Anyone been to Chicago music exchange and play their 1943 000-21 reissues?

[tomiv9]

Just saw these on reverb. Curious if anyone is local and tried one out. Theres a cool video about how they were made, but no real demo. Thoughts?

https://www.chicagomusicexchange.com...serial-1943008

[Ed-in-Ohio]

Width at Nut: 1-5/8"???!!!

[kiva238]

Originally Posted by Ed-in-Ohio

Width at Nut: 1-5/8"???!!!

Totally agree. They had my interest until that moment. . . .

[tomiv9]

Yes unlike most, I actually prefer 1 11/16 nut. I've never played a 1 10/16 nut though, that's why I was curious if any chicago locals have tried this out. Clearly the original 1943 model with the 1 10/16 nut made quite the impression at the shop. I assume if it was uncomfortable they would have changed it right?

[Joe M]

Originally Posted by tomiv9

Yes unlike most, I actually prefer 1 11/16 nut. I've never played a 1 10/16 nut though, that's why I was curious if any chicago locals have tried this out. Clearly the original 1943 model with the 1 10/16 nut made quite the impression at the shop. I assume if it was uncomfortable they would have changed it right?

I agree with you, tom, I, too, prefer the 1 11/16 nut. I'm planning a trip to Chicago this weekend, might have to swing by CME and try the guitar. I'll report back if I do.

[bitraker]

Width at Nut: 1-5/8"???!!!

wow, that is narrow

was it designed that way to attract banjo players?

[Cameleye]

I suspect this'll end up being a big mistake on CME's part.

[Steve DeRosa]

Little-known fact: Martin used a 1-5/8" nut on their later F- and C-Series archtops (possibly in direct response to Epiphone adopting this specification around 1937-38), right through the end of production. It's entirely possible that the original '43 000-21 upon which it was modeled was either fitted with a leftover archtop neck or, given that materials were in short supply during WW II, was in fact built on a converted C-2/C-3 archtop assembly - which shared the same dimensions/materials - and fitted with a flat top (similar to the "Bromberg" F-Series conversion); in either case, I'd love to try one - I always found the prewar-style Martin necks to be uncomfortable to the point of physical pain, not a good state of affairs for my continued playing health the older I get...

A leftover 1930's archtop neck could not have been cleanly adapted to a flattop because of the difference in angle. The neck would either have to be shimmed, or if it was shortened, the 14th fret would not have coincided with the body joint. Either would be visually obvious, and not something Martin would have done.

Sometimes necks were purposely narrowed by their owners or repairmen after the fact. If the '43 they had was original, then it was a special order guitar with a narrow neck. A few of these originals have turned up with 1 5/8" necks, noted as such in the shop records.

[pcf]

...Martin nylon string guitars have either 2" or 1 15/16" necks. the variation of 1/16" is probably more common than we think given the necks were made by hand.

[Chris Moon]

Hi folks,

I'm in Chicago right now as a short trip, and I went to CME last night. They had one of 000-21 customs on the hanger, so I gave a try. It sounded great, with much more definition than my J-40, yet less depth than J-40.

Talking about the nut width and neck shape, my favorite is Martin's 1 11/16 low profile, which is exactly what my J-40 got. This custom 000-21 got 1 5/8 with a slight V shape, less pronounced than modern day Modified V like 000-28EC IMO. Neck profile was OK for me, but the narrower nut width was not. I could still play some tunes that I play on my J-40, but it would be more smooth with 1 11/16 nut for me. I'm 5' 8'', and have smaller hands than other guys.

In short, great sounding and looking guitar, and my only concern is the nut width (and a little bit about the neck profile, too).

[merlin666]

Nice store custom with cool specs for sure. BUT is an 000 by definition not supposed to be a 12-fret (ideally with slothead)?

[Wade Hampton]

Originally Posted by merlin666

Nice store custom with cool specs for sure. BUT is an 000 by definition not supposed to be a 12-fret (ideally with slothead)?

No. Not at all. The vast majority of Martin Triple O's, new and vintage, have the same body shape as the 14 fret OM but paired with the short 24.9" scale.

It's true that the first Martin guitars designated with the 000 nomenclature have a 12 fret body join and a body shape that looks like a large parlor guitar. But those guitars were never particularly popular and never sold well, and as a result not all that many were ever made during the original production run. So the original run 12 fret Triple O's are rare birds.

Until the late 1980's, most of us who appreciate Martin guitars were only vaguely aware of 12 fret Triple O's, if at all. I know I never saw any until the 80's, and I'm a smallbody Martin guitar aficionado. I had heard of 12 fret Triple O's, but never seen any, much less played any. There was virtually no public knowledge of them or interest in them for a LONG time.

That changed in the late 80's and early 90's, when both Martin and boutique guitar companies like Collings and Santa Cruz started making 12 fret Triple O's. Far, FAR more 12 fret Triple O's have been built in the past 25 years than ever were built prior to the 1930's, when the change to the 14 fret version was made.

So there are thousands upon thousands of short scale 14 fret Triple O's out there. My 000-42 is one of them, and quite honestly I find the 14 fret version to be considerably more musically versatile than 12 fret Triple O's. (I also own a 12 fret Triple O, but don't use it as much.) The 14 fret version is also much easier to mic onstage or in recording studios.

Naturally, Martin's use of the same nomenclature number for both of these very different body shapes has created some confusion. Sometimes people on here get indignant about it and will post something like: "That's not a Triple O, that's a short scale OM!!"

Uh, sorry, but no. Here's a 1938 Martin 000-28:

1938 Martin 000-28

Here's a current Martin 000-42:

Modern Martin 000-42

My 000-42 is similar to that one but has a dark top instead of the natural finish on the one shown here.

So, short version: Martin originally came out with long scale 12 fret Triple O's, but in the early 30's switched over to short scale 14 fret Triple O's using the same body molds as the then-discontinued OM model. Martin didn't revive the earlier body style until almost sixty years later.

Hope that makes more sense.


Wade Hampton Miller

Originally Posted by merlin666

Nice store custom with cool specs for sure. BUT is an 000 by definition not supposed to be a 12-fret (ideally with slothead)?

Like Wade said, not for a while, since 1934 actually. When the OM (model) was discontinued, and most other Martins made the transition to Orchestra Model (meaning square shouldered 14 fret) configuration, Martin replaced the OM with the 14 fret 000. After they used up the long scale necks they had on hand, the 14 fret 000 has been short scale ever since. Here are a couple examples - 1936 and 1948. Very different guitars, but both short scale 000's.

[tomiv9]

Originally Posted by Chris Moon

Hi folks,

I'm in Chicago right now as a short trip, and I went to CME last night. They had one of 000-21 customs on the hanger, so I gave a try. It sounded great, with much more definition than my J-40, yet less depth than J-40.

Talking about the nut width and neck shape, my favorite is Martin's 1 11/16 low profile, which is exactly what my J-40 got. This custom 000-21 got 1 5/8 with a slight V shape, less pronounced than modern day Modified V like 000-28EC IMO. Neck profile was OK for me, but the narrower nut width was not. I could still play some tunes that I play on my J-40, but it would be more smooth with 1 11/16 nut for me. I'm 5' 8'', and have smaller hands than other guys.

In short, great sounding and looking guitar, and my only concern is the nut width (and a little bit about the neck profile, too).

Hey thats awesome thanks for reporting back!