New Martins vs Old Martins

delray48209

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Messages
113
Reaction score
1
I have a question. About a week ago, I purchased a new Martin S1 which I like a lot! It plays and sounds awesome to me. Can anyone tell me if there is a significant difference in the build structure between a vintage Martin O and the new Martin S1 being built in Mexico? Different bracing pattern, dimensions, etc?

I was just wondering what a 1920's Martin sounded like when it was new. So, I was thinking, if the early Martins have the same build pattern, it would seem logical that my new S1 will develop the same vintage, complex sound as found in today's vintage Martin ukes. What do you think?

Thanks
Frank
 
I have a question. About a week ago, I purchased a new Martin S1 which I like a lot! It plays and sounds awesome to me. Can anyone tell me if there is a significant difference in the build structure between a vintage Martin O and the new Martin S1 being built in Mexico? Different bracing pattern, dimensions, etc?

I was just wondering what a 1920's Martin sounded like when it was new. So, I was thinking, if the early Martins have the same build pattern, it would seem logical that my new S1 will develop the same vintage, complex sound as found in today's vintage Martin ukes. What do you think?

Thanks
Frank

The only way the new Martins are going to sound as good as the vintage Martins is if the new ones are built with the same excellent woods; they are not. They may look the same to you but in my opinion they are completely separate in build and sound. Perhaps the new ones will sound good in 50 years or more (that is how old the vintage ukes are now), but I sincerely doubt they are going to be in the same ball park as the older Martins.
 
The only way the new Martins are going to sound as good as the vintage Martins is if the new ones are built with the same excellent woods; they are not. They may look the same to you but in my opinion they are completely separate in build and sound. Perhaps the new ones will sound good in 50 years or more (that is how old the vintage ukes are now), but I sincerely doubt they are going to be in the same ball park as the older Martins.

How do they differ in build?
How does the wood differ?
 
The thing I noticed between the S1 and 0 is that the newer S1s (and I assume many of the PA built ukes too) is that the wood is thicker and you get a heavier ukulele. Many of the old Martin ukuleles were almost as thin as the old Hawaiian built ukes. It isn't uncommon to see an old Martin with cracks in it. I have a feeling this thicker wood is used to make a longer lasting instrument that sacrifices some tone and volume (I'm also pretty sure this is for warranty issues as well). As for wood quaility I'm sure the mahogany they are using today is not the same as the old mahogany they used back in the day (might not even be the same mahogany species). The fretboard also extends all the way to the sound hole on the S1 and only extended just past the 12th fret on the style 0. I'm sure this can have some affect too.

I am very happy wth my S1 for exactly what it is and it is one of my two go to ukuleles (I love my Bruko No. 6 too!). I went to the guitar center where I bought mine and after nearly a year they got a replacement in and it didn't look anywhere near as good and sounded poorer. Better than most Chinese stuff but nowhere near as good as mine. The fit and finish and all was spot on but the wood just didn't look as good. I have noticed some opening up on my S1 and I'm sure after 50 years it'll really open up more but then the style 0 will have an even longer head start (75 years maybe) so will always sound better if they survive. Well that's my 2 cents anyway :)
 
I too think the vintage ones I have sounds way better than the new ones I tried at the shop...maybe the strings were new...but a big difference, cannot even compare
yes better materials, craftsmanship and design.. I think the vintage ones are a lot lighter build which I prefer....very different building design ideaology then and now..
 
I have never played an old Martin but I believe the general consensus is that they are hands down better sounding than the new Martins. That being said, I have an S1 and a C1K and I have a T1K on order. I think, for the money, they're great ukes.
 
OK - thus far I understand the differences to be thinner and better wood, and a smaller fret board.
 
OK - thus far I understand the differences to be thinner and better wood, and a smaller fret board.

The wood on the old ones also has had 50 years to open up.

I've only had one 1950s Martin style O, but I much preferred playing a new Ken Timms' Martin style O.
 
I have a Martin S-0 which was made several years ago. It's not a bad ukulele as far as it goes, although it was maybe a bit overpriced for what you get. I haven't played one of the newer models, but there's a guy in the (still VERY small) uke club I started in our area who has an S-1, and is happy with it. I thought the S-0 was a perfectly good uke until I bought my first OLD Martin (a Style 2 from around 1930). There is absolutely no comparison. New Martin = ok ukulele, but you can do better for the money. Old Martin = the gold standard of soprano ukuleles. That's just my take on it. The old ones are lighter, WAY louder and more complex in tone, and just all around much better made. If the new ones cost less, I think they would be pretty decent, certainly in the same ballpark as some of Kala's and Lanikai's models.
 
Last year, I had a chance to play both new and vintage Martin sopranos at the Twelfth Fret, in Toronto. Not sure which model, but it was from the 50s, I believe. The vintage uke was wonderful. Sounded great, felt great (even for a soprano...) just had a sweet feel. The new one - well, I honestly couldn't tell the difference between it and several Kalas hanging on the wall, at least not in sound. To my ears and hands, it seemed overpriced.
 
When people talk about old Martins versus new Martins, the comparisons always seem to be regarding the very early Martins - from the 20's-30's. What about Martins from the 50's? Do you consider them in the same class as the "old" Martins and how do they compare to the new Martins?
--G
 
When people talk about old Martins versus new Martins, the comparisons always seem to be regarding the very early Martins - from the 20's-30's. What about Martins from the 50's? Do you consider them in the same class as the "old" Martins and how do they compare to the new Martins?
--G

After owning a 30's & a 50's Martin O, and playing a few S-1's & several of the modern ones, I'd still always want one of the older Martins. For all of the reasons mentioned, primarily the age of the wood & lightness of the build, they are just superior instruments IMO. I think that the modern ones are more similar to typical "factory" ukes as Chris mentioned (which I own several as well) than they are to the earlier ancestors. We're still talking about 50+ year old instruments & when you find one that is well taken care of or even moderately so, its just spectacular sounding & plays like butter.
 
I agree with Gmoney. I also have a '50s (I think... Might even be early '60s) Style 1. It's every bit as nice to play as my two '30s Martins.
 
I have a 40's Martin O that is light, easy to play, and the sound is full and rich. I have played several modern martin ukuleles and there is a big difference between old and new. As stated above, new Martin ukuleles are not bad, just not the finely crafted, high end instruments that the vintage ones are. If I could put it in one word, I would say the new ones are "clunky" as compared to the vintage.
 
I've played half a dozen vintage Martins and they were all various-degrees-of-terrible. In fairness they were all in pretty bad shape, but that is an important part left out in vintage Martin praise...
...the good ones sound great (and of course have prices that reflect that). As for the new ones sounding like a low-end Kala or "clunky", you guys must have played bad examples because of the 4 I've played, they were anything but.
 
I've never played a vintage one :( - when I was in the NYC area a couple of years ago I wanted to try some out at Mandolin Brothers - even had looked at one online that I wanted to try in person. Unfortunately, I never made it down to Staten Island.

Of the new ones I've only played one but was very underwhelmed by it. It wasn't a bad uke by any means but no way it was worth the $400 they were asking for it. In fact, both of my Mainland sopranos kicked its backside in both volume and tone quality (at less than half the price, no less). Was it the strings? No way to say for sure but my Mainlands are hands-down better than that Marin was with anything I've had on them and with Seaguar leaders in the gages of a Worth CH set the Mainlands are so much better that the Martin wasn't even in the same city, let alone the same ballpark.

It's a shame, really, because I'd expected to be wowed by the Martin and was really excited to see it in the store. Maybe it was just a bad sample of the Martin; it is the only one I've played, after all. On the other hand, at $400 there shouldn't be any bad ones...

John
 
I've never played a vintage one :( - when I was in the NYC area a couple of years ago I wanted to try some out at Mandolin Brothers - even had looked at one online that I wanted to try in person. Unfortunately, I never made it down to Staten Island.

Of the new ones I've only played one but was very underwhelmed by it. It wasn't a bad uke by any means but no way it was worth the $400 they were asking for it. In fact, both of my Mainland sopranos kicked its backside in both volume and tone quality (at less than half the price, no less). Was it the strings? No way to say for sure but my Mainlands are hands-down better than that Marin was with anything I've had on them and with Seaguar leaders in the gages of a Worth CH set the Mainlands are so much better that the Martin wasn't even in the same city, let alone the same ballpark.

It's a shame, really, because I'd expected to be wowed by the Martin and was really excited to see it in the store. Maybe it was just a bad sample of the Martin; it is the only one I've played, after all. On the other hand, at $400 there shouldn't be any bad ones...

John

I got my Martin S1 new for $320 shipped, and the Mainland goes for around $220 shipped so the Martin is actually closer to 50% more not twice the price.
When I got my last Mainland I had to blow an additions $75 to take care of QC issues so really they ended up costing about the same.
 
I got my Martin S1 new for $320 shipped, and the Mainland goes for around $220 shipped so the Martin is actually closer to 50% more not twice the price.
When I got my last Mainland I had to blow an additions $75 to take care of QC issues so really they ended up costing about the same.

You got a good price for your Martin S1. I believe it's closer to $400 when you visit your big retail store. I've never heard of $75 for QC so that's not the norm for a Mainland uke. It really doesn't matter as long as you like your Martin S1 and I don't think the general public will change their mind.

But going back to the question, I've only played a HS0, which is made in Mexico but set up in PA and it didn't sound like anything special so I didn't buy it. It was a great price at $320 from a private party.
 
You got a good price for your Martin S1. I believe it's closer to $400 when you visit your big retail store.

On ebay I've seen some with an opeing price of $299 and a few with a buy it now price of $310. I know GC has a price sticker of $379 on the ones they have but they will meet or beat internet prices if you ask the associate. Mine had a tiny nick/dent on the back and they gave me a great discount and I had to buy it. Glad I did. I love my S1. Better than any Kala, Lanikai, OS, etc. I've played yet.
 
Top Bottom