Martin 2-15s

[jlb]

I admit I am a Martin fan, and I've always wanted a Martin mando as part of my humble collection.

I just don't think the Martin flattops sound too great, not at least the one's I've come across.

So I'm wondering about the 2-15 styles. All I've gotten from searches on the board are that they are not good for bluegrass.

Anyone care to expound upon that? Are they nice sounding? Worth trying to hunt one down to try out?

[jmkatcher]

There's one (or a close relative) on Tone Poems, "Wildwood Flower". I personally think it's the nicest sounding mandolin on the album.

[Eugene]

I am a massive fan of Martin mandolins. #I have owned several in the past and my current favorite in the mandolin stable is a 1908 Martin bowlback. #I think a Martin style 30 owned by a friend probably is the finest crafted bit of art I've seen from a big music manufacturer. #My own opinion of the 2- series of archtop mandolins is that they are as neatly made as any Martin, but just a little thin-toned. #I think Martin's arched mandolins were better realized in their oval-holed models, those without the 2- prefix: styles 15, 20, and 30 (this latter is extremely rare, only 2 documented). #Interestingly, if you see a Martin mandolin appearing in bluegrass-like music, it as often as not will be an oval-hole model (e.g., the Blue Sky Boys). #You also should not overlook the flat models: A, B, C, D (exremely rare, only 7 documented), and E (extremely fancy, ivory bridge and all). #Styles B and above had rosewood backs throughout their manufacture; all but the very earliest style A mandolins were backed in mahogany. #While no Martin mandolin is exactly highly sought after by bluegrass musicians, the flat models are decidedly not bluegrass instruments. #They are excellent folk-music generalists and are quite comfortable in classical music; bright and rich-voiced, but they don't chop!

[sunburst]

The Martin "2" carved mandolins were well made like any Martin, the graduations weren't bad in the tops and backs, but they had two huge spruce timbers glued to the underside of the top. These were supposed to be tonebars I guess, but their contribution to the tone seems to be toward a quieter sound.
If I had to compare it to a Gibson sound, I'd say it's closer to an oval hole Gibson sound than an F hole sound, but a little thinner and not as loud.

I haven't seen or heard a great number of them, probably less than 5, but I re-toped a badly damaged one several years ago, so that's what I base my opinion on.

[keithd]

jlb,

I have a soft spot for Martin instruments as well, and I have a 1942 Martin 2-15 that is in great shape (original bridge, frets, case, tuners replaced with Schallers w/ivoroid buttons, but originals in case); but I'd have to concur with the previous posts. It's a wonderfully made thing, beautiful details, form, and woods, and the neck profile feels great. I'm looking to sell mine, but I have to confess that while sweet sounding, it doesn't put out the sound like the 1919 Gibson A-2 I play now. I play exclusively Irish traditional music too, no Blugrass; but still, the tone and volume of the Gibson feels better to me. If you're in the San Francisco Bay area you're welcome to check it out.

Keith

[racuda]

I owned a 2-15. The three previous posters nailed it: well made but thin sounding and quiet.

[flairbzzt]

I've got a 2-15, and it is beautifully made with awesome curly maple detail. As stated, the tone is higher and thinner than most f-styles and the "Gibson" tone. It does however sound sweet and clear playing classical Italian and other melodic tunes. I am glad to have it in my stable. Every style and make has a different application that suits it best. It is made up to Martin classic standards and shows it.