Founded by Steve Stallings. The Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum is an independent Internet forum which is not in any manner related to or affiliated with C. F. Martin & Co., (The Martin Guitar Company) Nazareth, PA. The statements and opinions expressed in the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum are solely those of the individuals posting the same and are not those of C.F. Martin & Co., The Martin Guitar Company, the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum, its administrators, moderators, agents and other voluntary staff, its supporters, financial or otherwise, or its members, guests or other contributors. The Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum does not sponsor or endorse any product or service referred to, submitted or suggested by any member, guest or contributor to the Forum. The Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum and its voluntary staff shall have no responsibility or liability whatsoever to any person or organization with respect to any matter posted by any individual on the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum, for the deletion of any such matter, for the content thereof, or for the banning, suspension or other sanctioning of any user from this Forum, or for the denial of an application to become a member of this Forum. The content and accuracy of any post are solely the responsibility of the member making the post. The Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum shall further not be responsible for references or links to other Internet sites or links contained on other Internet sites to the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum or to the UMGF, or for the contents thereof. This specifically includes the CafePress Store for UMGF Memorabilia, which is not owned, operated or controlled by the UMGF but by Cafepress.com, an independent organization which markets, sells and ships the items contained in the CafePress Store and retains the proceeds therefrom. The sole function of the UMGF with respect thereto is to provide a link for the convenience of its members. By using, browsing or consulting this Forum, you consent to the foregoing terms as well as to the guidelines set forth in the Forum Guidelines and Feedback section and the general terms of use of Yuku. The exclusive venue for proceedings against the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum, its members, trustees, officers or Administrators is the Superior Court, Hunterdon County, New Jersey, and any such proceeding shall be governed by New Jersey law. No damages or monetary awards of any nature, including attorneys fees or punitive damages may be assessed against the UMGF, its members, trustees, officers or Administrators under any circumstances whatsoever.
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 jscio |
Talk about rare |
Lead | |
|
(05/25/09 10:34 AM) |
Here's a link to a Gibson Trojan, an apparent precursor to the AJ. Of the 40 or so made there are only a handful of known examples. Talk about cool.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-1936-Gibson-Trojan-Pre-Jumbo-35-J-35-J-45-NR!_W0QQitemZ140322536974QQcmdZViewItemQQimsxZ20090523?IMSfp=TL090523132006r11232 |
||
 rforman15 |
|||
|
(05/25/09 11:23 AM) |
sounds like cr_p to me. god awful tone. (this is the Martin forum so I am in-bounds saying this). is that ladder braced? I'll add that I owned a 1929 L-4,
paid $2,400 for it, best guitar I ever played. The L-4 and L-7 and L-5 archtops will blow this guitar out of the water. So I don't know where that is any
kind of sixteen thousand dollar tone. a pristine L-5 is half that much. sounds about like a Kalamazoo. slightly better tone after he changes the strings.
Last Edited By: rforman15
05/25/09 11:30 AM.
Edited 4 times.
|
||
|
1860colt |
|||
|
(05/25/09 11:30 AM) |
The guitar looks legit to me. I don't know about the 'only 40 or so' being made, but it sure looks like a Trojan to me.
|
||
|
Fingerstyle2 |
|||
|
(05/25/09 12:14 PM) |
Our friend tpbiii has one: Tom's Gibsons
|
||
|
Dave in Tejas |
|||
|
(05/25/09 12:30 PM) |
I think it's more about Youtube tone than Gibson tone, almost like the guitar was pointing away from the mic.
|
||
|
littlewingsn |
|||
|
(05/25/09 12:33 PM) |
I love archtops , but I would take that box over any archtop! It mat be difficult to tell in his video , and have never heard this guitar( in person) , but I
seriously doubt any archtop could get close to this . This guitar is x braced , there is a photo of it as well as the three unscalloped tone bars . I do agree
that 16 large is to steep for this , especially now , but one never knows
Sean
Last Edited By: littlewingsn
05/25/09 12:38 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
John Thomas |
|||
|
(05/25/09 12:53 PM) |
Those Trojans are about as rare as Gibsons get. Here's a view from the ledgers. The first 2 shipped on Oct. 27, 1936:
.... John
www.johnthomasguitar.com Please visit www.bannergibsons.com to see what Willi and I are doing! |
||
|
rforman15 |
|||
|
(05/25/09 3:59 PM) |
Rarity has nothing to do with tone.
Last Edited By: rforman15
05/25/09 4:09 PM.
Edited 4 times.
|
||
|
jscio |
|||
|
(05/25/09 4:12 PM) |
".........sounds like cr_p to me. god awful tone."
Just goes to show you. The individual who sent me the link is a big time Gibson collector. He has quite a few 30's Gibbys and some from other era's that are phenomenal. He thought that the Trojan had very good sound considering the clip was being played on computer speakers. To each his own. |
||
|
rforman15 |
|||
|
(05/25/09 4:23 PM) |
I've had several vintage Gibson guitars including the '29 L-4, an L-Century of Progress, and L-50. That's not all the Gibsons ever built, but
considering that plus the many other Gibsons I have had the opportunity to play, I'd say I have a pretty good idea and feel for the classic Gibson tone.
Gibson's major contribution to guitar history is the archtop guitar, why people pay more for lesser flattop guitars is beyond me. That particular guitar
sounds strident with uneven timbre. I don't see paying 16-K for it. And that's what gets me excited here. Call it an inflated price on what sounds like
a mediocre guitar. Maybe that's why they didn't make that many? But you are right, to each one's own. Sorry I weighed in. carry on.
Last Edited By: rforman15
05/25/09 4:48 PM.
Edited 3 times.
|
||
|
ArnoldGuitar51 |
|||
|
(05/25/09 4:56 PM) |
I think a new set of strings would help it!
|
||
|
guitarjtb |
|||
|
(05/25/09 5:29 PM) |
John Thomas wrote: Edited, looks like my quetion was covered in the earlier Trojan thread James
Last Edited By: guitarjtb
05/25/09 5:56 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Arnoldgtr |
|||
|
(05/25/09 5:32 PM) |
I've had several vintage Gibson guitars including the '29 L-4, an L-Century of Progress, and L-50. None of those guitars are in any way comparable to a Jumbo, a Trojan, a 1930's J-35, or an AJ. Unless you have played one, I doubt that you will have any idea what they are about. Here's a link to a Gibson Trojan, an apparent precursor to the AJ. Actually, the AJ prototype is from 1935, so it predates the Trojans. The Trojans are transitional, between the mahogany Jumbo and the J-35. Like the mahogany Jumbo and the early J-35, the Trojan has three tone bars. The AJ has two tone bars (with one notable exception), and the bracing overall is more Martin-like. why people pay more for lesser flattop guitars is beyond me. Supply and demand. I can find 20 buyers of flat tops for every archtop buyer. The tuners appear to be period correctHe has sold 50,000 guitars, but doesn't know that Kluson Deluxe tuners did not come out until after WWII. John
Last Edited By: Arnoldgtr
05/25/09 5:45 PM.
Edited 4 times.
|
||
|
Fingerstyle2 |
|||
|
(05/25/09 5:40 PM) |
Here's a link to an earlier thread on the Trojan and the transition between the Jumbo and J-35: Trojan link And here's a website page on the Trojan and J-35 from UMGFer cfhcfh:
cfh on Trojans/J-35's
Call it an inflated price on what sounds like a mediocre guitar. Maybe that's why they didn't make that many?The Trojan was a Depression-era transition model that, apparently with few changes, became the J-35. They're rare because the change to the J-35 model name was made very shortly after the Trojan was introduced. The J-35 then became the best-selling pre-War Gibson flattop. For someone who likes pre-War Gibson jumbos, this would be an interesting guitar (at the right price, which I have no clue about). Gibson's major contribution to guitar history is the archtop guitar, why people pay more for lesser flattop guitars is beyond me.In my experience, most players and collectors view archtops and flattops as apples and oranges. They don't view them on a single continuum. If you do, good for you. If a buyer really likes the sound, look, and feel of pre-War Gibson flattops and doesn't find archtops appealing, why would he or she care that some people think Gibson's archtops were a bigger "contribution to guitar history" than their flattops? David edit: I just saw that John A. covered some of what I did in my post. I'm too lazy to edit.... |
||
|
ronsongz |
|||
|
(05/25/09 5:41 PM) |
"Gibson's major contribution to guitar history is the archtop guitar, why people pay more for lesser flattop guitars is beyond me. "
I do not agree! Ed Bruce's 1939 J-35 is one of the best sounding guitars I have ever played - EVER, and I have played a lot of pre-war guitars. If I could own one like it, I would not care what the headstock said. It is certainly not a "lesser" guitar in anyone's book. There are many, many, great Gibson flattop guitars - that's why people pay big bucks for them. Ron |
||
|
username |
|||
|
(05/25/09 5:51 PM) |
No one mentioned that there are two videos. The first one sounds like it has old strings, the second one like he had put new ones on. Did you guys
(particularly the poster who was criticizing the tone) listen to both?
|
||
|
rforman15 |
|||
|
(05/25/09 5:57 PM) |
Yes, I listened to both. He even says he put new strings on. And if you read my comments above, I note that the new strings marginally improve the tone. Still,
that guitar is a mess, uneven in all registers. It could be the recording, but. I had a Stella with better tone. This notion that flattops and archtops and
small flattops and bigger flattops aren't comparable is kind of correct but overstated, they are all still guitars, and I play the same exact repertory on
flattops and archtops. Having owned a good example of an L-Century, a great guitar by-the-way, and an L-4 (round hole) from the same period (a better guitar),
I can tell you for sure that these guitars both exhibited a similar Gibson tone. There is a warmth, a woodiness, a lot of middle range, and an evenness to the
timbre. They aren't that far apart. But you are correct, neither is a "Jumbo." I don't want to hijack this thread any more than I already
have. And so I am bowing out.
Last Edited By: rforman15
05/25/09 5:59 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
guitarjtb |
|||
|
(05/25/09 6:01 PM) |
rforman15 wrote: I have a 1934 L-50. Do you have any 30's, strident, uneven timbre Gibson flat tops that you would like to trade? 
I agree, the recording sounds awful. But, if it is the guitar, and not the recording or the player, the problem can be corrected. I've not seen any unmodified J-35 guitars that could not be made to sound great. James
Last Edited By: guitarjtb
05/25/09 6:09 PM.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
|
dhcrow |
|||
|
(05/25/09 6:02 PM) |
I don't think the problem is with the guitar! I think it's with the player!
At least with his attitude! crow 
"Martin guitars - just try to buy one!"
Everything you do shapes our future! Be careful out there! Crow |
||
|
steveswan |
Mmm, Mmm, Good! | ||
|
(05/25/09 6:55 PM) |
The one Trojan that I have played is owned locally by a guitar trader friend. I like the response, tone, and neck shape better than any J-35 that I have ever
played. It plays and feels like the missing link between a good Smeck and a J-35.
|
||
|
littlewingsn |
|||
|
(05/25/09 6:56 PM) |
littlewingsn wrote: Ziz , I hope you didnt see this , but you know I didnt really mean it . Please don't ban me from Arcihtopia. All kidding aside I agree with David in that they (archtops , and flatops ) are two different instruments and need to be approached differently . I do love them both , but I am still learning the subtleties of the archtop . Sean |
||
