Martin Mandolins Style A 1950's

[Girouardfan]

Has anyone played one of these whats your personal opinion on them how do they compare to a gibson oval hole around the same time period or oval hole mandolins in general ? Also why is the dot inlays different on the 7th fret of a martin mandolin there is 2 dots mandolins today don't have 2 dots until the 12th fret? Can any explain that? Thanks.

[JeffD]

I have played a few of them and I have found them to have a very nice sweet tone. I really like the sound. They can have a kind of plaintive beautiful tone, great for music emphasizing beauty over muscularity. Unfortunately I have played several that were not in great shape, for what ever reason. But when they are in good shape they are a great choice of mandolin.

My experience is that they do not have a bluegrass sound because they are flat tops, or really cant tops, and not arch tops like the Gibson's. But that is likely the only kind of music you might think twice about.

I don't know the origin of that fret marking. The seventh fret is arguably one of the most important to mark, as it is the departure to the next string up, so in a way it makes perhaps more sense to double dot it.

Where the Martins are marked higher, I have seen the octave fret double dots as well.

I am very much a dot player, and know where I am by the dots. What is most important to me is that the tenth fret is marked, as it usually is in all mandolins and fretted instruments tuned in fifths, and not the ninth fret as in guitars. The Martins marked the tenth fret, so I am happy. I would have liked dots higher up, the octave, fifteen, and seventeen, but if I have my tenth fret marker I am happy.

Check here for more information. http://www.mandolincafe.com/forum/sh...rtin-mandolins

[UsuallyPickin]

Well ... there really is no comparison in tone. They are completely different. The Gibson is louder with a more pronounced ring to it's tone. The Martin is much lighter with a sweeter sounding instrument. The flat top of the martin carries a lighter gauge string generally which accounts for part of that difference . Insofar as the location of the double spot I have no clue. R/

[allenhopkins]

Well, to start with, you won't find "a Gibson oval hole around the same time period" if your period is the 1950's, 'cause Gibson wasn't making many oval hole instruments around that time.

Gibson oval-hole mandolins had carved tops; Martins had canted tops of uniform thickness, similar to those found on bowl-backs. I've often thought that the tone of the canted-top, flat-back Martin instruments is sorta half-way between a bowl-back and a carved-top oval-hole mandolin, if that makes any sense. It's clear, sweet, with lots of sustain, but perhaps a bit "thin," not as rich-sounding as a carved-top often sounds.

Martin mandolins are almost always impeccably built, and Martin's use of mahogany for back and sides does make a subtle difference from the maple of which Gibsons were generally made. You can't get Martin Style A's to "bark," but for many styles of music they work extremely well, and the ones I've played have always been easy on the fingers and the ears.

The other opinion I've developed, is that Martin mandolin quality stayed very steady throughout the period that Martin built mandolins. My Style A dates from 1919, but I've played Style A's from 40 years later and noticed no real variation in tone. We identify "golden ages" and "down" periods in Gibson mandolins and banjos, Martin dreadnaught guitars, etc., but I don't find that a factor with Martin mandolins.

Of course, I've probably only played a dozen of them, so just my 2¢...

[jim simpson]

Here's a 1950 Martin carved top (or pressed?) mandolin with f-holes.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/3311071...lpid=82&chn=ps

[Girouardfan]

This really helped making my decision thanks for all the information guys.

[allenhopkins]

Here's a 1950 Martin carved top (or pressed?) mandolin with f-holes...

Martin made several models of carved-top mandolin, the Style 15 and Style 20 with oval soundholes, the Styles 2-15, 2-20, and 2-30 with f-holes. The oval-hole models were made 1929-42, the f-hole models 1936-42 except for the 2-15, which hung around until 1965 or so.

Martin carved-tops, while nicely made, never really caught on. The Style 20, Style 2-20, and Style 2-30 were two-points, quite attractive. Per Mike Longworth's book, Martin made 385 of the oval-hole models, 2300 of the Style 2-15, and 170 of Style 2-20 and Style 2-30 combined. So if you run across a Martin carved-top (think I've played one in 40 years), it's probably a Style 2-15.

[brunello97]

Martin made several models of carved-top mandolin, the Style 15 and Style 20 with oval soundholes, the Styles 2-15, 2-20, and 2-30 with f-holes. The oval-hole models were made 1929-42, the f-hole models 1936-42 except for the 2-15, which hung around until 1965 or so.

Martin carved-tops, while nicely made, never really caught on. The Style 20, Style 2-20, and Style 2-30 were two-points, quite attractive. Per Mike Longworth's book, Martin made 385 of the oval-hole models, 2300 of the Style 2-15, and 170 of Style 2-20 and Style 2-30 combined. So if you run across a Martin carved-top (think I've played one in 40 years), it's probably a Style 2-15.

I've played any number of Martin carved tops and count me among those who are underwhelmed. And this is from a big fan of the Martin A mandolin. I used to own a Martin / Ditson B but kept my '51 A over it. It is nothing but a delight.

I've never been more than lukewarm about the carved tops, though. Played a '53 2-15 on Monday up at Elderly and it didn't change my mind. Kind of thin sound, low volume. The looks never really appeared to me, either, though the craft, as Allen says, is pretty impeccable. I kind of do like the 2-point 2-30s. Their sound just doesn't appeal to me.

I'm all ears for some proper testimonials, though, from someone who loves them.

Mick