#1
|
|||
|
|||
WOW! round-holed, Brazilian rosewood, Martin archtop. WOW!
check this one out: http://www.archtop.com/ac_32_C2.html
Last edited by RobertForman; 08-23-2013 at 01:02 PM. Reason: add more info. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I am bumping this up, it is too interesting to pass by
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
It was already at the top, but I'll bump it again.
Martin archtops are a breed of their own. Very different from the Gibsons and Epiphones and other archtops of the day. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
by the way, if you want to know what a good Martin archtop sounds like, Dream Guitars had one a year or two ago, it was pretty pricey, but they made a sound file, so click on the following link to hear it, you will notice that it sounds pretty awesome: http://www.dreamguitars.com/detail/2...rtin_f7_65798/ Last edited by RobertForman; 08-24-2013 at 11:54 AM. Reason: typo |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I'll add that anybody who would motion to have one of these beauties re-topped with a new, gasp, flattop, that person should have their guitar license taken away.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Different, indeed - and in the eyes of hardcore archtop players then and now, neither fish nor fowl. For all Frank Henry Martin's expertise with flattop guitars - and his tenure is widely regarded as the Golden Age of Martin production - he didn't really get it when it came to archtops, treating them as merely an adaptation of his beloved flattop guitars rather than a class all their own, with unique construction and tonal parameters. If you've never handled a Martin archtop, don't expect it to look, feel, or sound like anything you're probably accustomed to; whether or not this is good or bad, however, is strictly up to you. Objectively speaking, the C-Series was modeled after the existing OM pattern and offered in C-1/C-2/C-3 livery, corresponding roughly to styles 18, 28, and 42/45 respectively; unlike the larger F-Series their sole lasting legacy is cosmetic, the vertical pattern inlay being adopted for use on Style 45 models circa 1936 and the multiple white/black binding replacing herringbone on Style 28 in early 1947. While appearances might suggest the round-hole Gibson L-4 the Martins are not in the same ballpark tonally, lacking both the projection and punch of the former and IMO being more reminiscent of a pressed solid-wood archtop minus the tonal depth; in addition, their relatively compact (for an archtop) 15" body width lends a nasal quality absent in larger instruments - not to mention the OM models on which they are based. If you can appreciate it for what it is (or more aptly, for what it is not) it might make an interesting conversation piece to add to your collection - it'll certainly come a whole lot cheaper than a Brazilian rosewood OM in comparable condition...
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
that is all very true Steve, the Martin archtops were Martin flattop designs with arched tops replacing the flat tops and not much else in the way of different design features. some of the Martin archtops don't sound especially great, but as you can hear from the sound clip I linked up above, some of them sound pretty darn good, completely convincing in terms of archtop tone. as such, I can only conclude that Martin archtops have been unfairly maligned.
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
and agreed about the L-4, I owned a '29 L-4 with a round sound hole, amazing amazing amazing guitar, maybe the best ever, another totally underrated guitar.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
My comments were directed at the C-Series; as I mentioned above, the F-Series archtops are a different animal. At 16"X20" they approximate the dimensions of the pre-Advanced L-5/L-7/L-12 and, with greater overall depth provide a reasonably beefy if not overly projective tone - the soundness of the basic design being vindicated when, for better or worse, several of them were converted into flattops resulting in the current M/0000/J models. Unfortunately they finally got it a little too late, whether by innate conservatism (they didn't have a true 17" J-200/F-50 competitor in their lineup until a few years ago - imagine what a pre-war Brazilian/ Adirondack GJ-45 would command in today's market - and IMO their latter-day efforts in this area aren't exactly their finest) or poor sales; the little-known F-5 - a maple/spruce instrument in the Loar-era L-5 mold, and less than a half-dozen (if that many) examples of which were produced - could have been a real contender, had it not been released on the eve of WW II. With restrictions on materials (which resulted in the discontinuation of the first-run 40/42/45 models in early 1942, as well as the post-war abandonment of herringbone trim), and archtops having become an unsuccessful sideline (Epiphone - arguably the intended target of the stillborn F-5 with its New York location - having cornered much of the Northeastern market), Frank Henry Martin wisely chose to bail out of the jazzbox business and focus on what the company did best. It's not that they couldn't produce a true, fully-carved instrument - I've heard some fine-sounding Style 15 and 20 mandolins over the years - but for reasons lost to time, they chose from the get-go to make a half-hearted effort...
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
that's a lot of info., thanks Steve. all I know is the one I linked to above, the one that was at Dream Guitars, it's a dream guitar. I suspect the one I linked to in my OP, the one that was at archtop.com is also a dream guitar. in the future I will seek one of these and if the timing and money align I will have one.
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I've got a Martin C-1 roundhole archtop and have played it out for years in bands. I really love it.
My style is more folk/worship style music, not jazz. The Martin is a unobtrusive way to use an archtop in band situations. It doesn't scream, "I'm an archtop," soundwise. I've used other arcthops for this purpose, and don't find their sound full enough for the times I have to fingerpick tunes sole. Other brands made round hole archtops. They may be the same. Joe |