Bourgeois vs Collings OM

[Joe86]

I was wondering about the general opinions of Bourgeois and Collings OM guitars. Would appreciate any comments

Thanks

[heximal]

I have a Collings OM1A-- by far the best guitar I've ever owned. Incredibly well built and really my ideal for a mahogany OM.

It might be helpful for you to be a little more specific about what you'd like to know, as there's really no shortage of things to mention. Bourgeois and Collings are both fine makers and it just depends on what you're looking for.

[warfrat73]

They're both great. It's purely a matter of personal preference in terms of feel and tone.

[brencat]

Both have a lot of clarity and note separation. The Bourgeois will be a *little* closer to the Martin sound. The Collings neck will be slightly fuller feeling, whereas Bourgeois necks tend to be on the shallower side depth-wise. The Bourgeois will be slightly more forgiving of sloppy fingering and technique. I personally find Collings OMs severely lacking in bass response, and they have a brighter timbre and a ‘hot’ midrange, whereas the Bourgeois will be more balanced overall.

Neither is an appropriate substitute for a Martin OM tonewise, IMHO.

[Joe86]

Originally Posted by brencat

Both have a lot of clarity and note separation. The Bourgeois will be a *little* closer to the Martin sound. The Collings neck will be slightly fuller feeling, whereas Bourgeois necks tend to be on the shallower side depth-wise. The Bourgeois will be slightly more forgiving of sloppy fingering and technique. I personally find Collings OMs severely lacking in bass response, and they have a brighter timbre and a ‘hot’ midrange, whereas the Bourgeois will be more balanced overall.

Neither is an appropriate substitute for a Martin OM tonewise, IMHO.

Thank you very much. This was incredibly helpful

[jrb715]

Just to give another perspective. In my experience, compared to Martin OMs, both the Bourgeois and Collings OMs are more responsive and alive feeling with more complex tonal offerings. While I like Martin OMs, I vastly prefer both Bourgeois and Collings. It's easy to mistake cleaner bass and more top to bottom coherence in Collings and Bourgeois OMs for missing bass after playing a Martin whose bass is, in my experience, a little vague and messier.

[buddyhu]

I really like the balance of OM’s, especially when playing fingerstyle.

My Collings OM2HG doesn’t lack bass. It does if you compare it to a dreadnaught, of course. But compared to other OM’s with EIR back and sides, it is not lacking. It is a great guitar. Yes, it sounds different than a Martin OM…which some might describe as “muddy”, while others just hear it as “the right sound” for an OM.

I played a Bourgeois Mahogany OM that was delightful in many ways, but which did lack bass (IME). I didn’t buy it, but I think of it from time to time, because it had a certain “sparkle” in the mid-range that was rather alluring. Also a great guitar.

A SCGC OM is worthy of consideration, too….especially if you are going to buy a used guitar.

[Mark L]

This question, and the replies, would be better (imo) if accompanied by the type of music one plays and the style in which one plays it.

Flatpicking only, fingerstyle only, 50/50 or 90/10, strumming, vocal accompaniment? Is it gong to be a “do everything” or fill a niche?

Taking the word of someone here may be worthy, or iffy. Me included! You’ve been a agf member since ‘03 (!) so you must be aware of this.

Personally I landed on a Collings OM1A JL, which compares really well (and is totally different) than my rara avis Borges OM18 GG. I love them both. I play maybe 70/30 fingerstyle/flatpick, do not have a heavy RH attack unless absolutely called for, use my left hand lightly (will likely never need a refret)and play a wide variety of American and “World” music. I use the whole neck freely but do require a very trad sound and feel out of the first 7 frets.

Bourgeois makes a heck of a nice OM, for sure!


Best you can do is go play a bunch and decide for yourself. Only your ears, fingers and mind can make the right decision.

Best wishes.

[stillsteven]

Both Bourgeois and Collings make great OMs with impeccable attention to detail. To me, the name on the headstock doesn't matter in this case. If you have the opportunity to play them side-by-side, then you should go for it and pick the one that suits you best. That's what I did and I have no regrets.

[Dwight]

They are both great as are Huss & Dalton and Santa Cruz. You should try to play the guitar you're interested in first if possible.

[RussellHawaii]

I’ve had both brands of OMs, both are great. But my SCGC ‘1934 OM’ is the one I’ve kept!

[Zissou Intern]

I worked in a shop that carried: Martin, Collings, SCGC, and Bourgeois. SCGC built the most consistently great and best sounding OMs (mahogany/red spruce). Everyone one we received (6 or 7) was excellent. The Collings are more articulate and crisp compared to all the others, but that may be a good thing. The Collings Traditional OMs are fantastic in both rosewood and mahogany. I prefer them over their Standard Series and the Bourgeois OMs we had, but that's hindsight, because the Traditional Series was not a thing back then. The T Series has a fuller profile neck and more warmth than the Colling Standard Series.

I will add that the Martin OM18GEs (made 15-20 years ago) are one of my all-time favorite OM's. I would put them on par with the Collings OM1AT. Full neck carve, warmth, and power.

Good luck in your search.

[Samiamx]

Originally Posted by jrb715

Just to give another perspective. In my experience, compared to Martin OMs, both the Bourgeois and Collings OMs are more responsive and alive feeling with more complex tonal offerings. While I like Martin OMs, I vastly prefer both Bourgeois and Collings. It's easy to mistake cleaner bass and more top to bottom coherence in Collings and Bourgeois OMs for missing bass after playing a Martin whose bass is, in my experience, a little vague and messier.

I’ve owned an OM1 Collings and Martins in the past and agree with this comment. The Collings is much more responsive than a Martin and didn’t have the bass heavy sound of a Martin and it had more of a modern and precise sound.

The Collings was very tight (can’t emphasize that enough), loud, with an EQ that just sounded like it was a 10 across the board. I mainly was a strummer when I had the Collings and I felt the guitar led me to strum and play more aggressively, I’m not sure why but it’s the only guitar that has led me to be aggressive with it. It was very light, but did not feel lightly built (if that makes sense) because it felt very rigid to me.

I’ve only played two Bourgeois guitars (an OM and a D) and both were mellower that Collings or Martin. The Bourgeois felt very balanced string to string and led me to play more intricately and delicately.

I had one Santa Cruz (H Model, which is diff than the H13) and it sounded the most Martin sounding vs the Bourgeois and SC.

[soups]

I currently have a Santa Cruz, Huss & Dalton and Collings OM and I sold a Bourgeois OM to get the Collings.

I tend to gravitate more towards mahogany OMs and smaller bodied guitars because I think the response of the tonewood tends to lend itself to the depth of an OM.

The H&D is modern in that it has overtones. I felt the Bourgeois (which was rosewood and Adirondack) was very even playing and had more midrange than a typical rosewood guitar. It was clear and honest. The Collings is a traditional satin guitar which tends to harken to the Martin prewar sound and has the specs and voicing to match. It’s dry and focused but also excellent in the bass ranges. Lastly the SC has a more modern feel as well - it is completely custom down to the neck shape.

It’s such a broad question because there are so many variables when deciding what colors the sound. The top wood, back and sides and of course the voicing spectrum.

You can’t really go wrong with any of them.

[LakewoodM32Fan]

Originally Posted by brencat

Both have a lot of clarity and note separation. The Bourgeois will be a *little* closer to the Martin sound. The Collings neck will be slightly fuller feeling, whereas Bourgeois necks tend to be on the shallower side depth-wise. The Bourgeois will be slightly more forgiving of sloppy fingering and technique. I personally find Collings OMs severely lacking in bass response, and they have a brighter timbre and a ‘hot’ midrange, whereas the Bourgeois will be more balanced overall.

Neither is an appropriate substitute for a Martin OM tonewise, IMHO.

Just want to +1 what Brendan said. I've played quite a few Collings OMs (was fortunate enough to have two dealers who, pre-pandemic, were big Collings sellers and literally have played over a dozen) and owned one. Collings in general does have a very mid-forward sound. The Bourgeois I have played (McCabe's just became a dealer and I've had the chance to play several OMs and Ds and owned one D for a bit) were all less mid-forward than Collings, but as Brendan said, I would not consider it a replacement for a vintage Martin OM sound.

If I had to pick one of the Big Small Four that was closest to emulating Martin's sound, it would be Huss and Dalton. Santa Cruz (of which I've played many and own several) has its own sound signature as well.

With regards to forgiveness of technique, I used to think my Collings OM was slightly less forgiving. And then I really got into doing my own setup (setting relief properly, then nut slot height, then saddle adjustments). I found that the nut slot height was way too high on the Collings. I know they're renowned for excellent fit and finish (all the Big Small Four are excellent, but Collings is thought of as perhaps just being "the best of the best") but everyone can have an off day. it seems the person responsible for slotting the nut on mine might have been preoccupied with something else. Once I dialed it in, the Collings was just as easy to play as my Santa Cruz, Bourgeois and H&D.