Martin Authentics vs. Boutique Counterparts

[leafs]

EDIT123456789

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by leafs

As someone new to the dreadnought size, what differences should I be on the look-out for between these companies who, when all is said and done, use similar building methods to achieve the same tonalities in a guitar?

Tone is subjective and one finds the tone one wants where one finds it, regardless of maker, model or materials.

If one can find all that one wants in an off-the-rack guitar made by a big name company, buy it. The resale value, generally, will be better for a well-known, highly sought-after brand compared to an unknown or lesser-known builder.

One of the primary reasons for buying a builder-made guitar vs. factory-made is to get what you can't find in a factory-made instrument. That could be any number of things including size or shape, neck size or shape, scale length, choice of woods, subtle design choices, personal relationship with the builder, aesthetic choices for inlays or other ornamentation...

At this point in modern manufacturing, one wouldn't think it would be necessary to look at things like track record with bindings coming off or neck resets on new - or relatively new - instruments. Those might factor into the considerations.

[J Patrick]

…there are noticeable differences between companies but you’ll olnly find them by playing the guitars….I advise you you to disregard the general differences that are ascribed by folks on forums to the various builders and discover for yourself what you like and don’t like about the guitars you are interested in trying….it’s not that informed opinions are useless…it’s just that they are no substitute for playing one yourself….

.. your recent revelation concerning the D-18A is the kind of learning experience I’m talking about…

[russchapman]

The Authentic 1937 D28 and 1939 D18 are stellar guitars on par with any small builder, IMO. As are the Gibson Historic series AJ, J-55, J-35 and J-45.

I've played plenty of the 'inspired by' guitars by small builders, and what I've noticed (in general), is the small shop guitars are a bit more snappy and responsive than their large scale counterparts.

Maybe that's a good thing for you, but it comes at a cost, IMO. And that cost is in how they strum. They don't have the same 'blended' strum that the Martin Authentics or the Gibson Historics have. Each string is very loud and proud and that's not always what you want in a strum. I have come across exceptions (John Walker Guitars being one), and of course this is just my experience/opinion (as a bare finger player).

The other question you should ask is how a Martin Authentic D is going to sound strung up with lights (every one I've ever played was strung with mediums). But maybe you want to play mediums. I'd rather not, but if it meant losing those bell-like trebles, then big strings it is.

Best of luck!

[hifivic]

I've owned Lowdens, Collings, Huss & Daltons, Bourgeois, Taylors & Santa Cruz and all had a medicinal quality whereas the Authentics are the real deal plain and simple it's the sound that's in your head!

[Robin, Wales]

Those Martin Authentic series guitars are bloody expensive compared to the prices that Martin was banging them out of the factory at in the 1930s. And I mean in relative terms given the inflation of wages and the cost of living. They are copies of their own "standard" guitars, you would think that they could build them at standard prices (perhaps with a small upgrade for the woods).

So, personally, I'd go boutique or just pick up a second hand D-18 to scratch the dreadnought itch. You could always sell it then without to much (if any) loss if it doesn't work out.

[buddyhu]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

Tone is subjective and one finds the tone one wants where one finds it, regardless of maker, model or materials.

If one can find all that one wants in an off-the-rack guitar made by a big name company, buy it. The resale value, generally, will be better for a well-known, highly sought-after brand compared to an unknown or lesser-known builder.

One of the primary reasons for buying a builder-made guitar vs. factory-made is to get what you can't find in a factory-made instrument. That could be any number of things including size or shape, neck size or shape, scale length, choice of woods, subtle design choices, personal relationship with the builder, aesthetic choices for inlays or other ornamentation...

At this point in modern manufacturing, one wouldn't think it would be necessary to look at things like track record with bindings coming off or neck resets on new - or relatively new - instruments. Those might factor into the considerations.

I agree.

My Goodall, my Webber, my Greven, and my C. Fox offer really lovely tones, a deep resonance, a certain “shimmer”, and play with greater ease than other guitars i have owned or currently own. These qualities are most noticeable when i am fingerpicking. I bought them used, so they don’t have custom features that I have chosen…nonetheless, i have found qualities in them that I appreciate that I haven’t found in other guitars.

I enjoy other guitars, including the small number of Authentics I have auditioned. And in addition to the guitars mentioned above, i own a couple of Collings, which are terrific instruments, and (so far), Collings hasn’t had any of the quirky quality control problems that occasionally arise with some of the other large scale manufacturers.

When you stumble across a guitar that sounds and feels right, it is often best to “strike while the iron is hot”, unless you are intent on sampling a wide variety of makers or sizes before making a decision, or are purposely intending to branch out in a new direction.

[Malcolm Kindnes]

Originally Posted by charles Tauber

Tone is subjective and one finds the tone one wants where one finds it, regardless of maker, model or materials.

If one can find all that one wants in an off-the-rack guitar made by a big name company, buy it. The resale value, generally, will be better for a well-known, highly sought-after brand compared to an unknown or lesser-known builder.

One of the primary reasons for buying a builder-made guitar vs. factory-made is to get what you can't find in a factory-made instrument. That could be any number of things including size or shape, neck size or shape, scale length, choice of woods, subtle design choices, personal relationship with the builder, aesthetic choices for inlays or other ornamentation...

At this point in modern manufacturing, one wouldn't think it would be necessary to look at things like track record with bindings coming off or neck resets on new - or relatively new - instruments. Those might factor into the considerations.

This is excellent advice, if you loved everything about that particular guitar, look no further.

[sakar12]

Originally Posted by hifivic

I've owned Lowdens, Collings, Huss & Daltons, Bourgeois, Taylors & Santa Cruz and all had a medicinal quality whereas the Authentics are the real deal plain and simple it's the sound that's in your head!

My Lowden is anything but medicinal.

[Mr. Jelly]

Originally Posted by leafs

The prices of Martin Authentic guitars, such as the D-18 1939, seem to fall in the upper-end range of boutique builders and individual luthiers who aim to re-create the same vintage Martin tone (e.g., Pre-War, SCGC, Collings 'Traditional' Preston Thompson, Brondel etc.). As someone new to the dreadnought size, what differences should I be on the look-out for between these companies who, when all is said and done, use similar building methods to achieve the same tonalities in a guitar?
R

I don't believe that boutique builders aim to create the same vintage tone as an average vintage Martin. They aim to create the sound of exceptional sounding vinatage Martins. So boutique guitars have the sound of what their whole line sounds like. Just like Martin guitars have a similar sounding sound to them. The SC and Collings guitars I've had were tonally more balance than Martin guitars. Martins have a rumble or as some like to call a growl to them that just seems to inhibit the clairity of the guitar to me. So if you want 'the' Martin sound then get a Martin.

[phavriluk]

I think - - - and the word is 'think' - - - that boutique builders have better things to do than try to copy a factory guitar's sound signature. They have their own unique acoustics to offer on their own merits. Dead easy to copy a Martin, go buy a Martin. And Ferrari doesn't copy Ford.

[J Patrick]

Originally Posted by hifivic

I've owned Lowdens, Collings, Huss & Daltons, Bourgeois, Taylors & Santa Cruz and all had a medicinal quality whereas the Authentics are the real deal plain and simple it's the sound that's in your head!

…care to explain what you mean by medicinal quality?…..it’s a new descriptor to me….are you saying they are sterile sounding in comparison to Martins?….if so I’d have to disagree with that being applied to ALL the guitars you mentioned…I’ve owned a fair number of some of these guitars myself….I’ve had 8 Santa Cruz guitars and they have all sounded quite different from one another…it would be difficult to find any one description that could be applied to ALL of them….other than fine…I could say the same thing about the Martins I have owned…

…and for the record we don’t all have the same sound in our heads….so there’s that..

[1Charlie]

One of the top five guitars I have ever played was a D-18 Authentic '39. It blew away everything else in the shop.

Having said that, I ended up buying a used Huss and Dalton dread that was half the price and also among the top five guitars I have ever played. It has become my main gigging guitar. Huge, thunderous, warm tone, and exceptional build quailty. Not medicinal at all!

But if I were dripping cash, I would own a D-18 Authentic for sure.

[charles Tauber]

Originally Posted by hifivic

... the Authentics are the real deal plain and simple it's the sound that's in your head!

It might well be the sound that's in your head. It isn't the sound that is in my head. Such is the subjective nature of "sound".

[merlin666]

Several of the posts here have used the term "vintage tone" and I feel challenged wrapping my head around this. So on the one hand we have true old guitars, some of them were played a lot and some were not, and some had extensive repairs and part replacements and others are in almost original state. Other than being old, do these guitars have anything else in common that would give them a vintage tone? Then there is the completely different approach of building guitars as they were built many decades ago, thereby recreating vintage guitars as they were new. Do they have anything in common to give them a vintage tone? Then this can be pushed further by artificially aging the recreated guitar by using torrefied wood and relicing, whereby a new guitar now reflects a used guitar. Do they have anything else in common that makes a vintage tone?

Anyway, I think that these "authentic" guitars are as modern as it gets, as they sound and play like what many of today's players think is great.