pritch
Well-known member
Looking at photographs of vintage Martin ukulele and those made by makers who follow the tradition: Timms and others, it would appear that the nut and bridge are fabricated from wood?
There have been discussions hereabout recommending replacing plastic nuts and/or bridges with items made from bone. Presumably because bone is harder than plastic and more able to directly transfer vibrations to the soundboard. Manufacturers who use bone generally feature this detail in their marketing blurb.
All of which creates the impression that the use of bone is advantageous. In which case would it not be a disadvantage to use wood? Yet it seems people love the sound of their vintage Martins. I'm having difficulty reconciling this and would appreciate gaining some understanding. Not least because I'm looking with some lust at a ukulele built in the Martin tradition. To hear the instrument though would involve a return trip of five hundred miles so some preparatory inquiry might prove prudent.
Thanks in anticipation.
There have been discussions hereabout recommending replacing plastic nuts and/or bridges with items made from bone. Presumably because bone is harder than plastic and more able to directly transfer vibrations to the soundboard. Manufacturers who use bone generally feature this detail in their marketing blurb.
All of which creates the impression that the use of bone is advantageous. In which case would it not be a disadvantage to use wood? Yet it seems people love the sound of their vintage Martins. I'm having difficulty reconciling this and would appreciate gaining some understanding. Not least because I'm looking with some lust at a ukulele built in the Martin tradition. To hear the instrument though would involve a return trip of five hundred miles so some preparatory inquiry might prove prudent.
Thanks in anticipation.