Martin the bad and good years

[Martin-Tele]

I started a post a few days back about buying a 68 Martin D-18 that needed a neck reset and a new pickguard

I looked around the web and found that around 1968 through ?1983,1987 Martin used some kind of inferior bridge materials

if any of my TDPRI members know please share your knowledge of the right years to buy

[muudcat]

Don't know for a fact but have heard some guitars from the 70's had problems. I've got a 77' D-41 and was always having intonation problems, then took it in and had a new bridge put on and reset. Problem gone. A bone nut really brought it to life.

[jbdrumbo]

The best sounding D18s I've played have been 1950s models. A perfect acoustic sound, IMO, with evenly distributed, non-hyped tones.

Worst sounding (a relative term here, since the guitars were actually OK, but below the Martin standard) were 1970s models. I've not played any of the stratospherically priced 1940 and before ("pre-war") D18s.

[ac15]

Originally Posted by Martin-Tele

I started a post a few days back about buying a 68 Martin D-18 that needed a neck reset and a new pickguard

I looked around the web and found that around 1968 through ?1983,1987 Martin used some kind of inferior bridge materials

if any of my TDPRI members know please share your knowledge of the right years to buy

It's not unusual at all for a 42 year old guitar to need a neck reset. I don't think that is necessarily evidence that inferior materials were used in constructing the guitar.

I just bought a 1968 0-16NY and it doesn't need a neck reset, though. It's a great guitar. The bridge, fretboard and headstock overlay are all made of Brazilian rosewood, which I suspect is not an inferior material.

As for general trends of build quality, I don't have specific experience, but for some reason a lot of people seem to think that Martin experienced some of the same quality issues with their guitars in the 70's that Fender and Gibson did. Not sure if that's true, but as you're finding in your web searches, some people seem to believe that.

[Stuco]

They've always been good other than maybe some overbuilt ones in the 70's. A lot of people change the big bridge plates on the 70s models with good results. Generally, the older it is, the more desireable it is.

[Martin R]

I have '74 D18. When I decided to buy it, the store had two of them. He handed me a D18 that sounded, well, wrong. The grain was wrong and wasn't bookended, (is that the term?). And the action was even higher then the normal Martin.

I handed it back to him and said I'd drive to New Orleans and get one there. He "found" the D18 I had picked. I still have it today.

The bridge is shaved a bit, but has never been a problem. The frets were redone about 15 years ago and it's time to have them redone again. It's a beautiful guitar with an incredibly full tone.

I think quality in the '70's was at best, inconsistent...very inconsistent. I'm totally happy with the Martin. It's aged well and does what I need it to do.

[Ed P]

I just bought a year-old Roger McGiunn D7 that sounds friggin' amazing. (The G string is doubled, and it's dreadnaught sized).

[Buckocaster51]

During the years you mentioned, Mr. Martin was using a rosewood bridge plate on the inside of the top of the top, underneath the bridge.

Prior to, and after that time, the bridge plates were maple.

Different yes.

Inferior? I don't know.

[bradpdx]

Referring to the 1970s Martins:

Originally Posted by Buckocaster51

During the years you mentioned, Mr. Martin was using a rosewood bridge plate on the inside of the top of the top, underneath the bridge.

Prior to, and after that time, the bridge plates were maple.

Definitely inferior if you compare the same guitar with a rosewood bridgeplate and a maple bridgeplate. The rosewood plates were large and heavy, and damped the top considerably. Martin reportedly started using them in 1968.

The problem was one of too much success; in the '70s Martin was producing far more guitars per year than ever before. The traditional building methods made the guitars fragile and great sounding, but resulted in more warranty repairs than Martin could handle with the higher volume of instruments.

The solution was strictly engineering and not lutherie: stiffen the bridgeplate to reduce the number of guitars suffering from bulging tops. It didn't sound as good but the repair numbers went down.

This change was considered minor at the time, as was the shift from scalloped to straight braces in 1946 - and both were done for the same reasons. Too many people were buying Martins (with lifetime warrantees) and putting heavy strings on them, leaving them in car trunks, and the usual abuse.

The rosewood bridgeplates were abandoned in 1987 across the entire line.

This isn't to say that all 1968-1987 Martins are bad - not at all, many are fine guitars. But statistically they suffered in comparison to both earlier and later productions.

I bought my first new Martin while in high school in 1975 - a D-18. While it served me for years, it paled in comparison to almost any new Martin I can find today. I've owned 2 Martins from the 1930s, but my 1997 HD-28 beats them both.

Back to the OP: the 1968 D-18 might be a great deal if you can get it cheap. Reset the neck and see what happens. At least you can always sell a Martin!

[Martin-Tele]

Originally Posted by bradpdx

Referring to the 1970s Martins:



Definitely inferior if you compare the same guitar with a rosewood bridgeplate and a maple bridgeplate. The rosewood plates were large and heavy, and damped the top considerably. Martin reportedly started using them in 1968.

The problem was one of too much success; in the '70s Martin was producing far more guitars per year than ever before. The traditional building methods made the guitars fragile and great sounding, but resulted in more warranty repairs than Martin could handle with the higher volume of instruments.

The solution was strictly engineering and not lutherie: stiffen the bridgeplate to reduce the number of guitars suffering from bulging tops. It didn't sound as good but the repair numbers went down.

This change was considered minor at the time, as was the shift from scalloped to straight braces in 1946 - and both were done for the same reasons. Too many people were buying Martins (with lifetime warrantees) and putting heavy strings on them, leaving them in car trunks, and the usual abuse.

The rosewood bridgeplates were abandoned in 1987 across the entire line.

This isn't to say that all 1968-1987 Martins are bad - not at all, many are fine guitars. But statistically they suffered in comparison to both earlier and later productions.

I bought my first new Martin while in high school in 1975 - a D-18. While it served me for years, it paled in comparison to almost any new Martin I can find today. I've owned 2 Martins from the 1930s, but my 1997 HD-28 beats them both.

Back to the OP: the 1968 D-18 might be a great deal if you can get it cheap. Reset the neck and see what happens. At least you can always sell a Martin!

Thanks this is the info I was looking for

[ac15]

Originally Posted by bradpdx

Referring to the 1970s Martins:



Definitely inferior if you compare the same guitar with a rosewood bridgeplate and a maple bridgeplate. The rosewood plates were large and heavy, and damped the top considerably. Martin reportedly started using them in 1968.

Just to clarify, Martin switched to a rosewood bridge plate in 1968, but it was a small bridge plate (same as the maple one, but rosewood). In 1969 they switched to the large rosewood bridge plate. While the small rosewood ones supposedly don't sound quite as good as the maple ones, it was the switch to the large rosewood plates in 1969 that supposedly had the biggest impact (negatively) on the sound of the guitar.

[Martin-Tele]

thanks all for your help

[chawthorne]

I bought a beat-to-hell '72 D18 over the weekend and it's pretty cool but my favourite guitar (like, EVER) is a '76 D18 (VG condition and a sunburst too!) that blows the doors off of anything I've ever played including the 2005 D18 that I bought to beat the crap out of at gigs. I just got lucky I guess... it's truly awesome and my wife and I have come to the understanding that if the house is burning down and we can only grab one thing, that 76 is the thing we grab! I write all my songs on it and it records beautifully.

Anyway, how does the larger bridgeplate on these martins affect the tone? The 76 sounds more open and warm than the '05, which I'm sure will mellow with age. The 72 is a bit muffled sounding in comparison to the 76 - not bad at all, just different in terms of bass response. It's had some soundboard cracks repaired at some point as well. I'm taking it in to my favourite luthier to have her give it a look over but I was wondering if replacing the bridge plate would help? The guitar is 100% original.

Thanks for any info!

Cory

[otterhound]

There was a period during the late 60's and through the 70's when their guitars were being randomly produced with improperly placed bridges . Relocating the bridge to the proper location fixes this . This was due to some improperly produced tooling .

[Stubee]

I've played a semi-load full of Martins and owned five, including a '67 D-18 and '68 D-28 that were tremendous sounding guitars. If you've been around a lot of old flattops you can sort through them to find good sounding ones. Not all old ones--e.g. '50 or even pre-war--are necessarily 'great' but they are generally better than early-to-mid '70s in build quality/lack of issues. Martin has made a number of changes in build as noted here, + others through the years.

I would not at all shy away from a '68 D-18 with good tonal qualities that was a good deal, considering the repairs needed. For all things Martin, go to this site, join it & ask questions like crazy + search for info topics of interest: http://theunofficialmartinguitarforum.yuku.com/