#1
I was wondering if the $700-800 martins and taylor's which are the cheaper versions are better than the high end seagull and takamine's.
I was looking at these guitars.
http://www.guitarcenter.com/Taylor-214G-Grand-Auditorium-Acoustic-Guitar-423725-i1520281.gc
http://www.guitarcenter.com/Martin-DX1E-Dreadnought-Acoustic-Electric-Guitar-107232704-i1171402.gc
http://www.guitarcenter.com/Seagull-S6-Original-Q1-Acoustic-Electric-Guitar-104818638-i1147557.gc

which would you choose and why?
ESP LTD EC-1000 vintage black
sunburst fender MIM tele
Epiphone LP standard ebony
Mesa/boogie dual rectifier
Mesa/Boogie .50 caliber plus head
Marshall JCM900 Hi-gain MII 2500
Fender Hot rod Deluxe
#2
that Taylor looks amazing
not that that is helpful in anyway, nor should it be taken as my opinion of which one is best for the money
just saying
niiiiiiice
#3
I tried a seagull when I was in London and I didn't really like it. Not the feel and not the sound. I however love my taylor 214ce! It's an awesome guitar. I don't know which guitars you posted there cause it won't open the site. (product not available or something). I'm guessing it is the 114somethingsomething. I played that as well and I like it a lot too but I decided that it's worth to pay 300 more euros for the 214 cause it's that much better and it seems like it'll last a lifetime.
Sadly, I have never played a Martin. I hear only good things but I also heard that low end taylors kick low end Martin's butt. AGAIN talking about low end ones cause with the price rising, it's all about personal preference. But that's what I heard so won't judge on that.
1. You're surfing the internet.
2. You're browsing through the UG forums.
3. You're reading now.
5. You didn't notice that there was no #4.
6. You just checked it.
7. Now you're having a lil smile.

Quote by hawk_kst
You Sir, have the best signature like ever!
#4
I think what you've described are more low end Martins and Taylors when you consider the price spectrum they go up to. Personally, I would not go for any Martin under a 1, 15, or 16 series and no Taylor under the 300 series as a minimum. It's not as if they're bad guitars, but I just don't think they are worth the money at those price points.

As for high end Seagull, Takamine, and Breedloves... Seagulls don't even get past $2000 in price, so I wouldn't consider it that high range. I would probably get a seagull over those lower priced Martins and Taylors. Takamines are also preferred by myself for similar prices.

Breedlove, on the other hand, covers a price spectrum roughly the same as Martin or Taylor, if not higher. I would not go for anything under an Atlas series guitar.
Equipment:
- Art & Lutherie Cedar CW (SOLD! )
- Martin D-16RGT w/ LR Baggs M1 Active Soundhole Pickup
- Seagull 25th Anniversary Flame Maple w/ LR Baggs Micro EQ

Have an acoustic guitar? Don't let your guitar dry out! Click here.
#5
It's not as if they're bad guitars, but I just don't think they are worth the money at those price points.
#6
the seagull original s6, the one you've listed in your post, is not actually a high end seagull - it's more in the middle or below, pricewise. that being said, it's probably the best sounding seagull they make. an excellent solid top guitar that can pass for all solid. a balanced sound with enough lows and a hint of sparkle in the top end. and the wider neck is very comfortable for me to play, but if you like thin necks, the s6 slim is the same guitar with a thinner neck.

i like how the seagull sounds compared to the others, but if i were buying a taylor, i'd go for the 114 over the 214. it costs less and sounds just as good. as far as the martin x series, while it has a lot of bass for a basically entry level guitar, it has less complexity than the seagull and less brightness than the taylor. the HPL is also nearly impossible to repair if cracked and i have heard that the HPL is more vulnerable to dryness than regular laminate.
Quote by Skeet UK
I just looked in my Oxford English Dictionary and under "Acoustic Guitar", there was your Avatar and an email address!
#7
i think this is one of those questions that if you asked 10 guitarists you would get 10 different answers. I've tried them all and for me its the Taylor. I just think the action and feel is better than the other two. The sound is pretty good, not great but i guess you get what you pay for. The Martin might sound a little fuller but i would rather have a guitar that plays real well than a guitar that sounds good but i cant play it.
#8
[quote=" the HPL is also nearly impossible to repair if cracked and i have heard that the HPL is more vulnerable to dryness than regular laminate.[/QUOTE"]


Due to HPL's make up (60% cellulose aka wood fiber and 40% resin, which is commonly known as Formica), it is pretty much invulnerable to moisture. Unlike wood, it won't crack or check during long periods of overly dry air conditions.

Although tough and very scratch and gouge resistant, it is more brittle than wood but it still takes quite a bit of force to damage it.

I monitor the Unofficial Martin Guitar site forums occasionally, if there were any problems with the HPL, it would have definately been brought up there.
I'm the only player to be sponsered by 7 guitar companies not to use their products.
#9
In my opinion, and rating purely by tone, I would say the Martin as my hands down favorite. One of the members of my family owns one and it's tone is very close to the high end Martin dreads. It's not much to look at, but is very solidly constructed.

If the Taylor 214G was a pre 2007 (which had the solid sapele sides and body and a wonderful tone), then it would have been my first choice.
Although the newer revised model is nice looking, it's tone pales in comparison to the old one.

The S6 would be the second choice out of these three, I like it's tone more than the 214 and it seems well built.


It's interesting that the three you listed all have different neck profiles, the Gull has the widest neck, the Taylor and the Martin have the narrower neck but the profile of the Martin is thicker, which I prefer for my medium size hands, and the Taylor's is somewhat thinner, which quite a few people seem to prefer.

The playability is very good on all these guitars.
I'm the only player to be sponsered by 7 guitar companies not to use their products.
#10
Quote by patticake
the seagull original s6, the one you've listed in your post, is not actually a high end seagull - it's more in the middle or below, pricewise. that being said, it's probably the best sounding seagull they make. an excellent solid top guitar that can pass for all solid. a balanced sound with enough lows and a hint of sparkle in the top end. and the wider neck is very comfortable for me to play, but if you like thin necks, the s6 slim is the same guitar with a thinner neck.

So you don't think the Seagull Artist series guitars are any better than the S6 Original?
#11
to tell you the truth, although i've shopped at many guitar stores, i have never seen a seagull artist guitar, although i've seen all the others. while the artist series is well spoken of, it isn't in this poster's budget. while the SWS all solid guitars don't blow me away, the artist series are the premium seagulls, so who knows?

Quote by another_dave
So you don't think the Seagull Artist series guitars are any better than the S6 Original?
Quote by Skeet UK
I just looked in my Oxford English Dictionary and under "Acoustic Guitar", there was your Avatar and an email address!
#12
Quote by BlackbirdPie
Due to HPL's make up (60% cellulose aka wood fiber and 40% resin, which is commonly known as Formica), it is pretty much invulnerable to moisture. Unlike wood, it won't crack or check during long periods of overly dry air conditions.

Although tough and very scratch and gouge resistant, it is more brittle than wood but it still takes quite a bit of force to damage it.

I monitor the Unofficial Martin Guitar site forums occasionally, if there were any problems with the HPL, it would have definately been brought up there.


As a counter top material, Formica has a lot going for it. As to the brittle issue, you can still take a sheet of it and curl it into a tube. The radius of which, methinks, would approximate the bouts of a guitar.

I resent the Martin "X" series on principle. I grew up when there were trees, and natural wood has no equal as a aesthetically pleasing building material.

Most of the sound character of a guitar comes from the soundboard, and Ovation lead the way in producing guitars that only had wood as the soundboard. They've been very well received over the years. (I say "nay" to them, but that's a story for another thread).

So, if you take the Martin "X" series for what it is, it's really a Martin with a large part of borrowed Ovation's bullshit sales pitch behind it. Ovation was slapping plastic necks on guitars decades ago, and telling you what a great idea that was.

CyA glues will fix almost anything, virtually forever. So I'm not sure if a question about repair-ability is even warranted. If you punch a hole in the side of a fine wooden guitar, it will be difficult to fix, and most likely not sound the same. Well that, and if you break your guitar that badly, you might as well pitch it in the trash. Perhaps the financial and emotional loss will force you to be more careful in the future.

Gibson recently had a lot of wood confiscated from their Nashville factory. Indian Rosewood was one of them. So, Gibson started to use Obeche (?) as the fingerboards of many of its new guitars. The new wood, of course, became the "best choice for fingerboards ever".

With that said, any manufacturer is going to tell you that the materials they're using are the best for the job. They're not not to tell you they're using those materials because they couldn't get the right ones.

The consumers, in their place, are unwilling, or unable to pay the rapidly escalating cost of prime natural materials. Rich people are the only ones that can afford "Apple" stock, so things are tough all over.

So, while I deeply resent being lied to by the manufacturers, they need to do a bit of lying to make us feel better about ourselves, both from the artistic, and the sense of financial well being standpoints.

What is still at question for me, is why Martin's budget line, being mostly synthetic materials still comes in at a higher price than many all wood, (laminate or otherwise), guitars.

So the only question remaining to be solved, (for me at least), is how much of the purchase price goes toward sticking the "Martin" name on them.

So, make guitars out of whatever you want, but be sure to blow some sunshine up my butt about what a great idea you've got there...
Last edited by Captaincranky at Mar 19, 2012,
#13
Quote by Captaincranky
As a counter top material, Formica has a lot going for it. As to the brittle issue, you can still take a sheet of it and curl it into a tube. The radius of which, methinks, would approximate the bouts of a guitar.

I resent the Martin "X" series on principle. I grew up when there were trees, and natural wood has no equal as a aesthetically pleasing building material.

Most of the sound character of a guitar comes from the soundboard, and Ovation lead the way in producing guitars that only had wood as the soundboard. They've been very well received over the years. (I say "nay" to them, but that's a story for another thread).

So, if you take the Martin "X" series for what it is, it's really a Martin with a large part of borrowed Ovation's bullshit sales pitch behind it. Ovation was slapping plastic necks on guitars decades ago, and telling you what a great idea that was.

CyA glues will fix almost anything, virtually forever. So I'm not sure if a question about repair-ability is even warranted. If you punch a hole in the side of a fine wooden guitar, it will be difficult to fix, and most likely not sound the same. Well that, and if you break your guitar that badly, you might as well pitch it in the trash. Perhaps the financial and emotional loss will force you to be more careful in the future.

Gibson recently had a lot of wood confiscated from their Nashville factory. Indian Rosewood was one of them. So, Gibson started to use Obeche (?) as the fingerboards of many of its new guitars. The new wood, of course, became the "best choice for fingerboards ever".

With that said, any manufacturer is going to tell you that the materials they're using are the best for the job. They're not not to tell you they're using those materials because they couldn't get the right ones.

The consumers, in their place, are unwilling, or unable to pay the rapidly escalating cost of prime natural materials. Rich people are the only ones that can afford "Apple" stock, so things are tough all over.

So, while I deeply resent being lied to by the manufacturers, they need to do a bit of lying to make us feel better about ourselves, both from the artistic, and the sense of financial well being standpoints.

What is still at question for me, is why Martin's budget line, being mostly synthetic materials still comes in at a higher price than many all wood, (laminate or otherwise), guitars.

So the only question remaining to be solved, (for me at least), is how much of the purchase price goes toward sticking the "Martin" name on them.

So, make guitars out of whatever you want, but be sure to blow some sunshine up my butt about what a great idea you've got there...



Disclaimer - Due to being very inept at most kinds of computer applications, I am unable to segregate the quotes into neat little boxes. I apologise for any inconvenience.


Capt'n, you... you... wood purist! ;0 I'm shocked.

Although I have never worked directly in advertising or sales, I have for much of my career dealt with advertising media and marketing agencies, where hyperbole is king. Due to that and the fact that mother and father Blackbirdpie raised me to have a little bit of healthy skepticism, and like you, I like to separate facts from BS. I view advertising claims from any manufacturer or retailer (or claims any public figure for that matter) with cynicism.

When it comes to guitars, I have always been a solid wood proponent, so I was some what dismayed and doubtful when Martin first introducted HPL. I understand the importance of market share and the need to stay competitive, but quite possibly the long term cost to them might be expensive, damaging image and customer perception.


Going by retail pricing, despite the rise in labor and distribution costs, their high ends have stayed the same or have dropped, no surprise to anyone. Going on unsubstantiated rumor, their HPL lines are going gangbusters, and I suspect they have a pretty good profit margin on them, somewhat different than the car industry bussiness model.


Personally I haven't heard any other guitar at that price sound as close to their high ends and for those who have a very limited budget it's a great alternative.

For good or bad, I have a feeling that they're here to stay.
I'm the only player to be sponsered by 7 guitar companies not to use their products.
#14
As a Canadian with a tomlee supercenter nearby that carries a TOONN of seagulls, I'll fill patticake's void with my input i guess.

First off, the SWS is a great guitar, but as mentioned by patticake, didn't blow me away. Just kind of made me nod and say "meh. not bad" as i put it down haha. The S6 did though. It made me go (partially because of the price tag). Artist series is also a great guitar, but didn't blow me away at the price (around 1400-1600). Didn't even nod or make a face. Just put it back and thought "it was all good til the price tag...."

I'd personally look for a used LARRIVEE L-03 or D-03.... Love those guitars at full price (1200-1400), love them more at used price (6-800). A higher end ALVAREZ is nice too i've heard. BREEDLOVE, TAKAMINE, GUILD will also be worth a visit. I personally wouldnt look at the martin and taylors in this price... as mentioned, good guitars, but definitely can find better in the price range.
#15
Quote by another_dave
So you don't think the Seagull Artist series guitars are any better than the S6 Original?



Quote by patticake
to tell you the truth, although i've shopped at many guitar stores, i have never seen a seagull artist guitar, although i've seen all the others. while the artist series is well spoken of, it isn't in this poster's budget. while the SWS all solid guitars don't blow me away, the artist series are the premium seagulls, so who knows?


I found the SWS to be wowzer lacking too unlike the S6's quality and its price. Artist series was definitely better than the S6, but also priced too high for me to consider. As for the S6 vs the two, they both have their appeals... sound wise, yeah, the sws does sound better, but not by much imo. I think i'd still grab the S6 and save the 400 bucks over the SWS if i was to make the choice. In terms of the Artist series, definitely much better sound wise, but also 4-5x the price.... not worth it imo. Would much rather bounce on a Larrive L-03. :]
#16
Ironically, I live in Canada and go to many, many guitar stores, but I have yet to even SEE an Artist Series Seagull.

I have tried the SWS though. The regular dreadnought shape I wasn't too much a fan of, but I did enjoy the Jumbo/mini jumbo size quite a bit.
Equipment:
- Art & Lutherie Cedar CW (SOLD! )
- Martin D-16RGT w/ LR Baggs M1 Active Soundhole Pickup
- Seagull 25th Anniversary Flame Maple w/ LR Baggs Micro EQ

Have an acoustic guitar? Don't let your guitar dry out! Click here.
#17
soundwise i did NOT find the SWS guitars sound as good as the s6, except maybe the mini jumbo. the rest didn't do it for me, but everyone's got their own taste.

agree about the larrivee, and also would consider guild, blueridge, eastman around that price.

Quote by dkang57
I found the SWS to be wowzer lacking too unlike the S6's quality and its price. Artist series was definitely better than the S6, but also priced too high for me to consider. As for the S6 vs the two, they both have their appeals... sound wise, yeah, the sws does sound better, but not by much imo. I think i'd still grab the S6 and save the 400 bucks over the SWS if i was to make the choice. In terms of the Artist series, definitely much better sound wise, but also 4-5x the price.... not worth it imo. Would much rather bounce on a Larrive L-03. :]
Quote by Skeet UK
I just looked in my Oxford English Dictionary and under "Acoustic Guitar", there was your Avatar and an email address!
#18
I found a $800 martin that i actually like the sound of, they have three of the same models in the store and this on seems to sounds different, I cant seem to get that full and fragile sound that a martin has from the taylor and the seagull.
ESP LTD EC-1000 vintage black
sunburst fender MIM tele
Epiphone LP standard ebony
Mesa/boogie dual rectifier
Mesa/Boogie .50 caliber plus head
Marshall JCM900 Hi-gain MII 2500
Fender Hot rod Deluxe
#19
Why would you buy a Martin X guitar when you could get an all solid wood Larrivee (or other great guitar) for the same price?

When I was guitar shopping last year, this one left me scratching my head. The Martins were fine, but not for the prestige price they were asking.
#20
Quote by Steve BP
Why would you buy a Martin X guitar when you could get an all solid wood Larrivee (or other great guitar) for the same price?

When I was guitar shopping last year, this one left me scratching my head. The Martins were fine, but not for the prestige price they were asking.


Where on earth would you find a Larrivee for the price of a Martin X series? The cheapest Larrivee is like... over $1,000 CAD for sure. X series is usually under $700.
Equipment:
- Art & Lutherie Cedar CW (SOLD! )
- Martin D-16RGT w/ LR Baggs M1 Active Soundhole Pickup
- Seagull 25th Anniversary Flame Maple w/ LR Baggs Micro EQ

Have an acoustic guitar? Don't let your guitar dry out! Click here.
#21
^ because clearly I made a mistake and confused the Martin with another model!
#22
I think most of us would like to own a Martin, but I agree with Captain Cranky and others on the HPL and other conglomerated believe us this is cheap but good because it is a Martin builds. I'll wait untill I can go for a D-28 of higher.
I played a D 16 and it was fine, but bought the Taylor DN3 and became a convert to that company. Those folks really take pride in their build.
For a third of the price, the Seagull S6 would be a good choice. Those Godin folks care as well.
I havew a pawn shop rescue circa 1989 S6. It been played very hard at one time or another, with gouges at sound hole and oddly (to me) on the soundboard close to the neck.
I did some of the usual things folks often do (new saddle, pins, etc.) Left the bone nut on it. If tis guitar is any indication, then I would think that the S6 ages well. Beautiful tone that rivals my new Taylor.
I suppose I would suggest considering the S6 until you can afford paying a little more for a mid range Taylor or Martin if that what you want.
GAS is a frightful occurance but can be rationalized by thinking that it is less detrimental that gambling, drugs and women. That's the argument I often try on my wife.

Lots of good instruments out there in almost every price range
#23
Quote by Bigdogjer
I think most of us would like to own a Martin, but I agree with Captain Cranky and others on the HPL and other conglomerated believe us this is cheap but good because it is a Martin builds. I'll wait untill I can go for a D-28 of higher.
I played a D 16 and it was fine, but bought the Taylor DN3 and became a convert to that company. Those folks really take pride in their build.
For a third of the price, the Seagull S6 would be a good choice. Those Godin folks care as well.
I havew a pawn shop rescue circa 1989 S6. It been played very hard at one time or another, with gouges at sound hole and oddly (to me) on the soundboard close to the neck.
I did some of the usual things folks often do (new saddle, pins, etc.) Left the bone nut on it. If tis guitar is any indication, then I would think that the S6 ages well. Beautiful tone that rivals my new Taylor.
I suppose I would suggest considering the S6 until you can afford paying a little more for a mid range Taylor or Martin if that what you want.
GAS is a frightful occurance but can be rationalized by thinking that it is less detrimental that gambling, drugs and women. That's the argument I often try on my wife.

Lots of good instruments out there in almost every price range

Please forgive the Typos.
#24
Quote by Bigdogjer
Please forgive the Typos.
The typos, always.......The double post, NEVER......

(Jus' kiddin')....