Martin 00-17 Authentic 1931 vs Santa Cruz 00 1929

[dadio917]

just noticed the Authentic has a 1 7/8" nut. I much prefer 1 3/4" for my short little fingers.

[zoopeda]

Originally Posted by HFox

I love both my Martin and my SCGC guitars But this may be the most ridiculous comparison between two instruments I have ever seen on this Forum.
The SC is played softly and the microphone is well aft and away from the soundhole/12th fret. the "Attack " is light and and soft.
The Martin is played in a much more "Determined" style and the mic is much closer to the soundhole and the 12th fret of the instrument.....where any decent sound guy would place it.
Both are fine guitars but asking for us to make a comparison is absurd.
I know both instruments well and have played several of both models both at well known guitar shops and in my own music room.....IMHO this example of SCGC Versus Martin is not in the least an accurate representation.
I listened to both videos through Bose headphones.
No question the Martin sounds richer in this post.....but in person I promise you the advantage goes to the SC.
One should Never make a buying decision based upon videos of this quality.

To be clear, I’m not asking for people to listen to these videos for me. I posted the videos just so people could see the guitars being played. The whole point of this thread is to solicit feedback from people who have played these in person. I don’t care what they sound like on YouTube and agree that videos are a poor representation of live sound.

Can I ask, since you have experience playing both, what is it about the tone of the SC that is superior to the Martin? I’ve played the Martin and found it to be wonderful but don’t have access to the SC. I too am not willing to use video comparisons, so your thoughts are valuable. Thank you for any first hand insights you might share.

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by zoopeda

I've spent some time with the Martin and loved every minute--the tone is to-die-for and the neck is among the most comfy I've played, and light as a feather (3lbs 2ozs on my scale).

. . .

I’ve played the Martin and found it to be wonderful but don’t have access to the SC.

In your shoes, I'd probably jump on that Martin that you played.

In spite of what I (and others) have said above.

[blindboyjimi]

Personally, I prefer the Martin. I too have a 1937 00-17 and have sold my 000-15S, 00-15M, and SCGC 1929 00 sunburst. There is no bad guitar here. A Martin has the Martin tone which is more scooped than a Santa Cruz. The Santa Cruz is nicely balanced. I have not yet played the 00-17A, but have played 6 or 7 00-17s from the early 30's. My favorite of all the Authentics so far is the 00-18A 1931 so I'd imagine that the 00-17A 1931 is just as good. There are too many variables in nut spacing, neck shape, 12/14 frets, and luthier vs built to a spec vs vintage. I love the Don Edwards version of the 1929, but if I had $4500 to spend, I'd get the real deal in either 12 or 14 fret. If going the vintage route, you need to know your stuff or pay a bit more at a specialty shop so they can guide you in not buying a disaster basket case. If that last sentence scares you, thats what the Authentic or 1929 is for.

[Newbflat]

Totally reviving an old dead thread but I do have something to add. I have an original 1930 0-17, 12 fret with bar frets and have owned it for 20 years. I was down at a local guitar shop (Dusty strings, in Seattle) and saw they had a 00-17 authentic there. I played it for about 30min and was very impressed. It felt almost exactly like my 0-17 in size, enough so I had a hard time noticing a size difference. It was super light like mine (3lbs even) and the whole guitar resonated and felt very alive. Tonal it was very close and the only real difference was my 90year old guitar had a bit more wood and dryness to the sound, but the new 00 still had the vast majority of the 0-17’s timbre. They both had a rich base that seams to come from a much larger guitar and little of the boxes or nasally sound some parlor guitars have. I LOVE my 1930 0-17, but that new 00-17 authentic was very close in tone to my 0-17, surprisingly so.

[Stringmaster]

Originally Posted by Newbflat

Totally reviving an old dead thread but I do have something to add. I have an original 1930 0-17, 12 fret with bar frets and have owned it for 20 years. I was down at a local guitar shop (Dusty strings, in Seattle) and saw they had a 00-17 authentic there. I played it for about 30min and was very impressed. It felt almost exactly like my 0-17 in size, enough so I had a hard time noticing a size difference. It was super light like mine (3lbs even) and the whole guitar resonated and felt very alive. Tonal it was very close and the only real difference was my 90year old guitar had a bit more wood and dryness to the sound, but the new 00 still had the vast majority of the 0-17’s timbre. They both had a rich base that seams to come from a much larger guitar and little of the boxes or nasally sound some parlor guitars have. I LOVE my 1930 0-17, but that new 00-17 authentic was very close in tone to my 0-17, surprisingly so.

Thanks for the comparison! I love my 00-17A, and I ha/vent had an opportunity to play an actual vintage 12-fret 17. Happy to hear that you found them to be in the ballpark.

[Mr. Paul]

I am a Santa Cruz fan but did not care for the 1929 00 I played. Fell hard for the 00-17 Authentic, it feels alive in my hands.