No announcement yet.

The Martin D-28

  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by FretFiend.

    No guitar maker is going to knowingly sell guitars that are likely to need expensive warranty work a few years down the road.
    "Sound" isn't covered by Martin or anyone else's warranty.!
    "I don't want to be immortalized through my work. I want to be immortalized by not dying." Woody Allen


    • #17
      I doubt the D-28 generally falls into that category.
      "The Philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."

      Karl Marx


      • #18
        Originally posted by Glenn F View Post
        It's a 2008. Not likely to need a neck reset yet. Pics look ok. I've wished the guy luck, though.
        Google Bryan Kimsey's web site (I'm on vacation and don't have all my bookmarks). He has two tabs on buying used Martins - what to look for particularly with 70's guitars. He also has a very complete price page on what he charges to fix them (he is one of the best). He has done neck resets and other work on both of my old ones and has worked magic to make them playable and sound wonderful. I would never turn down an older Martin but be very sure you know exactly what you are getting into,


        • #19
          Personally unless it was a great deal I wouldn't do it. I think the new Martins are the 2nd only to Taylor in consistency of sound but as many people mentioned there are always duds. I wouldn't spend that kind of money without playing it first unless there was some return policy. When I got my F50 no shop around had it in stock they all offered to order it but I would be on the hook for the guitar without any returns. Ended up ordering through a NY shop who after I called said he would refund if I returned it within 14 days. The guitar never went back and is my favorite but having that option made me feel alot better about the 2g purchase.
          2008 Guild F-50
          2015 Martin 00-DB
          2013 Gibson J45
          2016 Martin 00-17S


          • #20
            Originally posted by FretFiend.

            Structural integrity is.
            Yea but I was talking about sound. Maybe re-read my posts.
            "I don't want to be immortalized through my work. I want to be immortalized by not dying." Woody Allen


            • #21
              Originally posted by Glenn F View Post
              The D-35's bracing is scalloped, iirc, whereas the D-28's is not.
              GW had it right. Only the "HD" models have scalloped bracing. The 35s also differ in that they have bound fingerboards, no volute on the back of the neck and Grover rotomatic tuners. The 28s have unbound fingerboards, diamond volute and either the regular tuners or open backed ones. I think otherwise the neck profile is about the same.
              2013 Official Luthier's Forum Medium Jumbo (Western red cedar/mahogany)
              2012 McKnight McUke (soprano ukulele, redwood/mahogany)
              2010 Martin D-16GT
              2006 Larrivee OM-03R
              1998 Fender American Standard Stratocaster (natural ash finish)
              1989 Kramer Stryker
              197? Epiphone Texan FT-160N


              • #22
                Originally posted by FretFiend.
                Repeat. Your words. I have to take that as "what you are talking about."

                When a guitar is built too lightly as you have described, it can sound good, but parts will indeed "give in to string tension". Then, the guitar does not only sound bad, things bend, break, or come apart. It's been the dilemma of guitar builders all along.

                Maybe re-write your posts.
                You're reading something into that I didn't intend at all. A top can most definitely change in sound without totally failing structurally to the point of needing warranty work. It just sounds bad. If you've never played one it's really weird. It has lots of bass and weak treble. When you play chords it sounds like the strings are fighting each other and they are canceling each other out. You get this weird situation where the guitar actually sounds better with extra light strings. More balanced and less of that phase cancelation....but less volume. I explained an example of that earlier in this thread. Martin's warranty will cover structural changes but not subjective changes in sound.

                That's not to say that Martin hasn't had problems with tops built so weak that structural problems became a concern. Historically as their guitars got bigger in size...they noticed that they were being forced to do more warranty work because the bracing was originally designed for smaller guitars. By the late 1930's/ early 40's they changed the bracing AWAY from scalloping the braces. They moved the X further back toward the bridge. They increased the size of the bridge plate. They altered the bracing thickness etc. Now all these guitars had the Martin label on the headstock....but very differently built. Which guitars are we talking about here when we talk about all Martins having some uniform quality?

                Later on in the 70's Martin increased the bracing again...perhaps overdoing it in attempts to further avoid warranty work. These guitars were overbraced in a lot of cases and sounded bad. In response, tThe public got it in their head that the lighter the bracing the better (which isn't true in terms of sound OR structure). They started clamoring for the same "prewar" bracing that Martin was trying admittedly to get away from. But the public wanted what it wanted so Martin started issuing guitars based on these designs. It's been said off the record that Martin charges more for these models factoring in the extra warranty work they know they will eventually need.

                You can believe what you want about guitars. You can believe that when that Martin decal get's applied to the headstock some sort of magic happens and any problems that guitar will ever have in the next decades will magically disappear. Or you can face up to the fact that these are mass produced items made on an assembly line out of materials that vary in their properties...and that will manifest itself in some guitars being better or worse than others regardless of the brand. All the manufacturer can do is address these issues grossly. By changing the design in response to what it experiences years after the date of manufacture.
                "I don't want to be immortalized through my work. I want to be immortalized by not dying." Woody Allen


                • #23
                  Whatever. Some people can't accept any information other than what they believe and consider any new information condescending.

                  Martin has made many changes to their bracing and design over the years. Some good. Some bad. The changes were sometimes for good and sometimes for bad by everyone's admission except yours (including Martin's or else why would they change things?)

                  If you overbuild a top it sounds bad. If you underbuild a top it can fail structurally.... but can also sound bad in the way I described without failing structurally.

                  That's all I'm saying. BTW I've built about 12 acoustics over the years and repaired a few dozen more.

                  I agree with you that it's impossible to engineer a "mythical quality of sound"....precisely because it's a myth.
                  "I don't want to be immortalized through my work. I want to be immortalized by not dying." Woody Allen


                  • #24
                    Which Martins were the ones that the Beatles and jimmy page, played?


                    • #25
                      If I remember right, the D35 was originally created because of the Brazillian Rosewood shortage. Scrap was able to be used to make the 3 piece back, conserving total usage of rosewood. The bling was added to make it more sellable.

                      Big Al
                      Custom Dreadnaught Solid Hog