Martin D-42, Underrated

[tennisplayer]

Seldom to hear folks talking about Martin D-42 here. It has the forward shifted bracing. The forward shifted bracing provides for a deeper, richer sounding bass and fuller, brighter sounding trebles. Overall, it make the guitar more full-bodied, and aged sounding, like a bottle of fine, aged red wine. It is designed to emulate a guitar of greater age and provide that "opened-up" sound that people desire.

 

I know D-42 is pricey ($4900), but if you dont look at the price tag, I guess most folks would pick it over other popular dread models like D-28, HD-28, D-18, D-35, D-16 etc. Even if you compare it to D-41 and D-45, some people still perfer D-42 for its balanced, muture and aging sounds which thanks for the forward shifted bracing that doesn't have on D-41 and D-45. ("D-41 special" is cheaper and has almost the same specs as D-42, except with a V-neck that some people might dislike)

 

What do you think?

[panhandler]

The D-42 is my favorite Martian

[C70man]

I think they are way too expensive for most tastes. A beautiful guitar for sure, but a guitar few of us if any would have the means or desire to own. At $5000 you can buy at least two really nice guitars. Plus at $3000+ you can own a lot of custom gits like Morgan, Kronbauer, etc.

[missedmyexit]

I am not sure you can classify a $5000 guitar underrated.

[LiFeStArTs@40]

At 5K, I'd say Martin is awfully proud of them.

[guitarcapo]

So you're saying the d-42 are underpriced?

 

 

My definition of an underrated guitar would be something that sounds and plays awesome, but costs practically nothing compared to other guitars with similar features. The guitar that comes to my mind on the vintage market has been the Harmony 1260. All solid woods. Shellac finish. Hide glue. Brazilian rosewood f.b. and bridge. 40 year old vintage guitars. History of lots of famour rock stars using them like Pete Townshend and Jimmy Page (the Stairway to Heaven intro was a Harmony 1260 and it's probably the most famous acoustic guitar passage in rock history, the electric guitar used at the end of the song sells well into 6 figures)

 

They sell regularly on Ebay for around $300

[slagorourke]

I love my D42. To my eyes it is better looking than the D45 and costs a fair bit less too.

 

It sounds fantastic as well. Great bass but never overpowering the mids or trebles.

 

I know it isn't cheap, but if it's looked after it'll last longer than I do.

 

Only total financial meltdown would ever make me part with it. Definitely one of Martins best models.

[tennisplayer]

 

I think they are way too expensive for most tastes. A beautiful guitar for sure, but a guitar few of us if any would have the means or desire to own. At $5000 you can buy at least two really nice guitars. Plus at $3000+ you can own a lot of custom gits like Morgan, Kronbauer, etc.

 

 

good point.

But, can I say at >$12000 (Olson, Ryan etc) you can buy almost 3 D-42's??

I mean, Is D-42 worth $4900?

[panhandler]

They are worth every penny of $4,900 new, but I've seen them used in great condition for as low as $2,800 to Mid 3k.

And what's wrong with a guitar being pre-loved I ask?

 

D-41 special ain't no slouch either.

[AndrewGG]

Unless you're especially fond of bling save some money and get an HD-28. It's the same guitar-and remember, Martin grades its wood according to cosmetics, not sound quality so all your extra cash is paying for pearl, not tone.

[1DZReverendDavidLee]

I love my D-42. I bought mine new for $3600. The dealer gave me a break because I just struggled with spending that kind of money for an acoustic.. My first guitar was a $30 Suzuki acoustic. They make better motorcycles for certain

 

I will say that it is the best sounding acoustic I've ever owned. And in this price range - it should be. I would say that the only thing that sticks in my mind in any negative way - is that I feel like I tend to grab my other acoustics more often than the D-42 only because it cost so much that I don't even want to have any normal wear to occur... I know I know.. but that's just how I feel.

 

What's really funny - is that after playing for over 40 years now - I never thought I'd ever have enough interest in any acoustic guitar to spend the kind of money I have spent on a number of nice and pricey acoustics already. But guys - when you get up into some of these price brackets - you expect the best of the best - and well - it's just all well worth it to me..

[larry50]

I never thought the D-42 was underrated. Just too expensive.

[guildfire]

Too expensive. Best Martin for the money IMO is the HD28.

[slagorourke]

 

Unless you're especially fond of bling save some money and get an HD-28. It's the same guitar-and remember, Martin grades its wood according to cosmetics, not sound quality so all your extra cash is paying for pearl, not tone.

 

 

Not true. The D42 has forward shifted bracing & has a noticably different tone from the HD28.

I've got one of each and the difference is very clear. The HD28 is more akin to the D45 in spec.

To me the tone of the 40 series is sweeter than the 28's. Dont't ask me why because I have no idea. But they really do seem to have that bit more. And no, I'm not listening with my eyes!

There's a theory on the UMGF that the pearl affects tone due to the wood being routed in many more areas to accommodate it and the way it transfers vibration. I have no clue if there is anything to this though.

[tennisplayer]

 

Not true. The D42 has forward shifted bracing & has a noticably different tone from the HD28. I've got one of each and the difference is very clear. The HD28 is more akin to the D45 in spec. To me the tone of the 40 series is sweeter than the 28's. Dont't ask me why because I have no idea. But they really do seem to have that bit more. And no, I'm not listening with my eyes! There's a theory on the UMGF that the pearl affects tone due to the wood being routed in many more areas to accommodate it and the way it transfers vibration. I have no clue if there is anything to this though.

 

 

I agree D-42 is way more different from HD28. When you play both guitars or hear side by side , you can very easy to know the differences.

 

Many people like HD-28, but if money weren't an issue, I am pretty sure most people would pick up D-42 instead of HD-28.

[knockwood]

The HD-28V is the same chassis, just with a V neck and minus the pimp suit. If the V neck is bothersome, you could commission a custom with a low profile neck and still pay less than the price of a D-42. Abalone inlay is a very expensive proposition.

[panhandler]

I just looked it up on the Martin website... The standard HD-28 has standard "X" scalloped top bracing, the "V" and the 42 has foward shifted.

 

Perhaps the "V" is very close to the same as the 42, w/o the bling. I like the lil bling on the 42 though. but not the overdone 45.

 

"PIMP SUIT" LMAO!!!

[AndrewGG]

 

Not true. The D42 has forward shifted bracing & has a noticably different tone from the HD28. I've got one of each and the difference is very clear. The HD28 is more akin to the D45 in spec. To me the tone of the 40 series is sweeter than the 28's. Dont't ask me why because I have no idea. But they really do seem to have that bit more. And no, I'm not listening with my eyes! There's a theory on the UMGF that the pearl affects tone due to the wood being routed in many more areas to accommodate it and the way it transfers vibration. I have no clue if there is anything to this though.

 

 

I missed out the 'V'. Apologies but my point on cost stands. I wouldn't know about pearl having an effect on tone either but if it is inlaid on the perimeter and thus the stiffest, least resonant, part of the top over where the kerfing is, I can't see it having any influence at all, frankly.

[riffmeister]

For that kind of cash, I personally would go the Collings/Santa Cruz/Borgeois/etc route. Nothing turns me off more than a Martin with bling. Of course, YMMV.

[Robin Vann]

The 40s are definitely much brighter in the treble register than the lower models. So much so that it becomes immediately obvious the moment you play one.

 

This makes a huge difference to what you can do with the guitar: arpeggiated sections are so much nicer and easier to play with bright, ringing treble; switching from mid to high register in a solo is so much more effective; and strumming has many more options when ringing treble can be accessed for effect.

 

On the other hand I use my other dreadnought when I want to keep out of the treble part of the spectrum (when supporting another lead player, for example).

 

=======

 

OOO28EC

HD28V

D42

[Glenn F]

Another zombie thread.

 

I've never played a D-42. I expect they're very good, and they ought to be. However, for the price of a new one, I could have a D-28 and an OM-21 (both of which I have) and be very, very happy with them (which I am).

[Freeman Keller]

With a 40 you are paying for the bling. I once read that it doubles the construction time to put all the pearl in a X-42. However in theory routed channel for the pearl purfling could open up the top a little (somewhat like Taylor's top relief route) so it could change the tone. I've done 42 style inlay on some of my guitars but it really isn't my choice.

[bigald18]

Stop it with all these old threads!! 2009! Martin charges whatever they can get for a guitar, not how much they're worth.

 

[kwakatak]

What's the going price for a used D-42? I wonder...

[Glenn F]

I know. Bling doesn't really do much for me, and I stand by my statement of rather having a D-28 AND an OM-21 for the price of a D-42. My OM-21 is my 'run-back-into-a-burning-house' guitar.

 

BTW, the price, here, for a new D-42 is €6,000, with almost no wiggle room for a nice MAP reduction (which shops tend not to do here). So, a D-28 and OM-21 together would come out about €500 less than the D-42.

 

And 6 grand would pay for some nice traveling.