FUQ (eff -yu - cue) - FAQ's with an EDGE

Tagged As: Martin 0000 Guitar

Question:
Apparently, Martin introduced this 0000-18H model new for 1997. Although I thought it sounded pretty good, I was appalled at the sloppy workmanship I saw inside the guitar: glue drips, rough jagged wood, bracing slots cut too wide. It was enough to scare me into not seriously considering the guitar. Maybe that's a mistake, I'm not sure. I wonder if anyone else has experienced the same with this guitar?The guitar actually is a 0000-28H.Before Martin starts really getting bashed here, let me add that I do like Martin guitars -- that's why I picked up the 0000-28H in the first place. Instead of stating that I was appalled by the workmanship I saw (in my first post), I guess I should have said that I was surprised by what I saw, because my experiences with Martin guitars has generally been better than that. I just wanted to find out if others had a similiar experience with this particular model.

Answer:
we have four Martins- 2 old ones 1952 D28 ,and 1927 0-21 And 2 newer ones 1996 000-28GE, And D-18VMS, All are fine guitars , but the old ones are actually the sloppier ons (sloppy glue dripping on the sound board hand bending scorches on the sides of the D-28 and various minor flaws, but both are killer instruments that we have owned for 26 and 12 years respectively. On the other hand the 2 newer guitars are impeccable inside and out and also play and sound wounderful. Granted they are from the premium line of Martin, but in a lot of ways I think Martin is doing the best work that they have done in years. We have many differant makes of guitars in our house, so I am not a Martin only junkie And I have said before in this newsgroup that a few years ago I wouldn't even consider buying a new Martin because I thought there quaulity had slipped. I hope they aren't slipping in the QA dept. ,but it has been my experience that they will bend over backwards to keep the customer happy and correct problems.