60's Martins...what do I need to look for, vintage lovers?

[hw2nw]

Looking at a couple early 60's Martins (D28) in my area and there are a litany of repairs done to these things. As one would expect for 50+ years.

What are some things I need to know and look for? Are there dealbreakers that would make life hell down the line? So far I'm seeing some minimal crack repairs, neck resets, bridges reglued, and a refinish. Not seeing any new holes or extra hardware.

I know how to choose a guitar for my needs based on tone/feel but picking out a vintage instrument with some sort of value is new territory for me.

Thanks!

[Silly Moustache]

The first concern is the neck - straightness, angle etc.

A '60s Martin should have had a neck reset by 50 years old.

Then fretboard might be thinner at the top to reduce "ski-slope"
and/or relief.

Sight doen the frtboard and the tip should point to the top of the bridhe (not saddle.

Saddle should have at least 1/8" above bridge.

Action at 12th fret ? More than 1/8" is challenging.

Top - it will have some deformation, but how much ? Is the bridge (or bridge base) leaning forward?

Bellying behind bridge or dipping between bridge and soundhole ?

Cracks should be repaired - that's OK. Refinish (for some reason) reduces

Bridge plate ? Worn? Replaced ?

Nut and string grooves correct ? (New nuts and saddles are fine (by me at least).

Frets ? (Probably had a few refrets in fifty years - fret condition ?

Let's see who disagrees with me, and if I can think of anything else.

[hw2nw]

this is super helpful - thank you!

Originally Posted by Silly Moustache

The first concern is the neck - straightness, angle etc.

A '60s Martin should have had a neck reset by 50 years old.

Then fretboard might be thinner at the top to reduce "ski-slope"
and/or relief.

Sight doen the frtboard and the tip should point to the top of the bridhe (not saddle.

Saddle should have at least 1/8" above bridge.

Action at 12th fret ? More than 1/8" is challenging.

Top - it will have some deformation, but how much ? Is the bridge (or bridge base) leaning forward?

Bellying behind bridge or dipping between bridge and soundhole ?

Cracks should be repaired - that's OK. Refinish (for some reason) reduces

Bridge plate ? Worn? Replaced ?

Nut and string grooves correct ? (New nuts and saddles are fine (by me at least).

Frets ? (Probably had a few refrets in fifty years - fret condition ?

Let's see who disagrees with me, and if I can think of anything else.

Someone could write a book on this. I agree with some of Andy's points, but don't necessarily share all his concerns. Unless the guitar has been refinished and the wood thinned beyond saving or the braces have been poorly modified, most of the other things that have happened to these guitars can be repaired and they can sound and play as good as ever. They keys are knowing when one is too far gone, and determining the correct price for the rest.

A headstock break diminishes value far beyond what it should, since a good repair is solid and stable, and does nothing to diminish tone or volume. Yet the "market" hates headstock breaks. That means you can get a great player grade guitar at a reduced price. It will always be worth less, but you paid less. Buying at the right price is key.

There are so many things to look for, it's hard to create a reasonable list. Neck reset and fretwork are likely suspects. That wouldn't hold me back, as long as the price was right.

If you're not well versed in vintage instruments, I'd recommend sticking with the better known vintage dealers. You'll pay a little more up front, but the risk is far less.

IMO it's also better to stick with 1963 or earlier guitars built entirely in the old factory. They're all hide glue construction with T-bar necks and long saddle bridges. I like those features better and they sell better down the road.

[oxygenman]

They quit using hide glue around the middle of 1964, and some folks think that matters. So that's something to think about if it matters to you.

I will relate one of my own experiences that perhaps could be a cautionary tale. A couple years ago I bought a '64 D-21 from a dealer without being able to play it. When the guitar came, it looked and sounded spectacular. However, the action was through the roof, there was no saddle left, and in addition it needed to be re-fretted and the back braces were loose. I paid almost six thousand dollars for the guitar, and the repairs cost 1500.

This wouldn't happen to me today. I've learned a lot the hard way, and I wouldn't buy a guitar if I knew it would immediately need a neck re-set. On the other hand, it's a magnificent-sounding instrument that also looks great. So I don't regret it, and truly, when you add it all up, I paid about what a fifty-year-old Brazilian rosewood Martin dreadnought that sounds great and looks great is worth.

But I won't ever buy from that dealer again, though I enjoyed talking to him on the phone and he also wrote very well.

[hw2nw]

Originally Posted by Todd Yates

Someone could write a book on this. I agree with some of Andy's points, but don't necessarily share all his concerns. Unless the guitar has been refinished and the wood thinned beyond saving or the braces have been poorly modified, most of the other things that have happened to these guitars can be repaired and they can sound and play as good as ever. They keys are knowing when one is too far gone, and determining the correct price for the rest.

A headstock break diminishes value far beyond what it should, since a good repair is solid and stable, and does nothing to diminish tone or volume. Yet the "market" hates headstock breaks. That means you can get a great player grade guitar at a reduced price. It will always be worth less, but you paid less. Buying at the right price is key.

There are so many things to look for, it's hard to create a reasonable list. Neck reset and fretwork are likely suspects. That wouldn't hold me back, as long as the price was right.

If you're not well versed in vintage instruments, I'd recommend sticking with the better known vintage dealers. You'll pay a little more up front, but the risk is far less.

IMO it's also better to stick with 1963 or earlier guitars built entirely in the old factory. They're all hide glue construction with T-bar necks and long saddle bridges. I like those features better and they sell better down the road.

Thanks. One of the ones I am looking at has definitely been refinished to some degree at some point. Everything looks decent except a little striping on the sides. I am sure this is why the price is fairly attractive but I am unsure if a refinish on Brazilian Rosewood is something to just walk away from.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Earl49]

Personally, I would be more concerned about a refinished top than the back and sides, regardless of being BRW or not. The top does much of the vibrating, and part of "opening up" is letting the top and finish loosen up together. A new finish, or a heavy refinish, could inhibit top vibration some, and therefore affect tone.

[bitraker]

I know how to choose a guitar for my needs based on tone/feel but picking out a vintage instrument with some sort of value is new territory for me.

I recently bought my first vintage, a 1970 D-28 - the pickguard is peeling off which is typical so i've read - has a set neck (never reset) but one strum and I was sold

i've played some amazing late 60s D-35s...

if it feels right when you play it, and is not seriously damaged, go for it...

[Silly Moustache]

Hi, apologies for clumsy typing in my first entry - it was late and I am pretty ill at present (no details necessary).

Todd raised the issue of neck breaks, or, perjhaps "Airport" fractures, below or around the nut.

These were very common when cases were less well fitted, and when we trusted shippers more.

My beloved 1973 D35 was bought by the original owner (turned out to be the fiddle player in a previous band of mine) who insisted on buying it from a large London Martin retailer who used it for a "demo" and then sold buyers "a nice new one". He perceived something special about that guitar and finally convinced them to sell it to him, and he made a good judgement. It had a typical neck break and well repaired but not disguised.

He had it for 2 years, then traded it in another London shop for a D45, then my picking pal bought it ...in 1975. I had just bought a new D28, and we got together to drink beer and compare our latest purchases.

I recognised the D35 immediately, and, well after a few beers, we swapped.

I kept that D35 until 1996 when I sold it to a friend who still plays it.

However, in 1983 I became very ill and the Martin went into the (uninsulated) attic for TEN years! When I recovered enough to start learning to play again in '83 it was still pretty much in tune.

I'd never had it refretted or set up and it was still perfect.

My friend did not treat it well. He lived in an old drafty house and the D35 get very damp, and very hot, and that finally unsealed the neck break.

I took them to my guitar man, who cleaned the break, and repaired AND disguised it excellently for about £50 ($75). Then he took it back and did other adjustments like remove shrinking under finish pick guard and refretted it.

Frankly the guitar could do with a neck reset now but there aren't many willing to do the job around here, and my friend gigs it every night and doesn't have another guitar (!?)

So, yes, I'm sure that many would be cautious of buying a guitar with a repaired neck break, but it doesn't mean "the end".

[Mycroft]

Your willingness to buy a vintage guitar with issues should also depend on your access to a tech with the skill to address those issues. I've bought several vintage guitars over the years that were in need of a neck reset, for example. But I have access to a number of excellent techs, and the purchase price was set accounting for the upcoming work that the guitar was going to need.

TW