Why Martin???

[majorbanjo]

But.......they sure do smell good....

[HD28HLA]

"...martin is using sub-standard materials to gain market share in the lower-mid range..."

You're confusing the term "sub-standard" with "nontraditional." Martin realizes that the availability of traditional materials for building guitars, high quality Rosewood, Mahogany, and Spruce are becoming less and less available and the day will come when the cost/price for a well-built, great sounding guitar made of these materials will be out of the range of most of the people in the market. HPL guitars aren't "experimental prototypes" and haven't been for a long time. They are indeed designed to offer a well-made instrument at a lower price point than guitars they have traditionally marketed. If you want to spend the same money for an all solid wood guitar from Asia, go ahead; it's your money. Nobody is forcing you or anybody else to buy a Martin. By the way, HPL is not cheaper than furniture grade ply wood. If you want a laminated wood guitar, Martin has the Road Series whose veneers are much higher quality than "furniture grade ply wood."
Martin did not "move to HPL." They added it. There's a big difference.
Martin has guitars in many different price ranges but they build all of their guitars to one quality standard. Yes, they want to be competitive in as many price ranges as possible. Wouldn't you.?
To imply that the addition of lower-priced guitars made of nontraditional materials somehow lessens the quality of the company and/or its other, more traditional offerings is just ludicrous; the facts just don't support it.

Bud

[wooglins]

"...martin is using sub-standard materials to gain market share in the lower-mid range..." You're confusing the term "sub-standard" with "nontraditional." Martin realizes that the availability of traditional materials for building guitars, high quality Rosewood, Mahogany, and Spruce are becoming less and less available and the day will come when the cost/price for a well-built, great sounding guitar made of these materials will be out of the range of most of the people in the market. HPL guitars aren't "experimental prototypes" and haven't been for a long time. They are indeed designed to offer a well-made instrument at a lower price point than guitars they have traditionally marketed. If you want to spend the same money for an all solid wood guitar from Asia, go ahead; it's your money. Nobody is forcing you or anybody else to buy a Martin. By the way, HPL is not cheaper than furniture grade ply wood. If you want a laminated wood guitar, Martin has the Road Series whose veneers are much higher quality than "furniture grade ply wood." Martin did not "move to HPL." They added it . There's a big difference. Martin has guitars in many different price ranges but they build all of their guitars to one quality standard. Yes, they want to be competitive in as many price ranges as possible. Wouldn't you.? To imply that the addition of lower-priced guitars made of nontraditional materials somehow lessens the quality of the company and/or its other, more traditional offerings is just ludicrous; the facts just don't support it. Bud

 

 

Sounds like you hit the nail on the head.

[Sangemon]

"...martin is using sub-standard materials to gain market share in the lower-mid range..." You're confusing the term "sub-standard" with "nontraditional." Martin realizes that the availability of traditional materials for building guitars, high quality Rosewood, Mahogany, and Spruce are becoming less and less available and the day will come when the cost/price for a well-built, great sounding guitar made of these materials will be out of the range of most of the people in the market. HPL guitars aren't "experimental prototypes" and haven't been for a long time. They are indeed designed to offer a well-made instrument at a lower price point than guitars they have traditionally marketed. If you want to spend the same money for an all solid wood guitar from Asia, go ahead; it's your money. Nobody is forcing you or anybody else to buy a Martin. By the way, HPL is not cheaper than furniture grade ply wood. If you want a laminated wood guitar, Martin has the Road Series whose veneers are much higher quality than "furniture grade ply wood." Martin did not "move to HPL." They added it . There's a big difference. Martin has guitars in many different price ranges but they build all of their guitars to one quality standard. Yes, they want to be competitive in as many price ranges as possible. Wouldn't you.? To imply that the addition of lower-priced guitars made of nontraditional materials somehow lessens the quality of the company and/or its other, more traditional offerings is just ludicrous; the facts just don't support it. Bud

Hear, hear! :thu:

[Mike_C]

I think with Martins it's much easier to gauge older ones that have been broken in by hundreds or thousands of hours of playing. That's where the magic is. New ones sound good, as do many other brands, but the old road traveled custom shop guitars are truly iconic and harp-like. That's a factor which can't be discounted. What about the 35-year old 00018 with a semi-scalloped fretboard (from play) and worn finish in spots? Those are the real answers to 'why Martin'. Do other brands age so well?

[Mike_C]

Also, those older Martins sound remarkably good when close miked with a good microphone and preamp.

[Melodeous]

 

"...martin is using sub-standard materials to gain market share in the lower-mid range..." You're confusing the term "sub-standard" with "nontraditional." Martin realizes that the availability of traditional materials for building guitars, high quality Rosewood, Mahogany, and Spruce are becoming less and less available and the day will come when the cost/price for a well-built, great sounding guitar made of these materials will be out of the range of most of the people in the market. HPL guitars aren't "experimental prototypes" and haven't been for a long time. They are indeed designed to offer a well-made instrument at a lower price point than guitars they have traditionally marketed. If you want to spend the same money for an all solid wood guitar from Asia, go ahead; it's your money. Nobody is forcing you or anybody else to buy a Martin. By the way, HPL is not cheaper than furniture grade ply wood. If you want a laminated wood guitar, Martin has the Road Series whose veneers are much higher quality than "furniture grade ply wood." Martin did not "move to HPL." They added it . There's a big difference. Martin has guitars in many different price ranges but they build all of their guitars to one quality standard. Yes, they want to be competitive in as many price ranges as possible. Wouldn't you.? To imply that the addition of lower-priced guitars made of nontraditional materials somehow lessens the quality of the company and/or its other, more traditional offerings is just ludicrous; the facts just don't support it. Bud

 

 

Semantics. "Move to", "added", however you want to get the point across. Martin made a hard decision to "introduce" a guitar made from off-the-shelf-at-Home Depot Formica type material. This is material substandard to any traditional or acceptably good instrument-grade material and Martin gets the credit for being the first guitar company to choose it over fine furniture (instrument) grade laminated wood sheeting. How many guitar companies are out there and how many of them has chosen to use plastic in their guitars? I'm not a Martin fan but I wish them no ill will. At this point with the HPL guitar they are bringing it upon themselves and that seems a bit of a desperate move to gain market shares. Martin fans may shrug it off but to me it's a telling move in their current business model/strategy and I would rather see them move their operation to a healthier financial climate rather than beat themselves up by offering guitars made from materials that aren't found in the cheapest of the low end products available.

[HD28HLA]

"...How many guitar companies are out there and how many of them has chosen to use plastic in their guitars?..."

Oh, I don't know. Ever heard of Rainsong or CA? They're not "plastic" either.

Read up on Martin or, better yet, go to the factory and take the tour. There's a fair chance that Chris Martin (C F Martin IV) might give the tour. He's a regular guy who has the crushing weight of a 175 year legacy to maintain, and I'm confident that he's doing a great job. Over 70,000 people agreed with me just last year. Some bought HPL guitars and some spent upwards of 4 figures but they all wanted a Martin guitar and that's what they got.

You obviously don't know much about C F Martin & Co and how it operates. It's not my responsibility to teach you.

Bud

[Guitarplay]

Semantics. "Move to", "added", however you want to get the point across. Martin made a hard decision to "introduce" a guitar made from off-the-shelf-at-Home Depot Formica type material. This is material substandard to any traditional or acceptably good instrument-grade material and Martin gets the credit for being the first guitar company to choose it over fine furniture (instrument) grade laminated wood sheeting. How many guitar companies are out there and how many of them has chosen to use plastic in their guitars? I'm not a Martin fan but I wish them no ill will. At this point with the HPL guitar they are bringing it upon themselves and that seems a bit of a desperate move to gain market shares. Martin fans may shrug it off but to me it's a telling move in their current business model/strategy and I would rather see them move their operation to a healthier financial climate rather than beat themselves up by offering guitars made from materials that aren't found in the cheapest of the low end products available.

 

 

I disagree. You dismiss the guys argument on the basis of semantics, but he had some valid points. Many people are too quick to judge Martin's HPL guitars, you being one of them. I have played many and the fact is that those guitars actually compete sound wise with other acoustics in their price range. Play one sometime, you might be surprised.

[guildfire]

I played one. Their low end 12 string model. It sounded pretty good. Just couldn't get past the look and feel of the HPL material. I know Martin is trying to gain market share in the "low end" market, but they used to stand for something. Now they are just like any other company trying to increase market share.

[wooglins]

I played one. Their low end 12 string model. It sounded pretty good. Just couldn't get past the look and feel of the HPL material. I know Martin is trying to gain market share in the "low end" market, but they used to stand for something. Now they are just like any other company trying to increase market share.

 

 

Not like any company because they are not replacing existing product but adding new product. Ten years ago you could not buy a Martin for 300-400 dollars, now you can, and it carries with it the same Heritage, and some of the same design and sound quality of the more expensive models. HPL is a very solid long lasting material and if Martin is figuring out how to make guitars from it then more power to them. I for one cant wait to get one to take camping, etc. No worries about moisture, heat, an accident, etc.

[guildfire]

Not like any company because they are not replacing existing product but adding new product. Ten years ago you could not buy a Martin for 300-400 dollars, now you can, and it carries with it the same Heritage, and some of the same design and sound quality of the more expensive models. HPL is a very solid long lasting material and if Martin is figuring out how to make guitars from it then more power to them. I for one cant wait to get one to take camping, etc. No worries about moisture, heat, an accident, etc.

 

 

Whether as you say they are replacing existing or adding new product, it makes no difference. They are trying to gain market share by entering the "low end" market. Not saying that's good or bad, just thought Martin stood for more than that is all I'm saying.

[Melodeous]

 

I disagree. You dismiss the guys argument on the basis of semantics, but he had some valid points. Many people are too quick to judge Martin's HPL guitars, you being one of them. I have played many and the fact is that those guitars actually compete sound wise with other acoustics in their price range. Play one sometime, you might be surprised.

 

 

I have and do often. My boss keeps one at work and I'm always playing the thing after-hours. It's not the terrible POS I seem to be interpreted as claiming. I don't particularly care for the sound but, hey, that's a personal perspective and I wouldn't impose mine on anyone. But, it's still a cheap Formica material regardless and, again, it surprises me Martin would actually market that material embodied in any of their products. As far as the composite guitar makers go they are different breeds of cats altogether and their product line from inception was to produce a guitar that was and is completely eco-friendly and yet as close to known wood acoustic sound as they can engineer. But, they aren't competing for the low-mid market share either. They're fairly expensive guitars and best of all, damned near bullet-proof with regard to weather conditions. I've yet to play one but when I get the chance I will. Martin's HPL guitar is almost as fragile as a traditional all-wood guitar and the material was chosen for reasons of cost in an effort to maintain a product line that gets some market share. Their name lets it cut through the scrutiny, that's all, and like I said Martin fans will shrug it off as no big deal. I really don't care not being a fan of Martin but it seems to me if they are going to continue to exploit their name a la HPL I wonder how long it will take for the tarnish to show. On another note previously unmentioned Martin's custom shop isn't a bargain either. I've had occasion to compare their pricing with known reputable independent luthiers and I've had better experiences with the independents. Much of what was Martin is now a memory and the name soldiers on primarily in the hands of it's marketing department. Like I said, I'm no fan but still I hate to see them slide the public counter-top guitars under cover of their name. Neither deserves that.

[kwakatak]

 

Kinda looks like a dollar bill, don't it? :poke:

[ryanwekwert]

I'm not big on martins. Good tones but like aton of people said for the price I could get 2 really good acoustics

[slagorourke]

Martin have cheapened their brand with all this HPL stuff. I've played plenty of them and they are absolutely no better than any cheap Chinese built laminate b/s guitar available for half the cost. That's what I'd buy instead.

If they really feel the need to wade in to the budget sector, a seperate arm of the company trading under another name would be the way to go (Sigma?!). The VW group does the same thing with Audi, VW, Seat and Skoda to good effect. Plenty of other companies have done the same in the past. Fender and Gibson to name but two.

I just find it very hard to think of an HPL guitar as a Martin. Just slapping a Martin logo on it doesn't float my boat.

[Gary Palmer]

Martin have cheapened their brand with all this HPL stuff. I've played plenty of them and they are absolutely no better than any cheap Chinese built laminate b/s guitar available for half the cost. That's what I'd buy instead. If they really feel the need to wade in to the budget sector, a seperate arm of the company trading under another name would be the way to go (Sigma?!). The VW group does the same thing with Audi, VW, Seat and Skoda to good effect. Plenty of other companies have done the same in the past. Fender and Gibson to name but two. I just find it very hard to think of an HPL guitar as a Martin. Just slapping a Martin logo on it doesn't float my boat.

 

 

 

They are Martin if built by Martin, regardless of whether people like or dislike HPL instruments. People will buy what they want, but opting to deliberately invent and use another brand name - ???? by CF Martin - to market their budget lines would IMHO tend to indicate a lack of faith in their product.

[AndrewGG]

I have and do often. My boss keeps one at work and I'm always playing the thing after-hours. It's not the terrible POS I seem to be interpreted as claiming. I don't particularly care for the sound but, hey, that's a personal perspective and I wouldn't impose mine on anyone. But, it's still a cheap Formica material regardless and, again, it surprises me Martin would actually market that material embodied in any of their products. As far as the composite guitar makers go they are different breeds of cats altogether and their product line from inception was to produce a guitar that was and is completely eco-friendly and yet as close to known wood acoustic sound as they can engineer. But, they aren't competing for the low-mid market share either. They're fairly expensive guitars and best of all, damned near bullet-proof with regard to weather conditions. I've yet to play one but when I get the chance I will. Martin's HPL guitar is almost as fragile as a traditional all-wood guitar and the material was chosen for reasons of cost in an effort to maintain a product line that gets some market share. Their name lets it cut through the scrutiny, that's all, and like I said Martin fans will shrug it off as no big deal. I really don't care not being a fan of Martin but it seems to me if they are going to continue to exploit their name a la HPL I wonder how long it will take for the tarnish to show. On another note previously unmentioned Martin's custom shop isn't a bargain either. I've had occasion to compare their pricing with known reputable independent luthiers and I've had better experiences with the independents. Much of what was Martin is now a memory and the name soldiers on primarily in the hands of it's marketing department. Like I said, I'm no fan but still I hate to see them slide the public counter-top guitars under cover of their name. Neither deserves that.

 

 

I agree with many of your points; you won't find, for example, Rolex selling watches with cheap, generic quartz movements. For me it's very much a question of heritage and reputation built on a quality product.

On the other hand if the introduction of alternative materials is the only option to Martin otherwise suffering in a crowded market it can only be seen as a wise marketing move.

[slagorourke]

???? by CF Martin - to market their budget lines would IMHO tend to indicate a lack of faith in their product.

 

 

It's one of the world's most common business practices. It doesn't show a lack of faith, just keeps high and low end products seperate in the public conciousness.

[SirJackdeFuzz]

Of all the guitar companies in the world why is Martin THE guitar company? .

 

 

Because Johnny Cash used one

 

R.I.P.

[kwakatak]

Because Johnny Cash used one R.I.P.

LOL - yeah, I thought it was funny and all since JC is in the OP's avatar and all... :poke:

[SirJackdeFuzz]

 

LOL - yeah, I thought it was funny and all since JC is in the OP's avatar and all... :poke:

 

 

And that is probably the only reason why i would opt for a Martin over a Gibson acoustic !

 

Unless i get an 'out-of-this-world' fantastic deal on a used Martin.

[Queequeg]

I agree with many of your points; you won't find, for example, Rolex selling watches with cheap, generic quartz movements. For me it's very much a question of heritage and reputation built on a quality product. On the other hand if the introduction of alternative materials is the only option to Martin otherwise suffering in a crowded market it can only be seen as a wise marketing move.

 

I concur with [and like] the Rolex analogy. (although, I have to say, I wouldn't wear a Rolex, myself)

On the other hand, often when I see a Rolex, I assume it's a knockoff. Now I know that some people just wear them [genuine Rolex] because they like them, and some people wear them because they won them through some corporate award program, but some people wear them just to be seen wearing them. And for those folks this is counter-productive, since so many are (and are thought to be) fakes.

BBTTTAH, I agree that if your name is synonymous with high quality and the pinnacle of the industry, you're not helping yourself much by wallowing in the muck with the least of the them.

[TN.Frank]

Martin have cheapened their brand with all this HPL stuff. I've played plenty of them and they are absolutely no better than any cheap Chinese built laminate b/s guitar available for half the cost. That's what I'd buy instead.

 

 

But you're missing the point. People don't care how it sounds as long as it says "Martin" on the headstock so they can brag that they've got a Martin. I can't stand the idea of HPL, especially on a company that CAN make such a great guitar like Martin. It's like buying a Mustang or Camaro with a 4 cyl in it, WHY, they demand a built V8. Martin demands all solid wood, not HPL. If I want laminate I'll get something that sells for $200 or less, not a $400 Martin. For $400 I can get an all solid wood Silver Creed or at least something with a solid top. Just because a company has been around for a long time doesn't automatically make them better then one that's only been around a few years. Case in point, Ford. They were pretty much the first auto maker in this country, they've had some great cars but they've also built some real dogs, ever hear of the Escort, LOL. What a POS that little car is but at the same time they came out with the Mustang.

[garthman]

ENOUGH, ENOUGH, ENOUGH! PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!