New Martin models are online!

[lowrider]

Originally Posted by zoopeda

Identically analogous to the Martin J & 0000/M shapes, if you've had a chance to play those.

I have tried the M-36 a couple of times and it was before I got my J-40. I've also played the new 000 depth 16 series guitars and one of the Gibson narrow models. They leave me feeling like ''where's the beef?''

I have a CS OM-18 Special that puts to ''beef'' to rival a dread so it's not the depth. I say that it's the ratio between width and depth. These wide/narrow guitars seem to mess up that ratio leaving me feeling flat.

[Silly Moustache]

Nothing there for me.

I have the definite feeling that Martin have lost the plot.

[TDavis]

The only thing that flips my switch at all in that bunch might be the David Gilmour D35...because it's gorgeous, and because I'm a huge fan of Gilmour, and always have been. I detest "signature" guitars in general...because I think they're horribly pretentious, but if I had the funds I might make a consideration here.

Also...are they saying that the D-18e is a new model? Why? Am I missing something?

[Photojeep]

Originally Posted by Brucebubs

I remember being a little disappointed when Taylor dropped their jumbo body with 17" lower bout and 4 5/8" depth but the Grand Orchestra body that replaced it went to a 16 3/4" lower bout and full 5" body depth... I could see that working, still seemed like plenty of room for the oomph.

But that new Martin with 17" lower bout and 4 1/8" depth seems a little at odds with itself.

I could very well be totally off here, but isn't it the total volume of air inside a large body guitar that produces the deeper bass? If that's the case, wouldn't the larger lower bout make up for the shallower depth? Or is there still less total air volume inside because the larger lower bout doesn't make up for the shallower depth?

Of course I could be totally mistaken ...

Perhaps they're making these with the 000 depth because so many people find it uncomfortable playing a deeper body?

Just speculating.

Best,
PJ

[ataylor]

Originally Posted by lowrider

For those that notice the center seam on the Gilmore, that's just on the early prototype that they used for the picture. The real ones will have a 3 piece back.

Every image I’ve seen of the guitar shows the three-piece back. If you’re referring to the image in this post where only one of the back strips is showing inside the soundhole, you’ll notice it’s angled and points right up to where the neck joint is. It’s just perspective at work: you’re only seeing one strip because the guitar has been captured at a three-quarter type of view.

In Martin’s stock photos of guitars with a typical two-piece back, the center strip appears visually further left, barely visible just inside the soundhole. It’s also got the CF Martin & Co stamp, whereas on a three-piece back, the stamp is on the left strip that isn’t visible in the photo.

Check that: here’s a photo that does appear to have a two-piece back:

Originally Posted by Ozarkpicker

Also...are they saying that the D-18e is a new model? Why? Am I missing something?

For whatever reason, Martin’s website still has last year’s new models in their new models section. To make things even more confusing, their old “new” models are labeled as new while the actual new models aren’t.

Martin could really use an overhaul of their website.

[Eric S.]

I'm sorta jonesing for the T-1 Streetmaster uke to go with my D-15S and 5-15.

[PappyVanWinkle]

Glad to see no signature inlay on the Gilmours.

[Brucebubs]

He asks, "why do you play a 12-string?"
- boom -
"Just listen to that!" replies Dave.

So why the swap from Guild?