Official Luthiers Forum!

Hey all,

Been pondering what the next build will be....
In this pondering, I was thinking about many of the prints and
designs out there are "Old" steelstring designs --
1930's and 1940's Martins and Gibsons....

These were known for their great sound and generally light construction....
But... back in the day, our "Medium" strings were the lightest steel strings
that existed. These guitars ran great with what we would call "Medium" and
even "Heavy" strings on them.

Now, I notice recent Factory fare seems to be built even heavier...
and they run even lighter strings with less tension... and they sound dead.

Now, something I noticed on Build #1 -- it sounds GREAT with mediums on it.
Tons of bass, nice trebles, good projection, and it has tone.... It sounds quite plain
and blah with Lights, though.

So.... how much of that old great sound came from them running significantly heavier
strings than we run now, and would we be generally unimpressed with these guitars
if they originally came with "Light" strings on them?

Thanks

John

I don't use lights for this very reason.

_________________
John Hall
blues creek guitars
Authorized CF Martin Repair
Co President of ASIA
You Don't know what you don't know until you know it

I'm with you on this. I have found medium strings sound significantly better than lights. Your hand gets used to the difference quickly and they stay in tune better, in my opinion.

I think much can be learned by studying the whole historical progression of Martin guitars, especially in mind of the changes made to their structure in the 4 "eras", that being: the gut-strung guitars of the late 1800's to the 19-teens, the early steel strings, the mid to late 30's- early 40's (golden era) and late 40's to current era.

It was not Martin's fault that players strung their guitars too heavily. Keeping in mind that they were a factory with production to meet and with warranties to honor, they were constantly behind the 8-ball to build something that would be good in terms of volume and tone, but would not break the bank in terms of repairs.

We can honor them for what they did, learn from their methods and stand on their shoulders and build even better guitars. Every one of our guitars can be as good as their best, the effects of age notwithstanding.

_________________
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008907949110

I would say little to none. I've never heard a pre-war guitar with the original strings so I don't know how that sounded. However one of my favorite guitar tones is Norman Blake playing those pre-war Martin dreads and he used light guage strings on them(except for the low E).

_________________
Jeremy Douglas

I dont know, I think martin stopped using the " forward bracing" in the 1950's when the use of heavier strings became popular and increased, significantly, their warrantee load. I can see the need for medium strings on a factory guitar, that is built for long term warrantee consideration. the guitar I built with Frank Finnicchio uses liights ( 12-54) and has plenty of tone and projection. I just got a response to an email from Kent Everret, telling me he uses light strings.the guitar being played on his DVD has loads of tone and projection. the dread I built and strung up a few weeks ago with lights ( 12-53)has plenty of bass and trebles( i could be a skosh biased though LOL) . I think the martin dreads need them, it seems to be all in how you build. Jody

No, they started using rear shifted bracing in 1938. I've read that back then (30's) the mediums they used are actually heavier than what we consider 'heavy gauge' today and made from a stiffer material too. So I think that you might have it backwards on the heavy strings becoming popular in the 50's.

_________________
Jeremy Douglas

o.k so then why did martin stop using the forward shifted braces in the 1950'S?

They never used forward shifting in the 50's, they were all rear shifted by '44 I believe.

_________________
Jeremy Douglas

We get this old saw about heavier strings are better quite regularly here, I'm afraid it's not a universal truth. Strings should match the instrument.

As far as strings go from the 30s and today, you're comparing apples wth oranges. String materials and manufacture differ now from then, as do the strings. In the museum we have a fair few sets of pre-war strings and the gauges and densities do not correlate with the strings we have now.

I own three 1930s Martin guitars OOO-28, OM-28 and OO-18 as well as a 1963 OO-18, my favourite. I used lights or custom lights on all of them, prefering them to mediums, I found it much easier to play with subtlety and variation of attack with the lights. OK I've never owned a flatpick and the D-28 crowd might prefer heavier strings, but I was a fingerstyle player.

All of the 30 or so guitars I've made have been built for light strings, and have enough volume and still have the subtlety of touch. If you're in a factory setting today like Martin, with warranty issues, you'll build heavy with an overbraced top, you'll need the heavier string to drive it, but then I haven't heard a post 60s Martin that I like.

Build the guitar for the strings you want to use and the playing style, it's not a one size fits all thing. If it were we'd never have a classical that sounded any good just using those weak low tension gut or nylon strings.

Colin

_________________
I don't believe in anything, I simply make use of a set of reasonable working hypotheses.

I've got a book on the History of Martin Guitars by Mike Longworth printed in '75'. It doesn't mention anything about forward
shifted "X" bracing or not. What it does say is that by 1928 most models were steel string and they changed to a heavier
bracing as a necessity because of the steel string tension. They started this as a standard practice in the early 40's and a
sub-assembly foreman at that time began the actual documentation with #89226 in 1944. Prior to that they used light bracing
with higher peaks. They stated it's possible a few of the lighter braced models with higher peaks crept out after that but not for long

_________________
Bill Hodge


One does not simply, own enough guitars!

yeh they stopped using scalloped bracing in '44 and replaced it with tapered bracing.

_________________
Jeremy Douglas

I like the peaks if but for no other reason, they look cool in photographs

_________________
Bill Hodge


One does not simply, own enough guitars!

the bracing change was done after 38, serial #74099. The record gives credit to Floyd Turner bringing this change to CF Martin's attention. The 75 edition of Martin history was updated in later editions.The shape of the braces didn't change much . I have a 1880 a 1900 martin and others from 72 up to 2003. they very similar.
1/4 inch bracing is not tapered only rounded. In the 80's the lower back braces were changed from the low "broomstick" bracing to the higher bracing we see today.
john hall
authorized martin repair center

_________________
John Hall
blues creek guitars
Authorized CF Martin Repair
Co President of ASIA
You Don't know what you don't know until you know it