Why NOT to lock-wrap strings Martin-style?

[Rev Roy]

I've used both the Martin and Taylor methods over the years. Both work fine. Just a matter of personal choice. Ultimately I stuck with the Taylor method because - for me at least - it's faster and easier when putting on and taking off strings.

[bitraker]

don't buy any of those arguments, sorry

hard to get off? please

[gfspencer]

I change about one set of strings per week. Half the time I am changing strings on a 12-string guitar. I use "the Taylor method" on my Martin guitars because "the Taylor method" is quicker and easier. I see no need to lock-wrap my strings.

That said, I don't think there is a right way or a wrong way to change strings. It is a matter of personal preference.

[Shoreline Music]

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

You're much less likely to stab yourself and draw blood when the strings were put on using this fishhook/Taylor method.

Bingo. It could be said that I change strings professionally—that, and break down boxes. I never thought when I got into the music business that I'd spend so much time changing strings and breaking down boxes.

But I digress...Whenever I get a Martin-strung guitar that I need to restring, the response is, "Oh, great, another one." I have yet to find any good reason to use the Martin method on any acoustic guitar.

[dwasifar]

Originally Posted by Shoreline Music

I have yet to find any good reason to use the Martin method on any acoustic guitar.

Actually I do have a reason to want to keep using the string-lock method; two reasons, in fact. I don't know if they're GOOD reasons, but they are reasons.

One is that with the Martin method, I don't have to estimate where the string should enter the post by length; I do it by slack. Stick the string through the hole, and about two fingers width above the nut is the amount of slack I need to get a good wind. I know I could probably figure this out for any method but this is already working well for me.

The other is that I use round-core strings, and they go dead instantly if you cut them without a sufficient crimp first. Using the Martin method forces a good crimp, and I've never had that problem. I've never tried the conventional method with round cores but I see a lot of people complain about dead strings. But this same tech is trying to talk me into switching away from those strings and to D'Addario nickel bronze, too, and if he succeeds in that, this reason goes away.

[llew]

Put ten people in a room and try to get them to agree on a flavor of ice cream...or anything for that matter. Rarely will it happen. Restring your guitar(s) the way you see fit.

[SunnyDee]

Originally Posted by dwasifar

Actually I do have a reason to want to keep using the string-lock method; two reasons, in fact. I don't know if they're GOOD reasons, but they are reasons.

One is that with the Martin method, I don't have to estimate where the string should enter the post by length; I do it by slack. Stick the string through the hole, and about two fingers width above the nut is the amount of slack I need to get a good wind. I know I could probably figure this out for any method but this is already working well for me.

The other is that I use round-core strings, and they go dead instantly if you cut them without a sufficient crimp first. Using the Martin method forces a good crimp, and I've never had that problem. I've never tried the conventional method with round cores but I see a lot of people complain about dead strings. But this same tech is trying to talk me into switching away from those strings and to D'Addario nickel bronze, too, and if he succeeds in that, this reason goes away.

Sound like very good reasons to me.

I try all kinds of strings. No harm in trying. But I often don't care for ones that other people say they love. Ultimately, though, there's no right answer. You go with what works for you and what sounds good to you.

[bitraker]

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton View Post
You're much less likely to stab yourself and draw blood when the strings were put on using this fishhook/Taylor method.

this suggests the string is the problem when in fact it is the stringer who is to blame for drawing blood

this is how you do it safely - put strings 6 and 4 on first, trim all three ends at once, trim down to post - repeat with string 3 to 1 - easy

I like the method for several reasons. It may be functionally better, but I doubt it. However, it does make a very clean look by putting the string end up and tucked close to the tuner post, rather than sticking out at a right angle. This also allows me to cut using the top of the post as a guide, meaning my cutters are never near the finish surface. I don't find strings difficult to remove, but I have done it this way for a long time. I've had practice.

[MichaelD23]

Originally Posted by dwasifar

... then a quick jerk will pull it out.

I've got a couple friends that might be deemed 'quick jerks' but I wouldn't trust either of them to restring my guitar...

[rmp]

I never noticed any difference with wrapping the string. Until I try to remove them,,.. The pain of having a B string impale one's finger tip aint something I like to have happen much, or at all.

I cut em 1.5 inches from the peg, first wrap goes over the string end, the rest go under, stretch em a bit when tuning up, and repeat the stretch once or twice, and that's all she wrote.

[Silly Moustache]

For me, the Martin method is simply unnecessary.

I've published a video showing "MY" method for restringing slotted headstocks and use a similr method on my slabheads.

If of interest :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v8aBwxEnQk&t=959s

[dneal]

Originally Posted by Silly Moustache

...the Martin method is simply unnecessary.

This.

tencharacterstopost

[Photojeep]

Before I found this forum, well actually before Al Gore invented he Internet, no one taught me how to re-string my guitar so I just sort of made it up as I went.

My first method was to just wind the string around the peg a couple times, being careful to keep them below the hole, then inserting the end into the hole and pulling hard to get rid of as much slack as possible then tighten to pitch. No over/under stuff, just wind it around and insert. The number of winds varied based on how hard it was to get the silly things to cooperate (low E and A were the hardest.)

About 30 years later I saw a youtube video on the internet that showed how this professional luthier did it and I needed to do the over/under (Martin?) method. I switched to that method and even had my luthier express his opinion that I had strung up my guitar "properly."

Then several members of this forum extolled the virtues of the Taylor method, I watched the famous Taylor method video and started using that method. My only problem with this one is that I need to have a pair of wire cutters in my guitar case for the odd time I have to replace a string away from home.

I recently told my nephew about the Taylor method but mistakenly told him that all strings should be cut 2 pegs past the one being strung rather than one as Taylor says. My nephew said it worked very well for him but his high E was a bit uncooperative and required more time than the rest.

For me the moral of the story is that no matter the method, they all seem to work just fine...

Do what works for you!
PJ

[jhmulkey]

Originally Posted by Photojeep

I recently told my nephew about the Taylor method but mistakenly told him that all strings should be cut 2 pegs past the one being strung rather than one as Taylor says.

Actually, the official "Taylor" method is 1-1/2 tuner lengths on the three treble strings and 1 tuner length for the three bass strings