|
|
#1
01-15-2021, 05:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
When did Martin roll out the MLO neck profile?
Wondering, haven't seen it yet but a friend of a friend is selling a mid 80s D28. She doesn't know much about guitars so can't really describe it.
Anyone know what neck that may have? 
|
|
#2
01-15-2021, 07:22 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
D28 got the MLO with the reimagined series in 2017. Previous to that it was 1 11/16 and low profile neck since the early '90s. I believe it was a full profile before that.
Which year in the 80s? They started adjustable truss rods in 1985.
|
|
#3
01-15-2021, 08:22 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
No expert here, but up until 2012 all I'd heard about was the Martin "Performance" neck...but in 2012, I believe the D18 came out with the MLO neck and the 1.725" nut width. I think that Martin squeezed out the MLO neck carve as almost a test-run on several guitars across their catalog until 2018 when they introduced the Standard "Reimagined" series that all had the MLO neck with the Performance Taper, as well as the 1.725" nut width across the board.
Please feel free to correct me...
|
|
#4
01-15-2021, 08:41 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
01-15-2021, 08:52 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I'm with you too. I have smaller hands, and just can't do a V-neck well...but although I get along pretty well with the MLO shape, it could be a little thicker and I'd like it more.
|
|
#6
01-17-2021, 06:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If you are looking at a mid 1980's D28, it would have either a full profile neck or a "low profile" neck. The full profile neck is a non-designated term given to the standard Martin neck of the time. Most describe it as a nicely rounded full oval and some note a bit of a "v". The actual neck thickness and shape details most likely vary by manufacture. It's safe to assume it is thicker than most modern Martin necks. The "low profile" was the designated term given to the neck introduced in 1985. It appeared on some models thereafter and was designated by a "P" until it became a standard in 1991 when the "P" label was removed. The low profile is usually around .821" thick at 1st fret and .871" at 10th including the assumed .225" inch modern fretboard. To me, it is a profile that gives an oval C a bit of flatness by more gradually sloping the neck to fretboard. This is in contrast to Martins "low oval" which is the roundest profile. The "MLO" to which you reference produces a more gradual slope to the fretboard than Martin's "low oval" without going as gradual as the "low profile". Many state this results in the profile having the feel of a slight "V". Assuming the .225" inch modern fretboard, the "MLO" is usually around .805" at 1st fret and .892" at 10th. This profile has been around for some time and is now the most prevalent profile on Martin's standard offerings. However, it is unlikely that this profile would be found on an 80's Martin unless customization or modification was involved. Hope this helps you consider the model in question. Best, Mac
|
|
#7
01-17-2021, 10:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Coming from a Taylor-only background for so many years, I HATED the neck on every Martin that I played and that’s the main thing that kept me from buying one. I, personally, LOVE the MLO/PA neck on my Reimagined D41.
__________________
Education is important! Guitar is importanter!! 2019 Bourgeois “Banjo Killer” Aged Tone Vintage Deluxe D 2018 Martin D41 Ambertone (2018 Reimagined) 2016 Taylor GS Mini Koa ES2
|
|
#9
01-18-2021, 06:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks all. Turns out she sold it but my buddy who helped her found it was an 18 instead and from 1985.
For me though, if I do go Martin, this is good info. I have smaller hands and, well, sheepishly maybe must admit they are "Taylor sized!" So I need a skinny neck, BUT I still also prefer 1.75 nut. Funny but the perfect neck for me is my wife's 90s Guild DV52. It's a gradual rounded C, .84 at first fret, which is the same as my Eastman. However, they feel different to me. (My thumb lands differently as I wrap for a C chord.) Somehow the Eastman feels thicker despite the same measurement. I can only attribute this to the slope or the curve of the C being a couple of millimeters different.
|
|
#10
01-18-2021, 11:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
FWIW my 1990 custom shop J-40 had the "low profile" neck - they did not have so many named neck carves back then, but it was effectively the modified low oval (MLO). That nut width and profile stopped working for my left hand sometime after age 48 and now all four Martin guitars are gone. I can play others (Taylor, Rainsong, Emerald, Seagull) for hours without pain.
|
|
#11
01-18-2021, 01:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You'll find the right one. Do you know if the Guild USA concerts with 1.75" have the same neck as your wife's or are you just looking for a dread?
I play a Martin "Low Profile" on my Martin clone. In my opinion it's a very good middle ground between flatter ovals and rounded ovals on a 1.69". You can play thumb over and barre about equally. The problem for some is that it's not perfect for either. One position or the other might give you problems if you stay in it a lot. In addition, on a 1.69" there's a pretty steep angle on thumb over that can be problematic for older folks like myself, even if this width works well otherwise. To me, Martin seems to have moved to the "MLO" to go back a bit towards the traditional oval and allow the wider nut to assist comfort/play. The slimmer thickness and HP taper seem to me to be an adjustment to try and bring along those with more moderate hand sizes. Works for some not so much for others. Of course, they'll make one with whatever Martin shape one prefers, and we can see if the SC-13 creates an interest in newer profiles. Best, Mac
|
