Dave's Use Of A Taylor...Disconcerting

hd28v · Unread post by **hd28v** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 12:13 am

What a hot thread! I could not help to reply and post my thoughts. And they are as follows: I play for the present. Martin guitars do just this. They are a sweet axe! And 5 years down the road, 30 years down the road, they will be even sweeter sounding and MAINTAIN their finicial vaule. Right when you walk out the store with a Taylor they drop in value! I see myself as a guitar collector some day and I will more than likely own a Taylor but will always be True to Martin for there is something special about them. I also cannot point point the exact reason why they are special, they just are! And I would bet money that Dave feels the same way. For Christ sake, he has a Martin named after him!

cave_cricket · Unread post by **cave_cricket** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 12:22 am

hd28v wrote:What a hot thread! I could not help to reply and post my thoughts. And they are as follows: I play for the present. Martin guitars do just this. They are a sweet axe! And 5 years down the road, 30 years down the road, they will be even sweeter sounding and MAINTAIN their finicial vaule. Right when you walk out the store with a Taylor they drop in value! I see myself as a guitar collector some day and I will more than likely own a Taylor but will always be True to Martin for there is something special about them. I also cannot point point the exact reason why they are special, they just are! And I would bet money that Dave feels the same way. For Christ sake, he has a Martin named after him!

Actually, Taylors do not depreciate too much in value. They would depreciate in the same manner that a Martin would.

Also, about you "future" predictions. I believe (I'll admit I'm not 100% on this) that Martin have not really changed the way they make their guitars. Taylor has designed a new neck design that is way better than the way that guitars were being made previously (by Taylor and Martin).

Again, I do not know EVERYRTHING but Taylor seems to have made more advances in guitars.

Peace,

just42night · Unread post by **just42night** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 12:44 am

I had to reply to this one cause I own both guitars Dave plays.
I hope Dave plays both depending on the song just as I switch depending on the song. Some songs such as The Stone, LLD, WH, Halloween they sound better with Dm3md Martin, But stuff like WTWE, Crash, Captin they need a big bright sound that the 914c brings to the table that Martin can not. But I do think he will play the Martin more just cuz Tim will and they sound sweet together. I cant see Tim ever playing a Taylor. I would shit if he did.

And as far as the Taylor being girlish well come on now, it is a beautiful guitar, I have my Martin and Taylor next to each other on stands and when people come over I get ton of complments on the Taylor, you just cant take your eyes off it.

Nobody can argue both TAYLOR and MARTIN are the best two companys out there.

ticohans · Unread post by **ticohans** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 1:18 am

I agree to some extent that the reason Dave uses Taylors with the band and Martins alone is that the brighter Taylor sound cuts through the band better than the Martin's rumbly bass. It also makes sense that the preference will change with each song: the louder ones go with the Martin, as that is what they are designed for. The Taylors are much more responsive, thus the softer ones, in need of more clarity are more suited to Bob's fine axes. I disagree completely with the person who talked about Martins appreciating while Taylors dropping in value. Any fine instrument will appreciate over time as long as it is properly cared for. If you're buying one guitar over another because it appreciates better, go to the stockmarket. Guitars are meant to be played, not encased in glass tombs so that they can keep their value up. Finally, I think that the cedar is a great wood for Taylor, as the sound is still clear with great mids and very articulate highs, but there is a richer, rounder, and fuller bass response with the cedar top. The best Martin I have ever played is the OM-28v or the 000-28EC.

gatorz95 · Unread post by **gatorz95** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 1:40 am

I got a Taylor 914C and a Gibson Chet Akins SST. I love both. Dave turned me on the Chet. Which I found very comfortable to play. I bought the Taylor soon after based on the same feel. I never experienced the same comfort with Martins. Plus I prefer the tone of the Taylor.

Unread post by **jpittman** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 2:31 am

ticohans wrote:If you're buying one guitar over another because it appreciates better, go to the stockmarket. Guitars are meant to be played, not encased in glass tombs so that they can keep their value up.

Word.

just42night · Unread post by **just42night** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 3:31 am

gatorz95 wrote:I got a Taylor 914C and a Gibson Chet Akins SST. I love both. Dave turned me on the Chet. Which I found very comfortable to play. I bought the Taylor soon after based on the same feel. I never experienced the same comfort with Martins. Plus I prefer the tone of the Taylor.

I know what you mean about the comfort thing you or anybody can pickup a Taylor and start to jam. It took me about 2-3weeks to fing that comfort spot with the dm3md, but I did find it. Although everytime I switch back to the Taylor its like aaaaaaaaahhhhhhh. Thats why I have a Taylor. So easy to play.

By the way where and how much did you pick up that SSt for? I notcethat go from $300-$2500 on ebay. Why, whats the diff?

hd28v · Unread post by **hd28v** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 10:46 am

If you're buying one guitar over another because it appreciates better

First off, accusing me of this is hitting below the belt. I would never buy a guitar and keep it in the closet for 50 years waiting to resell it for more money. However, I do have satisfaction knowing that I will pass on my Martin as an airlume and that it will maintain monetary and more inportant sentimental value. There is just something about a company that has been around since 1833 unlike Taylor. But with that being said, Taylor is a fine guitar with the company being relatively young. It all a personal taste.

gravedigger · Unread post by **gravedigger** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 11:06 am

hd28v wrote:
First off, accusing me of this is hitting below the belt. I would never buy a guitar and keep it in the closet for 50 years waiting to resell it for more money. However, I do have satisfaction knowing that I will pass on my Martin as an airlume and that it will maintain monetary and more inportant sentimental value. There is just something about a company that has been around since 1833 unlike Taylor. But with that being said, Taylor is a fine guitar with the company being relatively young. It all a personal taste.

I feel the same.

ticohans · Unread post by **ticohans** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 11:10 am

I didn't mean it to be an insult, but if you go back and read that post of yours on the Martin vs Taylor, the issue that seems to jump out at me is the whole money thing. In fact the "MAINTAIN" seems to be the highlight of your whole post. I was just posting in response to what I felt was the main point of your previous post. Sorry if I offended or misinterpreted.

hd28v · Unread post by **hd28v** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 12:03 pm

I was not offended and have no hard feelings what so ever. I just wish I could find some solid proof about Martins maintaining value whereas Taylor decline more rapidly. I should not have brought it up without some evidence. I heard this through an employee a a guitar store by me. The store sells vintage Martins and does not buy sell or trade Taylors b/c technically there is no vintage Taylor. Its a very specialized store. In fact-- http://www.fotmc.com ---Anyway I will not bring this topic up again b/c I am beating a dead horse so to speak. I must admit though that I have a Taylor Catolog sitting beside me also but play a Martin.

Pickles · Unread post by **Pickles** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 12:24 pm

dave could make a squier acoustic sound better than i could make a taylor sound... thats just my theory

johntherevelator · Unread post by **johntherevelator** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 12:30 pm

shane wrote:dave could make a squier acoustic sound better than i could make a taylor sound... thats just my theory

lol
and how

cave_cricket · Unread post by **cave_cricket** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 3:45 pm

I think it is safe to assume that Martin has the respect because they have made great guitars for years.

Taylor also makes great guitars, maybe better, maybe not...depends on personal preferences.

Maybe when Taylor is old enough to have vintage guitars people will be saying other things because they will have stood the test of time that Martin guitars have.

Then this debate will be between Taylor (now older and vintage) and some new company that also makes a great guitar.

My .02...but can some one agree with me?

Peace,

PilotC150 · Unread post by **PilotC150** » Fri Jan 24, 2003 4:13 pm

Don't forget about the electronics that Taylor just re-invented. Can't wait till they start putting them on the guitars.

And about the "taylor's are girly," go back and read the post, people. His first line was "ok, i'm gonna ride the wave here" or something like that. He was playing along and joking with it. Am i the only one that caught on to that?

my opinion, I haven't played either kind of guitar for enough time to make a decision. Based on looks though, I like how taylors looks more than martins. but when ti comes to spending $1000-$2000 on a guitar, I'm gonna go by playing, not looks.

DMBTabs.com

Dave's Use Of A Taylor...Disconcerting

Who is online