experience set me on a quest, to find a guitar that got as close as possible to that 1943 000-18. As others have noted, lots of companies make guitars that are based on, if not copies of, Martin (and Gibson) designs. Collings, Santa Cruz, Bourgeois, Huss & Dalton, etc., not to mention dozens of solo luthiers. Some guitars are meant to be very close sonically, and others have their own spin (as an example, within a single company, Collings has both their regular guitars and their traditional line). I demoÂ’ed guitars from many of those companies, and tried guitars at multiple guitar shows (Artisan, Fretboard Summit and Woodstock).

There are a lot of amazing guitars out there. But of all the guitars I tried, the ones that—for me—came closest to recreating the sensation of a vintage Martin were the Martin Authentic Aged guitars and guitars made by PWGC.

With those two choices, I really wanted to get the Martin, since, after all, I was copying a Martin. I first tried to find a left-handed 000-18 Authentic, to no avail. My next avenue was to see if I could order one through a Custom Expert dealer. After specÂ’ing all of the authentic specs (authentic top thickness, authentic brace scalloping, thin nitro finish, hot hide glue construction, glue-in saddle, even the pickguard under the finish), the guitar would have been twice as much as a PWGC guitar. In the end, I gave in and ordered a 000 mahogany from PWGC. ItÂ’s about twice as expensive as a reimagined 000-18, but it is way, way closer to that 1943 000-18 than a reimagined 000-18.

While the recording is a compressed YouTube video, listen to the tone of the 000 in this video:



Around 1:10 in, Bryan Sutton gives a little description of the guitar and the company. As he says, they have cracked the code. What you don’t get from the video is how the guitar vibrates in your hands and against your body when you play it—it is uncanny.

I ordered mine with “level 1” or the lightest distressing, but may go higher when my number comes up.

Anyway, this isnÂ’t necessarily going to convince anyone who is dead-set against vintage copies, faux play wear, etc., but perhaps gives some insight into why PWGC has a wait list of over two years. Even with their recent price increase, their guitars are relative bargains for what you get.

A few more for the road:







Try one, you might just like it, and see what the fuss is all about. Or maybe not, and thatÂ’s ok, too.

I owned a 1943 000-18 years ago. It was very light! Did not have the T-bar truss Rod. Just had a Ebony strip in neck slot so it was lighter than a 1930s-1941 but more prone to neck angle and Re-set. It was a fine guitar. The Ex wife ended up with it. What has really been the deciding factor in Re-creating that old Vintage Tone in a New Guitar was the Torrified spruce Top Sound Board process! That combined with the use of traditional Red-Spruce. Go back 20 years. Martin and others were crafting very close copies of the prewar Martins. But the aged dry vintage tone was not there. Torrified Red Spruce made it possible for someone to grab a new Pre-War Company Guitar off the rack and Bam!!!! That Guitar crafted in 2022 sounds pretty close to a 80 year old Martin or Gibson.

[ALBD]

I love Molly Tuttle

[rllink]

Originally Posted by hubcapsc

It seems a very good guitar. I think they put a desirably thin coat of lacquer
on them before they drag them behind a bus and the dents don't add to
the sound, it's the thin finish coat... I remain a skeptic ...

-Mike

I think that I must be trying to save a little money and working on the distressed pickguard look myself.

Pick Guard.jpg

[LFL Steve]

Originally Posted by rllink

I think this is what he is talking about.

https://www.pre-warguitars.com/

Checking your link, and reading the rest of the thread that followed (well, skimming it), I think you're right. pre war is not an adjective in this case, it's Pre War, a noun.

I think it's like stonewashed jeans or other versions of relic treatment on guitars. Apparently there's a market for it. Not my thing, but plenty of people seem impressed. If they can make money in this niche good for them, and they certainly do seem to be supplying a demand.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Rosewood99

Oh really?

Oh that is just Willie's slow aged custom sound port,, made to match his forearm and hand

[rokdog49]

Originally Posted by Silly Moustache

Well, thanks for these pics, but I have to say that I don't get these added aspects of damage.

what I mean is, I would not want to be associated with causing damage by hitting a guitar above and below with a pick!
.

Yeah, anyone who falls into that category should be kicked off the forum immediately.

It’s a guitar….sheesh.