Ukecaster
Well-known member
The colour of the wood will change over time. In 80 years it might look completely different. Obviously the Martin stash of koa wood is not the same as the stash used by other makers, and there is only so much wood that can be harvested from a single tree. If we follow the last 100 years of history, the Martin C1K will still be sought after at the end of this century. If you are lucky enough to have one in its early life, maybe you could take some photos and make some sound recordings to inform the lucky owners in the 2090s?
I love the ignorance in the discussion about the bridges. There will be a good reason if the bridges fitted at Nazareth are different to the bridges fitted in Mexico, I don't know the reason. Unless you know the reason, most discussion about how it looks it irrelevant. if you pay $1800 for a uke, the best thing to do is play it, then play it some more, and then keep playing it, and leave the finish alone unless you are following instructions in the Martin care and maintenance guide.
Wait 80 years? Sorry, I'll let you do that, not me, I don't have that long. If Martin can't put out a decent, traditional looking koa uke (Martin is all about tradition, right?), then they should either switch to an alternate wood, ilke acacia, or dye that light koa, which would improve the look immeasurably, YMMV. CITES is over. I say bring back dark rosewood boards, and lose the cheesy, light bamboo-looking bodies. Unfortunately, upon deaf ears, my pleas do apparently fall, so far.
If you pay good money for a new Martin uke, from either country of origin, and it looks lousy, you should either send it back, and get an earlier used model which will appeal to both your eyes and ears, or get a vintage Martin
Last edited: