Removing the Martin logo?

[gmel555]

It's your decision on the "look", but I'm pretty certain a finish coat is applied over the decal, otherwise it would be way too fragile and almost every older Martin would be missing part of the logo.. So you'd be removing the finish as well as the decal.

[RP]

Originally Posted by hairpuller

...Would not even attempt it if there was possibility of damaging the wood underneath.

Thanks!
scott

Don't attempt it; there's a possibility, perhaps a strong one, that you'd damage the wood underneath....

[hairpuller]

Okay, I'm not gonna even try.

I wonder if I ordered a custom shop they'd do it without the decal, but with the Martin stamp on the back?
scott

[gmel555]

Originally Posted by hairpuller

Okay, I'm not gonna even try.

I wonder if I ordered a custom shop they'd do it without the decal, but with the Martin stamp on the back?
scott

I’d say yes they would. I think I recall seeing “Martin stamped on back of headstock” being on an option sheet.

[hairpuller]

That would be sweet!

[Tico]

Originally Posted by gmel555

I’d say yes they would. I think I recall seeing “Martin stamped on back of headstock” being on an option sheet.

... but did it also state no decal would be on the front?
After all, that decal is an important money-making billboard for their brand.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was another upcharge for not becoming a walking ad for the company.
Follow the money, and all that.

[Wade Hampton]

No, there's no additional charge for not having the logo on the headstock.


whm

[Blind Dog]

I personally like the no label/logo on head stocks. Knee-jerk reaction to those who find brands of paramount importance maybe.

Jmo but I would leave the Martin logo alone, and put the capo back on (with damage issue resolved) for pic's.

Like dings in satin finishes, the logo might be something you're better just learning to embrace -- honest wear, on the way to being a cool vintage player.

Feel for you tho.

+1 for UMGF would be a good place to shop opinions. The registration, and posting pic's can be annoying imo.

[lt20dbl]

I have a friend who ordered a new Collings 0002HB in the 90s. He asked that it have no headstock logo and had to pay an upcharge for that. It did give it the vintage look of a 1929 Martin.

[frankmcr]

Originally Posted by Wade Hampton

No, there's no additional charge for not having the logo on the headstock.


whm

Whoa. They're missing a trick there. Don't they have any MBAs on staff?

[mercy]

I dont like labels on headstocks either and order my guitars without.

[Howard Emerson]

Originally Posted by frankmcr

Whoa. They're missing a trick there. Don't they have any MBAs on staff?

Henry J was turned down when they saw his previous experience.

HE

[kiva238]

Originally Posted by hairpuller

Reason is I played an Authentic yesterday with no decal and thought it looked killer. Not worried about resale . This is not going anywhere!

Why not just buy an OM-28 Authentic?

https://www.acousticguitarforum.com/...d.php?t=545977

[T Texas]

Originally Posted by kiva238

Why not just buy an OM-28 Authentic?

https://www.acousticguitarforum.com/...d.php?t=545977

Probably because he has a 000-18GE which is an awesome guitar. I know, I have one.

Not saying the 28A isn't a killer guitar, but the GE will leave you wanting nothing (logo included lol)

[hairpuller]

Originally Posted by kiva238

Why not just buy an OM-28 Authentic?

https://www.acousticguitarforum.com/...d.php?t=545977

That looks killer, but I'm a short scale guy...
scott