000-28 custom shop authentic aged vs non-aged?

[Regalord]

Interested in potentially getting a 000-28 custom shop authentic 1937. I have read far more than one account saying that the aged version sounds better. Has anyone played them both? If the aged version truly sounds better, why? It doesn't have VTS (which does change the tone for better or worse). Does simply seeing an older looking guitar change people's perception of the tone? Or is there an actual reason why the aged version sounds better?

[Kh1967]

I have owned both. I don't think one is better than the other, at all. It is true with any builder that torrefication will likely produce a different tone, but that does not mean the player will like it better than one that is not aged.

FWIW...I preferred my non-aged 000 to the aged version. But, both were excellent.

[brencat]

Likely the biggest reason for why people think the Aged sounds better is the thinner finish. Aged Authentics have half the finish of the regular Authentics which is already pretty thin. Less finish means better sound transference and resonance (usually). The Aged version also has the rounded fingerboard edges which creates a worn in feel to the neck that lots of players like. And most Martins can use all the help they can get in the neck department (my opinion).

D-28 Custom Authentic Aged owner here, btw.

[JMW01]

I have a D-28 CAA and a D-28 CA and they are pretty much the same guitar. I think the non aged (CA) is maybe a tad bit louder. The aged (CAA) has the rolled fretboard edges. I tend to favor the aged one due to the rolled fretboard, but I am just pointing out very minor differences and not suggesting a negative.

I bought both of them a year ago thinking I would keep the best one and sell the other. I still have both of them because I can’t bring myself to sell one! You can’t go wrong either way.

[6L6]

I sold my ‘39 D-18AA and bought a ‘39 D-18A.

[Aaron Smith]

I played the 000-28 CA and CAA side by side and ended up buying the CAA. The difference between them was not subtle, I could easily have heard the difference blindfolded. Both were great; the CA had a brighter, sharper tone compared to the CAA which had a fuller,rounder tone and was a little more touch sensitive. I actually preferred the aesthetics of the non-aged but the CAA was the clear winner for me, and easily justified the price difference. As to why they sound different- the Aged has a much thinner finish and I have to think that the crazing loosens it up even further.

[TJNies]

Originally Posted by Aaron Smith

I played the 000-28 CA and CAA side by side and ended up buying the CAA. The difference between them was not subtle, I could easily have heard the difference blindfolded. Both were great; the CA had a brighter, sharper tone compared to the CAA which had a fuller,rounder tone and was a little more touch sensitive. I actually preferred the aesthetics of the non-aged but the CAA was the clear winner for me, and easily justified the price difference. As to why they sound different- the Aged has a much thinner finish and I have to think that the crazing loosens it up even further.

I had the same experience when I auditioned both versions.

[Rev Roy]

Originally Posted by Aaron Smith

I played the 000-28 CA and CAA side by side and ended up buying the CAA. The difference between them was not subtle, I could easily have heard the difference blindfolded. Both were great; the CA had a brighter, sharper tone compared to the CAA which had a fuller,rounder tone and was a little more touch sensitive. I actually preferred the aesthetics of the non-aged but the CAA was the clear winner for me, and easily justified the price difference. As to why they sound different- the Aged has a much thinner finish and I have to think that the crazing loosens it up even further.

This was my experience, too. Really don’t like the aged look. But I listened to my ears instead of my eyes and bought the aged version after playing them side by side for several days.

[Regalord]

Thanks for these responses. Wild that just a thinner finish seems to make such a difference that someone would be willing to spend 1K more. I'm guessing it's not subtle. I also have a suspicion that they're using the best wood for the CAA models, but I'll never prove that.

[Rumblefish]

I preferred the non aged version. It had a clarity and note separation that the aged version lacked. I can see where some would like the aged.

[JMW01]

Originally Posted by Regalord

Thanks for these responses. Wild that just a thinner finish seems to make such a difference that someone would be willing to spend 1K more. I'm guessing it's not subtle. I also have a suspicion that they're using the best wood for the CAA models, but I'll never prove that.

The difference is subtle in my case. I don’t hear a $1000 difference. However, I do tend to favor my CAA versus the CA.

[Rev Roy]

Originally Posted by Regalord

Thanks for these responses. Wild that just a thinner finish seems to make such a difference that someone would be willing to spend 1K more. I'm guessing it's not subtle. I also have a suspicion that they're using the best wood for the CAA models, but I'll never prove that.

Don’t underestimate the rolled fingerboard. That extra grand gets you better tone AND better playability. At least that’s what my ears heard and my hands felt…

[martingitdave]

It comes down to the specific instrument. I owned both versions of the CA D-28. The aged was a little more comfortable and sounded a bit better, but the neck did not ultimately fit my hand. I've since played non-aged versions that were just as good.

[sinistral]

Originally Posted by JMW01

The difference is subtle in my case. I don’t hear a $1000 difference. However, I do tend to favor my CAA versus the CA.

It’s more like a $1,500 difference for the new D-28 Authentic 1937 Aged and a $1,700 difference for the new D-18 Authentic 1937 Aged (vs. the respective non-aged versions introduced last year). I just took delivery of a D-18 Authentic 1937 that I ordered last year (afaik Martin doesn’t build left-handed Authentics on spec). The tone is intoxicating.

I’ve played the Aged on regular versions of the D-18 and D-28 Authentic 1939s, and I preferred the Aged versions. Would I have ordered the Aged version had it been available? Probably. I do prefer the overall sound of the D-18 Authentic 1937 to my PWGC D mahogany, and that guitar set a high bar.

[BluesKing777]

Originally Posted by sinistral

It’s more like a $1,500 difference for the new D-28 Authentic 1937 Aged and a $1,700 difference for the new D-18 Authentic 1937 Aged (vs. the respective non-aged versions introduced last year). I just took delivery of a D-18 Authentic 1937 that I ordered last year (afaik Martin doesn’t build left-handed Authentics on spec). The tone is intoxicating.

I’ve played the Aged on regular versions of the D-18 and D-28 Authentic 1939s, and I preferred the Aged versions. Would I have ordered the Aged version had it been available? Probably. I do prefer the overall sound of the D-18 Authentic 1937 to my PWGC D mahogany, and that guitar set a high bar.

Give ME the $1700 and I will age the new non aged one for ya!

Ya can even watch!

What do I need? Sandpaper? Files? Car keys and a bag?

I jest of course - I did play the previous incarnation Martin Aged D28A at a shop and it WAS incredible - didn't have a non aged to compare. Cash flow problem though....I will keep plucking my pawn shop 2006 EC 000-28 that someone else aged with...age....it is a wonderful 000 and would love to play one next to aged Authentic 000-28....keep in mind I prefer older Martins......from 2001 - 2007 .....want at least 15 -20 years of someone else's hard playing!


BluesKing777.