Two small guitars: Martin 1950 00-17 and 1946 000-18

First time you've seen the 17. The 18 is the one I put the neck on in the previous video.
(00:00) Martin 00-17
(06:50) 1946 Martin 000-18
(20:00) Why I moved here for videos
(21:35) A REAL vintage pickguard
----------------------------
Playlists:
Guitar Comparisons- • Guitar Comparisons
Evaluating Guitars- • Evaluating Guitars
Guitar Repair Technique- • Guitar Repair
1970's Martins- • 1970's Martins
Shop Tools and Layout- • Shop Tools and Layout
Questions and Answers- • Questions and Answers
Just Playing- • Just Playing
Instructional- • Instructional
Mandolins- • Mandolins

[@michaelmullen8373]

Great guitars! Love the 46. Wow! Also love the new lighting. Feels like your old videos where your lighting was outstanding.

[@CharlieBryant]

I have a 00-18 born the same year as me. I just got it back from my local Kimsey after some minor surgery. It’s my current favorite guitar. I’m fickle, but still.

[@ericecklund676]

A 000-18 in Drop D is always a fun guitar to play around with. I like that room that you were playing in, it has good lighting.

[@Bryankimsey]

Thanks! I think I'll stay in there for a bit.

[@RedLittleBee]

Small guitars I like!! 😻 Thank you Sir! ❤ Next time 0-18 vs 00-18 please 😉

[@Bryankimsey]

Well.... I need a couple of them. :)

[@gam1471]

Thanks for this posting - enjoyable, informative and fascinating as they always are. I have a question I'd like to ask you, prompted by the bridge on the 00-17. I remember on one of your posts you talked about the torque effect on Martin bridges of different designs. I recently bought a secondhand 2017 Gibson J35, and the punch and volume are truly amazing, along with a distinctive lovely tone. It's much better than any modern Martin D-18 I've heard or played, and it's very much a bluegrass guitar (I've been a flatpicker for about 55 years). To my ears, it's very different to a J-45. From what I've seen on the internet, the top bracing's different to a J-45 (the angle of the 'X' is wider) - and the bridge is obviously different. The J-35 is also very light. I'd be very interested to have your thoughts on this. Do you think that the bridge is a key player in the sound of this J-35?

[@Bryankimsey]

I don't do Gibsons very much but my gut reaction is that the spread of the X is a critical thing here. That's going to give you the bass tone and response. The straight bridge is going to give you "snap" and "punch". Both of my Proulx OM/D's are straight bridges and Mario and I experimented with belly vs straight on the same guitar. Belly is smoother, more sustain. Straight is snappy and punchy. Running a wider X in combination with a straight bridge is similar to what I do with D-35's where they are already inherently bassy because of the thinner bracing so everything I do is geared toward more treble, giving you BOTH bass and treble.

[@gam1471]

@@Bryankimsey Thanks for your detailed comments, Bryan. I'm pleased that what my ears have told me is in line with your experience as a luthier and your experiments with bridge design. I live in the UK, and over here a few years ago Martin distributors Westside had some custom shop Martins made. One of these was a D-28 with scalloped 4/16" braces - it sounded just like a D-35 in the bass, but the top strings lacked power - exactly as you've described. All of this has opened my ears regarding straight bridges - before, I didn't pay any attention to them. Dreadnoughts had belly bridges; period. Now I've learnt something new - thanks again!

[@gam1471]

@@Bryankimsey Further to my previous message Bryan, here's the internet comparison of J-35 and J-45 top bracing I was thinking of earlier - go to 2:51 kzbin.info/www/bejne/bpaznoVojLKIg80

[@Bryankimsey]

Yeah, the J35 is quite a bit more open... look at the size of the bridgeplate. Prewar Martin D's look like that, too. And 50's D's have a TINY bridgeplate because the X is sooooo far back.

[@gam1471]

@@Bryankimsey Thanks Bryan - your comparison of the J-35 with pre and post WWII Martins ties it all together nicely. Let's hope that Gibson doesn't change the way the J-35s are built. If mine is anything to go by, they're superb guitars.

[@billchristoph4792]

I may have missed it, but what year is the 00-17? Thanks!

[@Bryankimsey]

I didn't say but it's a 1950.

[@UAL320]

Had Martin already gone back to steel t-bars by 1946?

[@Bryankimsey]

This one is SN 94427 and has a steel T bar. I saw it when I had the neck off (and have a photo) and a magnet sticks to it. -------------- 1946 Jan 1 - May 3 # 93624-95295 -- not noted - presumed S except: #95144-68 (E) vintagemartin.com/necks.html

[@UAL320]

I have #94467….I tried the magnet trick with a negative result but it was admittedly a pretty wimpy magnet. I’d be happy to send it in for examination 😄

[@UAL320]

I got a better magnet and it’s official…..these two guitars 20 serial numbers apart both have ferrous material in the necks 👍🏻

[@luchorios5663]

The 1946 sounds noticeably better , to my ears anyways...

[@Bryankimsey]

There's a reason spruce tops are more popular. The mahogany top is fun, though.