Vintage Martin soprano sound differences

Ukecaster

Ukecaster

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
5,302
Reaction score
3,028
Location
New England, USA
I know, huge subjective can-o-worms here, and every specific uke can be different than a similar model from the same era. But, if generalities can be made, what tonal differences (if any) are there among teens/20s, 30s to WWII, and post-war to 60s Martin sopranos? The earliest one I've ever played was an early 40s wartime Style 0. However I've read that some folks consider teens/20s superior, others like 30s better, etc., with claims of lighter construction and/or better wood back then. Or, do they all basically sound the same? What say you?
 
Last edited:
Hi John,

From what I've heard, the older instruments project like nothing else. I'm awaiting one of Dave's rescues (from the '30s), and I'm eager to see how it compares to my late '20s Gibson. The Gibson barks. I love it. But I understand the Martins are even louder. Guess we'll see!
 
John,

I had won a 1920's style 2 on eBay. It had bad photos and nobody was bidding so I put in a low bid and forgot about it. Two weeks later I discovered that I won the auction-- not for the ridiculously first bid but it went up, but not significantly. I got it and changed the strings from the original gut to Worth Browns and oh man, was it loud, with lots of mid-range and so musical too. I loved it, but it had a number of cracks in the back and a previous owner slopped glue all inside. I showed it here on the Forum and most noticed the glue but one person saw it and said they would like to purchase, so I sold it. I regret it because I never played a soprano that good before.

Now with sellers remorse, I recently picked up a 1940-50's Style 0 player. Swapped out the strings, again, to Worth Browns, and this comes close but not quite the same as the 1920's Style 2. It really is close enough without a significant difference to me. As you know, I love the new ukes that Pops is putting out, and they are close, also, but not exactly the same as the vintage Martin's that I played. I even had a Kiwaya KST-4 and KS-5, which too, were kinda there-- but not quite. Actually, I like the "Pops" UkeSA over the Kiwaya's so I sold the Kiwaya's.

So, to respond directly to your question, the 1920's had a slight edge over the 1940's- 50's-- but both were loud, crystal clear, great mid-tones and very musical.
 
Last edited:
You know me, I love the WWII and later Martin Sopranos. That is why I rescue them no matter what trauma they have gone through.
I find that these rescued Martins will vary. They all have that Martin loud and sound.
The difference I see in the vintage one is that the fret board is 2mm thick making it not really part of the neck structure. The entire instrument seems to vibrate adding an other dimension to playing it.
 
There can be so many variables because of the effects of time and neglect, but generally, I've found the sopranos without the fingerboard extensions to sound the best. They're often a smidge lighter and have more top vibrating, two qualities that often lead to a great sounding stringed instrument.

It's not a guarantee, but a few mega ukulele nerds taught me this and it's been a pretty good guideline that seems to hold up. And, the ones that have been played a lot tend to sound better too. A well played one, with a decent crack repair, almost always sounds better than a minty example. It's also got mojo.
 
nuggulux said:
There can be so many variables because of the effects of time and neglect, but generally, I've found the sopranos without the fingerboard extensions to sound the best. They're often a smidge lighter and have more top vibrating, two qualities that often lead to a great sounding stringed instrument.

It's not a guarantee, but a few mega ukulele nerds taught me this and it's been a pretty good guideline that seems to hold up. And, the ones that have been played a lot tend to sound better too. A well played one, with a decent crack repair, almost always sounds better than a minty example. It's also got mojo.
Click to expand...

I would agree with your thoughts. I sometimes wonder if it is the chicken or the egg- does the instrument sound better because it was played, or was it played more because it was a nice playing instrument?
 
EDW said:
I would agree with your thoughts. I sometimes wonder if it is the chicken or the egg- does the instrument sound better because it was played, or was it played more because it was a nice playing instrument?
Click to expand...

I note EDW’s comments too:
“It's not a guarantee, but a few mega ukulele nerds taught me this and it's been a pretty good guideline that seems to hold up. And, the ones that have been played a lot tend to sound better too. A well played one, with a decent crack repair, almost always sounds better than a minty example. It's also got mojo.”

The actions of past owners aren’t necessarily a perfect guide but if an instrument shows wear through careful use and someone has thought enough of it to have good quality repairs done to it then, in my little experience, you’ve likely found a good one or at least one of the better examples of that model. Whilst I don’t now have any older Ukes, and have never had expensive ones, I’ve had very positive experiences after buying older items that have been ‘pre-loved’.

I don’t know about whether it’s chicken or egg, maybe it’s both. The more you play the better it will sound seems true to me, but an instrument that’s newer but well made (and set-up) is a joy to play too. Well that’s just my experience with the simple instruments that I play.

I would hope that my comments don’t divert the thread.
 
Last edited:
Last year, I specifically wanted to get a pre-war Martin soprano. Not because I knew that it would automatically be better than the post-war Martins but rather because I thought to myself "if I had to have one vintage Martin I want a pre-war one" (getting vintage instruments in Europe can be a pain), so eventually I got a circa 1929 Martin style 0. Unfortunately, I then don't have experience with post-war Martins. However, since someone mentioned Kiwaya on the last page, I did a comparison with my KTS-7. I probably couldn't tell them apart separately but compared side by side I noticed that the Martin is slightly louder and more resonant. The Kiwaya does have an extended fretboard so that might hold it back a bit. As mentioned previously, the Martin has an ultra thin fretboard with that fantastic looking incline where it meets the body. Probably the nicest fretboard I've played.

Anyway, it'd be fun to hear if other people have experience with the post-war Martins compared to Kiwayas. I'm pretty confident in saying that if you can't get your hands on a vintage Martin the Kiwayas are basically the next best alternative.
 
efiscella said:
John,

I had won a 1920's style 2 on eBay. It had bad photos and nobody was bidding so I put in a low bid and forgot about it. Two weeks later I discovered that I won the auction-- not for the ridiculously first bid but it went up, but not significantly. I got it and changed the strings from the original gut to Worth Browns and oh man, was it loud, with lots of mid-range and so musical too. I loved it, but it had a number of cracks in the back and a previous owner slopped glue all inside. I showed it here on the Forum and most noticed the glue but one person saw it and said they would like to purchase, so I sold it. I regret it because I never played a soprano that good before.

Now with sellers remorse, I recently picked up a 1940-50's Style 0 player. Swapped out the strings, again, to Worth Browns, and this comes close but not quite the same as the 1920's Style 2. It really is close enough without a significant difference to me. As you know, I love the new ukes that Pops is putting out, and they are close, also, but not exactly the same as the vintage Martin's that I played. I even had a Kiwaya KST-4 and KS-5, which too, were kinda there-- but not quite. Actually, I like the "Pops" UkeSA over the Kiwaya's so I sold the Kiwaya's.

So, to respond directly to your question, the 1920's had a slight edge over the 1940's- 50's-- but both were loud, crystal clear, great mid-tones and very musical.
Click to expand...

OK , I'll bite .I dont understand "Pops" ukes . What is a "Pops" ukulele ?
 
Oh , OK , thanks . I've never seen or heard a UkeSA ukulele. I thought UkeSA was a typo. Duh? I will check them out.
 
I've played a barky soprano before and guessed the tone came from the sound reflected really quickly around the body and to my ears. The wood seemed really thin. Are these observations held by others?
 
Neil_O said:
I've played a barky soprano before and guessed the tone came from the sound reflected really quickly around the body and to my ears. The wood seemed really thin. Are these observations held by others?
Click to expand...

I know that I have heard various points of view here and elsewhere, but the instruments that I have played that had the best sounds to my ear (lively, resonant, responsive, or as you say barky) were also very lightly built.
 
EDW said:
I know that I have heard various points of view here and elsewhere, but the instruments that I have played that had the best sounds to my ear (lively, resonant, responsive, or as you say barky) were also very lightly built.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you've found this as well, but with the sopranos I own, it feels like the note separation (lack of "muddiness"?) correlates with lightness of build... and the vintage Martins have it in spades...
 
ookooleilei said:
Not sure if you've found this as well, but with the sopranos I own, it feels like the note separation (lack of "muddiness"?) correlates with lightness of build... and the vintage Martins have it in spades...
Click to expand...
Yes, there is a good reason that the old Martins are the choice of many players!
 
I’m resurrecting this very old thread because I recently came across a Martin soprano that the seller states is from the 60s. And it’s for a ridiculously good price. I’m curious if even at a good price is it’s worth it. Are 60s era martins on par with much older ones?
 
I have not played tons of Martins, but have played or owned a few from various eras. They varied some in tone, but none sounded bad. All of them were quite resonant with the "Martin" sound. If you love that classic tone, I would still take this over many other instruments out there.

I recall the thread where you mentioned wanting to build a uke. This could be a good instrument to study
 
efiscella said:
John,

I had won a 1920's style 2 on eBay. It had bad photos and nobody was bidding so I put in a low bid and forgot about it. Two weeks later I discovered that I won the auction-- not for the ridiculously first bid but it went up, but not significantly. I got it and changed the strings from the original gut to Worth Browns and oh man, was it loud, with lots of mid-range and so musical too. I loved it, but it had a number of cracks in the back and a previous owner slopped glue all inside. I showed it here on the Forum and most noticed the glue but one person saw it and said they would like to purchase, so I sold it. I regret it because I never played a soprano that good before.

Now with sellers remorse, I recently picked up a 1940-50's Style 0 player. Swapped out the strings, again, to Worth Browns, and this comes close but not quite the same as the 1920's Style 2. It really is close enough without a significant difference to me. As you know, I love the new ukes that Pops is putting out, and they are close, also, but not exactly the same as the vintage Martin's that I played. I even had a Kiwaya KST-4 and KS-5, which too, were kinda there-- but not quite. Actually, I like the "Pops" UkeSA over the Kiwaya's so I sold the Kiwaya's.

So, to respond directly to your question, the 1920's had a slight edge over the 1940's- 50's-- but both were loud, crystal clear, great mid-tones and very musical.
Click to expand...
My ears and/or memory is not good enough to remember what 2 similar ukes sounded like when testing them days or months apart!
 
Smallchewbacca said:
I’m resurrecting this very old thread because I recently came across a Martin soprano that the seller states is from the 60s. And it’s for a ridiculously good price. I’m curious if even at a good price is it’s worth it. Are 60s era martins on par with much older ones?
Click to expand...
Ridiculously good price makes it sound even better than a 60's Martin for a merely OK price!
 
For older instruments isn't particular historical environment that instrument saw more important than production year?

Also I read that every acoustic instrument has its peak time after which the tone changes due to unavoidable wood aging. Not sure what that peak time interval is for a uke or a guitar. Depends on the wood I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kkimura
Sold A $65 Guardian Vintage Case with a free Decca Soprano and for a limited time a set of Martin M600 strings!
Replies
6
Views
531
FatherMother
F
rhiggie
What strings for vintage Martin Soprano?
2
Replies
21
Views
892
revdocjim
R
Eggs_n_Ham
Acquired Kiwaya kts 5 mahogany soprano ukulele...I think. I want a good no frills mahogany soprano (not gloss)...possibly a vintage Martin??
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
3K
EDW
EDW
Shaw
No longer available WTB Vintage Martin Soprano (player not collector)
Replies
2
Views
279
Shaw
Shaw
AZChris
Vintage Martin soprano -- too beat up?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
2K
TBB
TBB
Top Bottom