Martin Dreadnoughts

[Social Exodus]

Okay anybody who's been paying any attention knows that the (forgot Martin D-18) Martin D-28 dreadnaught and to a lesser extent the D-35 dreadnaught are the core of Martin's dreadnaught offerings. I'm familiar with the differences between these two, but I'm wondering about the D-41 and the D-45 models - other than the bling, what are the differences in these two upscale Martins versus the others?

[zoopeda]

I would push back by saying that the D-18 and D-28 represent the tonal north and south poles of their flagship design around which the the rest of the postwar Martin Guitar Company revolves. The style 40s are just a D-28 with icing and sprinkles, and the D-35 is the renegade outlier--all of which are awesome and worthy guitars but ultimately just dressed up D-28s.

Their first ever Martin branded two dreadnoughts were the 1931 D-1 (which became the D-18 and one of Martin's best ever selling models) and the 1931 D-2 which became the iconic D-28. If I wanted to move "up" from there, I'd look at the D-18GE and D-28 Marquis, and from there, to the Authentic D-1 1931, D-18 1937, and D-28 1931 and 1937. Then again, I'm one to put my money into tone above aesthetics when money is finite.

[Social Exodus]

Originally Posted by zoopeda

I would push back by saying that the D-18 and D-28 represent the tonal north and south poles of their flagship design around which the the rest of the postwar Martin Guitar Company revolves. The style 40s are just a D-28 with icing and sprinkles, and the D-35 is the renegade outlier--all of which are awesome and worthy guitars but ultimately just dressed up D-28s.

Their first ever Martin branded two dreadnoughts were the 1931 D-1 (which became the D-18 and one of Martin's best ever selling models) and the 1931 D-2 which became the iconic D-28. If I wanted to move "up" from there, I'd look at the D-18GE and D-28 Marquis, and from there, to the Authentic D-1 1931, D-18 1937, and D-28 1931 and 1937. Then again, I'm one to put my money into tone above aesthetics when money is finite.

How could I forget the D-18?

In any event, I prefer the sound over the bling and want to spend less than more.

[llew]

I agree that the D-18 & D-28 (and all their variations) represent the meat & potatoes of the Martin Dread offerings. The 35 to a much less extent. The 41/21/45 are similar but different in trim levels and maybe some other aspects I'm not familiar with. I have heard that Martin uses their "best" woods on the 40 level guitars. Don't know if by "best" they mean sonically or aesthetically? All fine guitars but all different.

[llew]

Originally Posted by Social Exodus

How could I forget the D-18?

In any event, I prefer the sound over the bling and want to spend less than more.

Both the D-18 (post 2012) and D-28 after the reimagine are great guitars and can be bought relatively inexpensively from some of our forum sponsors.

[MickZ]

I love the D-41, and it does sound better to my ears than the other Standards. It is a bit too bling-y for my taste, but the bling (and nicer wood selections) do alter the tone a bit. Alternatively, you can buy an HD-28 for about two-thirds the price and get 95% of the D-41's tone. And there are some custom HD-28 models out there with some added features like 1 11/16" nut widths, different woods and inlays that are somewhere in between.

Happy hunting!

[Silly Moustache]

Originally Posted by Social Exodus

Okay anybody who's been paying any attention knows that the Martin D-28 dreadnaught and to a lesser extent the D-35 dreadnaught are the core of Martin's dreadnaught offerings. I'm familiar with the differences between these two, but I'm wondering about the D-41 and the D-45 models - other than the bling, what are the differences in these two upscale Martins versus the others?

Ok, folks have already brought the D18 back into focus so I'll continue from there.

Martin have pretty much always made their models with both mahogany and rosewood backs and sides, and with notable exceptions (21s 17s etc.,) the hogs have a plain black pr faux tortoiseshell binding and the rose has a white /black white binding sometimes with Herringbone purfling.

The D35 and D12-35 were introduced in 1965, (D35-S in '66) when Martin first stared having challenges getting BRW of sufficient width for the backs and so they implemented the three piece back feature, and added bound fretboards with the 28 style binding.

The necessary change in back bracing led to a somewhat warmer sound that equivalent D28.

There was also a highly regarded OM35 which, strangely is absent from my reference books, but I believe were made between 2003 to 2007.

I had and cherished my 1973 D35 from 1975 until 1996 - and it performed faultlessly in many bluegrass bands, some trios, and solo and now lives with a friend and it even sounds "special" in his hands!
I know of a friend who had an OM35 for some years, might still have it -not sure.

I hope that helps.

[warfrat73]

People say that the 40 series are just the same as the 28 but with more inlay and a higher cosmetic wood grade.

But just about as many people say that 40 series guitars sound richer and more lush.

I haven't played enough 40s to form an opinion. But, really, you'll probably just have to try them for yourself when you can.

[Tnfiddler]

I'll say it again like I've said many times on here since I bought my Reimagined D41. I auditioned quite a few HD28 models and had "THE ONE" picked out that was going to be mine. I grabbed my Ambertone D41 off the wall just to play it and from the first open E chord, the search was over! It has what I call a shimmer that NONE of the HD28s had and it came home with me. You can say they're blinged up 28's all you want, but I beg to differ.

[brencat]

Originally Posted by Tnfiddler

I auditioned quite a few HD28 models and had "THE ONE" picked out that was going to be mine. I grabbed my Ambertone D41 off the wall just to play it and from the first open E chord, the search was over! It has what I call a shimmer that NONE of the HD28s had and it came home with me. You can say they're blinged up 28's all you want, but I beg to differ.

Agree about the style 40 shimmer. Anyone with a casual ear for nuance can hear the difference between style 28 and style 40. You can't get 95% of the tone of a 40 in a 28. More like 75% tops. On the other hand, I probably won't be flatpicking a style 40 -- to me, they are too lush for fiddle tunes and such.

Regardless, Martin's best stuff is still the Authentic line, in my opinion.

[Scotso]

Originally Posted by brencat

Agree about the style 40 shimmer. Anyone with a casual ear for nuance can hear the difference between style 28 and style 40. You can't get 95% of the tone of a 40 in a 28. More like 75% tops. On the other hand, I probably won't be flatpicking a style 40 -- to me, they are too lush for fiddle tunes and such.

Regardless, Martin's best stuff is still the Authentic line, in my opinion.

One of the best Martins I have heard is a 41 played by Andy Hatfield who is a 2x Winfield flatpick champ. So....????? Just an incredible sounding guitar and I am not good at hearing the nuances btw guitars. Sounds better than my 28 and I really like my 28. But maybe it has something to do with his talent as well??

[MickZ]

Originally Posted by brencat

Agree about the style 40 shimmer. Anyone with a casual ear for nuance can hear the difference between style 28 and style 40. You can't get 95% of the tone of a 40 in a 28. More like 75% tops.

Hey Brendan - I say the shimmer is valued at 5%.

[jpricewood]

I could hear the difference and spent the difference in money.

[Tnfiddler]

Originally Posted by brencat

Agree about the style 40 shimmer. Anyone with a casual ear for nuance can hear the difference between style 28 and style 40. You can't get 95% of the tone of a 40 in a 28. More like 75% tops. On the other hand, I probably won't be flatpicking a style 40 -- to me, they are too lush for fiddle tunes and such.

Regardless, Martin's best stuff is still the Authentic line, in my opinion.

I use my D41 as a straight rhythm guitar and it shines in that aspect!

IF and that's a big IF, the '37 D28 Authentic Aged had a different neck, there would be one of those in my house and it'd be my main guitar!! The one I played at NAMM was the best sounding Martin I've ever played and in the top #2 best I've ever played or heard!

[raysachs]

I tend not to be into bling myself. And at this point in my life I prefer the sound of mahogany to rosewood. But I spent about 25 years with a BRW D-28 as my only acoustic and loved that rosewood sound. I'n not into dreds at this point either, so this is purely academic to me. If i was, I'd probably be playing a D-18 now.

All of that said, I've never played a D-41 or D-45, but I've checked out a number of youtubes and sound files comparing the D-28 and D-41 or variants on that. And as much as I loved my D-28, every time I've heard one against a D-41, I could definitely hear a difference with the D-41 just having an incredible amount of depth and shimmer, for lack of a better description. I suspect for my meager playing, all of that extra D-41 sound would likely just get in the way. But in the hands of someone who knows how to use it, the D-41 is an astonishingly great sounding guitar. So, my bias would be to avoid the bling, but my ears tell me otherwise.

-Ray