Today's Martin guitars

[street music]

I have been in some shops recently and played a few of the new Martin guitars including the D-15, while I have found a couple of them that did sound quite nice there just is no reason to consider them that much high of quality to demand such high prices. Of special note is the white corian nut- or as better stated thermosetting plastic,why is it so hard for a company to just build a quality item and put a tusq or bone nut, saddle and pins in it to get the most out of a instrument.
I have seen a improvement in the Taylors above the $800 range and found most of them to be very pleasant to play.
Just a few thoughts of my own.

[luvmyshiner]

I've always wondered about that Street. The difference between a bone saddle and plastic one is obvious, and the expense isn't that much. I don't understand why manufacturers make great guitars but require us to upgrade to a decent nut and saddle.

[street music]

That's what I mean Shiner, it's a huge thing at such a small price that you would think customer service would demand. My Takamine which is a list of $1100 but sells for around $800 has a tusq nut and saddle already installed from the factory and the sound is incredible. I have noticed a lot of the so called off brands are starting to install tusq nuts on all their guitars in the $400 and up range , so you would think that others would soon follow.
Tell CB we had our first snow for the winter season this morning and it is now dropping into the teens.

[luvmyshiner]

Heh, heh, I'll let her know Street. We got about 45 minutes worth of snow in Waco yesterday, but it was way to warm for anything to stick.

[Childbride]

Tell CB we had our first snow for the winter season this morning and it is now dropping into the teens.

i left out fri in the wee hours of the morning, worrying b/c of the 8 counties i go to, that one was the second worst for deer and weather.

byproxy got 4 inches, shiner got snow in waco, i saw nada where i was. blue skies.

i feel deprived.

i'll catch the next one. street, y'all stay warm and know that tx thinking of ya.

[red]

I have been in some shops recently and played a few of the new Martin guitars including the D-15, while I have found a couple of them that did sound quite nice there just is no reason to consider them that much high of quality to demand such high prices.

The 15 series is pretty flaky indeed. Makes you wonder if Martin didn't keep in contact with an Asian company that it outsources the production of that series to.

Of special note is the white corian nut- or as better stated thermosetting plastic,why is it so hard for a company to just build a quality item and put a tusq or bone nut, saddle and pins in it to get the most out of a instrument.

Not sure what Martins you've tried, but my 2008 000-18 came with a bone nut and saddle from the factory.

I have seen a improvement in the Taylors above the $800 range and found most of them to be very pleasant to play.
Just a few thoughts of my own.

Taylors are nice, but I've never seen one that could produce "the Martin tone". That's what you pay for, IMHO, not a bunch of wood and wires.

[red]

The difference between a bone saddle and plastic one is obvious, and the expense isn't that much. I don't understand why manufacturers make great guitars but require us to upgrade to a decent nut and saddle.

Well, yes and no. For one guitar, an $1 difference is negligible, but when you multiply $1 by 1.000.000 guitars per year, the company loses $1.000.000 in profit. That's not to say that it's excusable to cut corners from a moral point of view, which is the only point of view that counts in my book. It's just an explanation from a purely financial perspective (the bottom line), which is all a corporation will understand, be it IBM, General Motors, or Martin Guitars, whatever else their PR might spit at us in commercials.

[luvmyshiner]

Sorry Red, I don't buy the "it's all about profit" explanation. When you play a guitar with a bone nut and saddle (or at least saddle), you can hear the difference. That much of a difference will result in more sales. More sales means more profit. Now if you're producing a cheap laminate guitar, sure put a plastic nut and saddle on there. But if you're producing an upper end solid wood acoustic which people are going to be purchasing for its sound, spend the extra buck and go with bone or at least tusq.

[red]

That much of a difference will result in more sales. More sales means more profit.

I completely agree with you. However, to assume that such an argument would occur to your average marketing employee is to overestimate their intelligence. I've worked in a few companies, and never found one that didn't operate exclusively with what the computer scientists call "the greedy algorithm". That is, assume that increasing short term profits at each stage of the company's development will compound to the highest overall profits.

I'd also point out that all the Gibson Historics I've seen or heard about coming from the Gibson Custom Shop use Corian nuts as well.

[luvmyshiner]

I can't argue with you there Red. That's what happens when you put marketing people in charge of production instead of musicians. It just seems to me that if you're going to manufacture a product, you at least want to put someone who actually uses the product in charge of development.

[bigG]

When Jimi75 bought his Gibby LP Trad Gold Top (a street price $2,000 + guitar), IT came w a Corian nut! I remember he posted that he had it changed to bone.

So it doesn't seem quite as flagrant a foul for Martin to use Corian on an affordable 15 Series (at about $950 street price).

The nut, if cut and installed properly, has VERY little, if any, affect on the tone of a guitar. The saddle can and usually does affect tone noticeably, and very few, except maybe the cheapest of acoustics, use plastic for a saddle these days. Most are at least Tusq, which is pretty much indistinguishable from bone and other more "exotic" materials.

No one has mentioned bridge pins. Even these can affect tone more than the nut. Most guitars come w plastic bridge pins (not all, but most), and simply swapping them out for bone or ivory or tusq can improve tone. (Wood bridge pins are not desirable as their density is very soft - you want high-density bridge pins.)

My 2 cents...

PS: Taylor uses Tusq nut and saddle on every production model they make.

[evenkeel]

In general I avoid these Martin bashing threads but I'm going to jump in on this one.

Street started this off with the following:
"Of special note is the white corian nut- or as better stated thermosetting plastic,why is it so hard for a company to just build a quality item and put a tusq or bone nut, saddle and pins in it to get the most out of a instrument."

From the Graphtech website:

"What is TUSQ made of?

TUSQ is a proprietary material which is precision engineered under high pressure and heat. It is specifically formulated to deliver the right frequencies with the optimum transfer rate to the top of your guitar every time. Because of the way TUSQ is made, it is a consistent material that is rich in tone and harmonic content."

Well boys and girls that sounds like a whole lot of marketing speak for plastic. Thermoset or otherwise. I'll add I should know about marketing speak, I spent 20 years as a marketing exec..

Which gets me to Mr. Red and Mr. Shiner. While you may believe that all marketing folks are morons, I'd encourage you to reconsider that a bit. Are all lawyers Dewy Cheatim and Howe crooks? Are all engineers pocket protecor wearin' geeks? Sales reps; slick talkin, liers?

Now I've never sat in on a marketing/product meeting at Martin. But I can imagine they are working very hard to build a product line across a wide price spectrum. They need to balance the features and benefits of their entry level "1" series guitars, against a top of the line D45. I'm sure they would like to sell a "1" series to an entry level player who does not have great playing or listening skills, then trade them up to a D28 when they can both play and hear better.
Finally, it's worth remembering Martin is not the the "need" business. Other than a few pro musicians, no one needs a guitar. They are in the "want" business. Yeah they have made some blunders over the years, but I can guarantee you this. In order to stay in business since before the Cicil War, manufacture in the US and sell well over a million guitars they have some very savvy marketing people as well as great engineers, designers and sales folks.

[street music]

Big G , if you noticed I did mention Bridge pins, I know personal experience that they make a difference if replacing plastic with tusq or bone.
Evenkeel, I didn't really mean this as a Martin bashing thread but I was trying to point out that IMO a company with such a very well known respect for quality sound should be making an extra effort to maintain that at what level of instrument you purchase. Maybe the thinking process was "Don't give them the great sound on a $600 guitar that way we can get them to return in a couple of years for a great $2000 guitar".
Someone else mentioned the Taylors as I did, a Taylor sounds like a Taylor and from what most musicians have told me , if you want Martin sound then don't buy a Taylor.
This was just a thread to bring out some points for discussion of issues that I would like to see companies make improvements in.

[luvmyshiner]

Didn't mean to step on anyone's toes Mr. Keel. And didn't mean to trash talk Martin either. I've been looking for one for awhile and hope to own one some day.

Forget tusq, I honestly don't have much use for it. As far as I'm concerned, bone is the gold standard when it comes to saddles. And anyone who talks garbage about a bone saddle, probably hasn't had the opportunity to compare them with other saddles. Nuts and pins, I haven't been that impressed with them when it comes to sound. But I do change them both out for aesthetic purposes.

Here's my point, why make a high end guitar and skimp on something as crucial as the saddle? You can put a bone saddle on a cheap laminate guitar, and make it sound like a guitar worth 3-4 times as much. Why not spend a few extra bucks on something that basic when manufacturing a good guitar?

That's my opinion for what it's worth. That's all. You want to trash talk and question my genetic heritage, go ahead.

[evenkeel]

That's my opinion for what it's worth. That's all. You want to trash talk and question my genetic heritage, go ahead.

What??? I absolutely never did nor ever would do that? I took umbrage at people with marketing jobs being labeled as morons. Just as I would take serious issue with anyone making such a broad swipe at lawyers.

I agree, the gold standard is bone. I've got/had guitars with bone, micarta, corian, tusq and even cheapo plastic. And I've swaped out plastic for Tusq, micarta, corian and yes bone. My Guild D-35 has a Tusq bone and saddle. You've listened to a sound clip and commented on how good it sounded. Would it sound better with bone? Maybe, maybe not?

I have no problem with questioning why the good folks at Martin use whatever materials they use. I think the aluminum topped 000 they made a few years back was a really goofy idea. The brief, and thankfully over with, foray into Mexico, nutty. Shenandoah series, not such a great idea. Heck my D2R, from a marketing point of view was way off base. But it's a nice guitar. What has my ire up is this asertion that the marketing idiots are at fault. And the idea that it would all be great if only the musicians were in charge??? Yikes!!!

[wingsdad]

TUSQ ... sounds like a whole lot of marketing speak for plastic. Thermoset or otherwise....

...I'd also point out that all the Gibson Historics I've seen or heard about coming from the Gibson Custom Shop use Corian nuts as well.

When Jimi75 bought his Gibby LP Trad Gold Top ...IT came w a Corian nut! ...

That's a shame... I'd think that in order to maintain authenticity to the original oldie moldies' specs, they'd've fitted them with the same material they used back in the 50's &60's, like on my dearly departed ES330 that I'd saved up a whopping $260 for when I was 13 -- which, the catalog said, they also used for the body binding:

Ivoroid.

Which, when all was said & done, was, even way back then, just "a whole lot of marketing speak for cheapo plastic."

By the way....what material did Martin use for the nut on pre-war D45's?

Geez...what a POS that guitar must be...not even a Corian or Tusq nut...

...The nut, if cut and installed properly, has VERY little, if any, affect on the tone of a guitar....

Precisely. As long as a string has been fretted, the nut's out of the tonal equation. OTH, a graphite (e.g, Graphtec) nut does, at least psychologically, facillitate string bending without binding. IMO, the only reason to consider changing the nut to real bone is the bone will probably be more durable, less likly to dryrot/crack/wear out in the slots as rapidly.

Oh...I, too, confess to having spent the past 25 years in sales & marketing gigs...not counting the sales & marketing efforts required to make a living before that in the music biz.

[sunvalleylaw]

Ok everyone. Let's calm it down. Room for more than one opinion here. I started hanging out at the Acoustic Guitar Forum some, and the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum too, during my recent foray into ownership of a nicer acoustic. I have looked at the bone/tusq/fossilized walrus ivory issue and may try a bone saddle, although my SPD-16TR, not a low end guitar by any means came with tusq. The threads on the topic show widely varying opinions. There is even a thread over at AGF where a guy does recordings on the same guitar with bridge saddles from all three materials. While I could tell some difference, it could be that string height on each saddle or the way he played each time affected the recordings too. The recordings were certainly not miles apart. Also, the recordings were on a Taylor, which might react differently to the changed materials than a Martin dread would.

Bottom line, Martin might have any number of reasons to start with tusq on some guitars in the saddles. Taylor starts with tusq on all of them apparently. It is better according to some, for use with pickups etc.

On another point, I also noticed a couple things over at those other forums. 1. The "cork sniffery" and arrogance attached is more prevalent there. Let's not go there at this forum please. 2. Also, there seem to be more really strong feelings on things and more arguments. Maybe it is because AGF was originally a Taylor forum and now there are Martin people on it. Kinda like having Jets and Steelers fans in the same room sometimes I think.

Again, let's not go there here. Please discuss the relative value of tusq vs. bone vs. FWI vs. illegal ivory from somewhere, but let's not bash brands, professions, or individuals please. Thanks all!

[luvmyshiner]

My apologies Keel. I never meant to label people in marketing as morons. If you look at what I said, I intended to convey that people in marketing should not be allowed to control development unless they are familiar with the product that is being developed.

And I'm not taking shots at Martin. When I made my post I was specifically thinking about the two Washburn solid wood guitars that CB and I have, both of which were marketed with plastic saddles.

So please accept my apology old friend, and we'll move on. If you do want to question my genetic heritage, you won't be the first.

[sunvalleylaw]

Thanks Shiner! Ok, back on track at the acoustic portion of this forum. :-)