Vintage Martins

garyg

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2011
Messages
799
Reaction score
1
Greetings pickers, I've been looking at vintage Martins and am curious about the price differential, mainly between the M2 and MO models. I asked this question in the past and the response was that there were no differences in construction, wood quality or age, etc. that would affect sound among models 0-3. The differences were in the bling (e.g., bindings) and of course the Model 3 has an extended fingerboard. Can this really account for the large discrepancy in price between O models and 2 & 3 models or are the higher prices for the latter models or is this driven by rarity? Inquiring minds want to know. cheers, g2
 
I've been wondering this myself. I've owned a Martin soprano since 1987 or so. It sounds great but has no bling- it's very plain. I'm thinking it's the rarity of the older Martins that make them so valuable.
 
It's a combination of the relative rarity of the Style 1s, 2s, 3s, and 5s to Style 0s and the relative "bling" of each of those styles to a Style 0.

They didn't make as many Style 1s, etc as they did Style 0s.
 
The rarity of koa models vs. mahogany models (many more mahogany ukuleles made) accounts for the difference in price between same models. The differences between Os, 1s and 2s, is mainly cosmetic; the greater variations in sound have more to do with when the ukulele was produced. Style 3s are different than the others, aside from the bling. The extended fingerboard is ebony. I think it's much nicer to play. On the other hand, I find the lower models sound spunkier and louder. That's the trade off. I think were one to create a value formula to account for all the differences in tone, volume, playability, appearance, etc., you would find that a nice Style O is the best value. I've never played an O I didn't like.
 
When I see a Style 2 my mouth waters like Homer Simpson looking at a donut. I think the 2's are worth so much more is because they look so damn good.
 
Purely asthetics, variation in tone in all models even though essentally its the same uke dementions. ..through the years the different formula in the finish ....
Beats me why they didn't make a style 4... The Koa models were more limited, thus more highly prized...with higher price tags...I have a thin neck tenor,
which has good playability....rare for me...
 
I think it's the rarity. I have a Style 2M from right around 1930 and a Style 1M from sometime much later ('50s, I'm thinking... pre '63 anyway). They both sound great, but different. In this case, the difference in sound probably has more to do with age (or possibly with some variables at the factory from the two eras) than because of the different styles. I've also played a '40s Style 3, which, admittedly, needed new strings. It also sounded quite good. I suppose there might be SOME loss of tone because of the extended fingerboard interfering with the soundboard, but I can't imagine that there would be much. My Kiwaya KTS-7 has Martin Style 3 bling, and it is every bit as loud and full-sounding as my Martins. The value goes up (in my opinion) because the fancier the model, the fewer were made and sold, and therefore the fewer there are around today.
 
My pal, uke player extrordinaire "Ukulele Dick", aka Rick McKee, swears that on average, the "lower level" Martins without the extended fingerboards sound better...more top vibrations because of less damping. He says a real player will go for the lesser models unless those higher notes are absolutely needed.

Very interesting.

Also, note that there is virtually NO DIFFERENCE in craftsmanship from the cheapest vintage Martins to the most expensive. That is one of the things I admire most about that company's instruments. "Less expensive" never meant "cheap" in the pejorative sense of that word. Good on them.
 
I can believe what Rick says about the extended fingerboards, but I haven't noticed it myself. Granted, I've only played ONE actual Martin with an extended fingerboard. If it's true that you get better tone without the extended fingerboard, then I'd take a Style 1 any day. I'm a sucker for tortoiseshell, so the Style 1 has the right combination of tone and subtle bling to be just about perfect. I've actually never played a Style 0, if you can believe it. I need to get one of those someday!
 
Thanks everyone, sounds like there's more variation based on age than model. I have a 40's 1M in soprano and just wondered if it was worth picking up an 0 or a 2 if I ever found reasonably priced ones. Sounds like I need to play them to know, they could sound just the same as my 1. cheers, g2
 
I have 30's Style 1 and a 60's style O . They both sound great but different. It's funny but the style 1 was a wreck when I got it. I repaired it and now its nice but when I play it ,it sounds to me like the sound is being pumped out through the sound hole. Maybe because the wood is older and drier? but it sounds great , I don't know if I would say it is better than the O , just different. I have a few ukes but the style 1 is the only one I have that feels like the sound gets pumped out through the soundhole.
 
Thanks everyone, sounds like there's more variation based on age than model. I have a 40's 1M in soprano and just wondered if it was worth picking up an 0 or a 2 if I ever found reasonably priced ones. Sounds like I need to play them to know, they could sound just the same as my 1. cheers, g2
I've got both of those...I got the style 2 first and thought is sounded awesome and warm...then I got the "O" which is brighter..closer to a Koaloha or Mya Moe...both different and good in
their individual ways...love them both...
 
Thanks everyone, sounds like there's more variation based on age than model. I have a 40's 1M in soprano and just wondered if it was worth picking up an 0 or a 2 if I ever found reasonably priced ones. Sounds like I need to play them to know, they could sound just the same as my 1. cheers, g2

Yes. It IS worth picking up an 0 or a 2 if you ever find reasonably priced ones. ALWAYS!
 
I find my 20's sopranos to be much finickier players than the two 40's-50's style 0's that I've played. (not a large sample)
The frets are very shallow, and the strings are a little closer together at the nut on the oldsters. I think the difference boils down to bar frets vs T frets and a narrower nut configuration. They require more precise finger placement, not always easy on a soprano. But Roy Smeck seemed to manage OK, so I'll keep working on it.
And of course the 20's style 1 comes with Rosewood binding instead of plastic tortoise-shell. Anti-bling.
 
Leastbest -

It looks like a 20s or 30s Style 0 Soprano, but I can't quite see the side. It looks like there might be binding, and if there's rosewood binding between the sides and the back and top, you've got a 20's Style 1; if the binding is tortoise shell, you've got an early to mid 30's Style 1. Could also be a late 40's Style 1, as they didn't use the headstock decal for a few years in there. A close up of the side of the fretboard will show the type of fret, and that will tell us.

As to why the high numbers cost more. Bling was already mentioned. Rarity was mentioned earlier, and that's certainly a big factor, too. They made a lot of Style 0s and there are still plenty of them around - I got my early 60s 0 for $150 bucks in the early 90s - now they can be had for $400-600. Still not too expensive and still common.

They didn't make as many 1 and 2s, and they made a lot less 3 and 5s. They were the only manufacturer on the mainland making Taropatches, and they supposedly introduced the Concert - those are both VERY rare and cost quite a bit. Two Taropatches were sold in the last six months that both went for $2.5K+. The older tenors and baritones are also rarer, and correspondingly more expensive.

Then there are the koa ukes, which are definitely rarer, and so, they are the most sought after and expensive. $5K for a Style 5K is - appropriately - about what they cost. But - a style 0K, which they made, which fetch north of $1K easily and more than $1.5K is not unheard of. They just didn't make many at all.

And then, there are Martins made for other manufacturers, which are unique styles. The 3K version they made for Wurlitzer in the mid 20s is outstanding looking, and I've only ever seen one of them, but they probably made a few. The ukes they made for Oliver Ditson in the 20s are also very pricy, even the style 0 - which are rarer than even the 3 and 5 vintage ukes from the same period. Those with a dreadnought body are more common, those with a plan Martin style body are rare as hens teeth. Retrofret has one Ditson Style 2 going for $1.6K http://www.retrofret.com/products.asp?ProductID=3608&CartID=44885311292011

So if you go for the common style 0, you've got the best value. As Rick and others note, the workmanship is as good as on the top-line ukes. But, rarity, style and better materials DO impact value immensely.
 
Top Bottom