Martin V-Bracing?

[cdkrugjr]

No, they won't do "V-Bracing" they'll invent their own far superior "A-Bracing" . .

Martin and Taylor are after different sound profiles, making it a no-brainer that their bracing patterns would similarly be different.

I observe that Collings, "More Martin than a Martin" series guitars are also X-braced, and they Don't have any reason Not to do it differently if it accomplishes that in a better way.

[Mr. Jelly]

I've heard Taylor's going to ladder bracing next.

[printer2]

Martin will always make an Z-Brace. Nobody can say where they have to put it.



Or if they alter the X to be more of a V.

[Peter Z]

At least they would call it Arrow-Bracing or so but not V-Bracing.

[Mr. Paul]

There are not enough days left in the future of humans on earth for us to witness Martin using V Class bracing on one of their guitars. Cheers

[stephenT]

I’d like to think that’s a bandwagon Martin has the good sense and ears to avoid.

[Shuksan]

Taylor's a patent on v-bracing would be a disincentive for Martin to follow suit unless they were willing to pay royalties to Taylor, or are willing to risk being sued for infringement if they use a bracing pattern anything like the designs described in the patent. Or they can wait until December 13 of 2036 when the Taylor patent protection expires.

[cliff_the_stiff]

Originally Posted by Shuksan

Taylor's a patent on v-bracing would be a disincentive for Martin to follow suit unless they were willing to pay royalties to Taylor, or are willing to risk being sued for infringement if they use a bracing pattern anything like the designs described in the patent. Or they can wait until December 13 of 2036 when the Taylor patent protection expires.

I’ve wondered about this point- I vaguely recall an article around the beginning of the V-class introduction- stating the idea came from bracing of orchestra instruments like cellos etc-
How do they patent an idea for something that has likely been done before in the 300+ years of stringed instruments and guitar ...

Don’t think Martin had the tonal/ volume “problem” in the first place that Taylor was trying to fix with new bracing.

All things considered- Of the 5 taylors I have had- the last two still with me are both X- braced.

[cu4life7]

I think for any company to adopt something it would have to prove to be 100% superior to what said company is already doing...so no, they won't. Maybe the real takeaway is to better use marketing to sell (resell) your customer base on another guitar.

[whvick]

After shopping guitars today, I like X bracing better in both Taylor and Martin

[zoopeda]

I’m not sure the world has really embraced v bracing.

There’s no way Martin has embraced v bracing. As much as Martin has envied and copied Taylor “playability” (ie neck specs and setup), they’ve never once suggested they’re looking to Taylor for tone.

My bet is Martin uses v bracing once hell freezes over. At least as long as CFM4 is in charge..

[printer2]

Originally Posted by cliff_the_stiff

I’ve wondered about this point- I vaguely recall an article around the beginning of the V-class introduction- stating the idea came from bracing of orchestra instruments like cellos etc-
How do they patent an idea for something that has likely been done before in the 300+ years of stringed instruments and guitar ...

Don’t think Martin had the tonal/ volume “problem” in the first place that Taylor was trying to fix with new bracing.

All things considered- Of the 5 taylors I have had- the last two still with me are both X- braced.

Pepe Romero, Jr Inverse Fan Bracing. Orfeo Magazine #10. He has been using it on his guitars for years after copying it from an older guitar maker.

[zoopeda]

Originally Posted by martingitdave

Agreed! However, years ago Martin did evolve their bracing to the A frame bracing with simple dovetail that is in their low/mid tier guitars. It sounds great, is slightly more stable in the neck area, and it sounds like a Martin.

A Frame bracing is, essentially X bracing. They tweak the upper bout support to accommodate the simple dovetail neck joint and drop a tone bar. But it's structurally still just a type of X bracing. I think that's why an A Frame Martin still "sounds like a Martin."

V Bracing is a whole universe away from the X bracing Taylor was using prior.

So Martin puts a CF bridge plate on the new MD series, and it's called revolutionary. CFM makes small, deliberate, incremental change. Taylor makes radical huge structural redesign changes in the blink of an eye. Just different companies.

[Taylor Ham]

I believe Taylor's patent only covers their specific layout of V bracing. the lower bout finger braces and central transverse brace below the soundhole could all easily be reworked or dispensed with. in fact, any bracing layout could get close to the same effect of longitudinal stiffness if you get creative with the brace contours.

[Shuksan]

Originally Posted by Taylor Ham

I believe Taylor's patent only covers their specific layout of V bracing. the lower bout finger braces and central transverse brace below the soundhole could all easily be reworked or dispensed with. in fact, any bracing layout could get close to the same effect of longitudinal stiffness if you get creative with the brace contours.

The language of the claims granted in the patent doesn't limit Taylor to just the specific bracing layout we've all seen in photos. They were granted patent protection for a bracing layout that includes the two main longitudinal braces and any number of so-called "fan" braces (finger braces). The language is such that they are left with plenty of leeway in how the braces can be positioned on the top. The main V braces do not have to meet at the end block and there is no angle specified between the two braces. They just have to be non-parallel and closer together toward the tail end of the body than toward the neck end of the body. The number of finger braces is not specified nor is their orientation. Which means that variations on the basic idea of v-braces + "fan" braces would be protected under the patent. At least, Taylor's lawyers would certainly argue so.

They were not granted any claims about the function of the bracing though, so a bracing layout that gives the same longitudinal stiffness while not falling under the description of the bracing layout in their claims wouldn't be blocked.