Hi Tony, welcome to the OLF!
Can't help you much with the differences between those 2 models, i've only built 2 DREADS so far! I'm sure the other folks will be here shortly though, stay tuned!
Have fun!
Serge
| Official Luthiers Forum! http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| OM vs 000 http://w-ww.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10102&t=8057 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | tony [ Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hi y’all – This has been a favorite place of my to lurk for quiet sometime now. But thought it was time to register / de-cloak / and introduce myself. I’m Tony. Been living in Alaska for just over 6 years now. Started played guitar a long time ago (yes – long time ago). Play in a Bluegrass group and I also play solo a few times a month. Built a banjo from a kit 30 years ago (and just recently bought it back- yeah). Why de-cloak? Well, I came here in the4 first place because I started building a Martin kit a few years ago (D-18) and recognized that I was flying in the dark. So, I stopped – started reading and searching for more information, found this place. Now I’m trying to get myself to move off “stopped” and do something to get me back on track. Dilemma. I’m thinking very seriously about “taking it apart” and starting over. The box looks ok – but it isn’t squared up. And there are several other things I wish I had done differently – now that I “know better”. I’m convinced that I will not be satisfied with this guitar if I finish it knowing what I do. Not only that, but I’m thinking I would rather build an OM or 000 size. Or maybe something even smaller. Which leads me to my question. Help me understand the differences between the OM and 000 (traditionally speaking). What issues would need to be considered when choosing one or the other. Any recommendations? Thanks for such a great wealth of information and assistance you guys are so willing to share. Tony |
|
| Author: | Serge Poirier [ Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hi Tony, welcome to the OLF!
Can't help you much with the differences between those 2 models, i've only built 2 DREADS so far! I'm sure the other folks will be here shortly though, stay tuned! Have fun! Serge |
|
| Author: | Andy Zimmerman [ Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Welcome the the OLF A quote from Frank Ford The original Martin 000 was a 12-fret model, with long scale. In 1929, at the suggestion of Perry Bechtel, a plectrum banjo player, Martin produced their first 14 fret models, which they dubbed "orchestra model." So, at first, "OM" meant simply that the guitar was a 14-fret. As the 14 fret design became more obviously the way to go, Martin started producing dreadnoughts that way, too. That was in 1934, and the 14-fret OOO size guitars were returned to the "000" designation after having been labeled OM for four years. The first of these also had long scale, and alll the 14 fret models were 1-3/4" at the nut in those days, too. Very soon the 000 scale was dropped to 24.9, and the standard lineup was 14-fret models for most sizes and styles. So, for years we all called the long scale 14-fret 000 guitars "OM" because so few were actually labeled "000." Once Martin started flooding us with reissues and special models in the last decade or two, everything got scrambled. Today, it's clear that Martin regards the neck width of 1-3/4 as the mark of the OM rather than the scale length. |
|
| Author: | John How [ Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Used to be that OM's were 14 fretters and 000's were 12 fretters but now Martin calls them both 000's or OM's. But that is what it means too me. My OM is a 14 fret guitar and my 000 is a 12 fret guitar. The two are slightly different shapes as Martin took the 000 design and squished the upper bout towards the butt in order to fit the 14 fret neck on. I think they also made the lower bout slightly larger in length too compensate for the first change. Both of these body shapes are available as plans either from stew mac or lmii or maybe someone around here has a copy they would be willing to share. Nice ta have ya here Tony |
|
| Author: | Wayne Clark [ Fri Aug 18, 2006 7:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hi Tony! I found this a while back. It has some good information in it, essentially what has been posetd so far. OM style guitar |
|
| Author: | Colin S [ Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
This has been discussed many times and never come to agreement! I know Martin have fudged the definition a bit but to me an OM is a 14 fretter and a 000 is a 12 fretter. I've found in this world that I almost always agree with John How! Colin |
|
| Author: | Mike Mahar [ Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
From an historical perspective the distinction between a 14 fret 000 and an OM is pretty muttled. However, today Martin is quite consistant in that all OMs are 14 fret and 1-3/4" wide at the nut and 25.4" scale length. Change any one of those dimensions and Martin will call it a 000. You can tell a modern OM from a modern 000 from across the room. The OM has a much smaller pick guard. At least I've never seen a 000 with the smaller pick guard. |
|
| Author: | tony [ Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
...and yet most of the 00's an 0's I've seen are 14 fretters - except when the model number includes the "S" suffix. Same with the OM models. Silly me. I did finally think of going to the Martin web site. It would appear that the only difference (for their new production models offered) is scale length. The 000 is 24.9" and the OM is 25.4" Body size is shown as being the same. What about bracing the top? Does anyone know if there is any difference between them? Am I correct in saying that - shorter scale length usually translates into easier playing - and is best suited for the blues and folk style of playing. But usually have less volume or presence, relative to the OM. |
|
| Author: | tony [ Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Very good read Wayne. Thank you. Interesting history. I guess you really can't go by today's production to really claim that an OM or 000 is this or suppose to be that. I guess I need to be specific about the scale length and not be concerned so much about what it is called. Learning... |
|
| Author: | CarltonM [ Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=tony] It would appear that the only difference (for their new production models offered) is scale length.[/QUOTE] And nut width. 1 3/4" for the OM, 1 11/16" for the OOO. Plus, lots of the contemporary OOO's have the long scale. I owned one. |
|
| Author: | mikev [ Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
So if i was to order OM plans, what would i get the plans for ,, a 14 fret, 1 3/4nut, 25.4 scale 000 sized guitar. Or is it the 24.9 scale.. I am about to jump into this, or i may move again, seriously, but if i don't i was thinking of an OM. I thought the scale was 24.9.. I used to think i was confused,, now i'm sure of it.. 
Mike |
|
| Author: | CarltonM [ Fri Aug 18, 2006 2:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Nope, OMs were always 14-fret neck, 25.4" scale, 1 3/4" nut. OMs ALWAYS have those specifications, as long as they're patterned after the Martin example (and if they're not, it's not really an OM, is it?). If you order OM plans, that's what you'll get. It's that simple. If you ask for a OOO, THAT'S where you'll get variations if you don't specify. |
|
| Author: | mikev [ Sat Aug 19, 2006 4:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
just looked at a chart of current martin sizes, and the OM sized 14 fret ttb with a 24.9 scale is considered a 000 auditorium. so in todays configuration the guitars are the same except for the om has the 25.4 scale the 000 aud is the 24.9 scale. In my very limited understanding the 000 would have less string tension and easier to play, the om a bit louder... Is there really much difference in the two guitars in regards to any of those attributes.. Would any one feature stand out as a big differnce between the two? Mike |
|
| Author: | CarltonM [ Sat Aug 19, 2006 7:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
[QUOTE=mikev] so in todays configuration the guitars are the same except for the om has the 25.4 scale...[/QUOTE] AND a 1 3/4" nut. Gives the neck a bit different feel. [QUOTE=mikev]Is there really much difference in the two guitars in regards to any of those attributes.. Would any one feature stand out as a big differnce between the two? Mike[/QUOTE] The shorter scale feels a little "looser," and tends to give a bit more complex sound to the trebles. The longer scale helps bring out the bass fundamental, but loses some of the "shimmer" in the trebles. |
|
| Author: | tony [ Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Very informative. Thanks. I don't want to appear argumentative on a point that really isn't all that important, but - A review of what Martin is offering for 000 and OM shows that a lot of both models are standard with necks measuring 1 3/4" at the nut. There is a difference on the standard models, but the GE, and 41's & 42's are all spec'ed at 1 3/4". And are 20 fret with 2 1/4' at 12th fret. Of course then there is the Norman Blake 000, which has a 1 13/16" nut. hmmmm.... Confusion... I guess there is no real hard and fast answer to this riddle. Except to point back to the history and say what we think it should be. Thanks Calton. Looks like a short scale is what I'm moving towards. Like to build something that would compliment the delta blues style of playing. Something with brighter mids / trebles with a thumping bass (no boom) with a quicker decay than what most would want, but a strong presence. Suggestions for wood? |
|
| Author: | Colin S [ Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tony I play a lot of delta blues, and the only real choice for the B&S wood is good old mahogany preferably with an Adirondack or Euro top, but definitely steer clear of cedar. I actually mainly use a OO size instrument for most of my blues playing but I am also happy with a OOO (12 fret 1.75"), both in 24.9" scale. Put lights or extra lights on. The above should give you the sound your after strong fundamentals without getting muddy when driven (if the builder does his job  )
Colin |
|
| Author: | tony [ Mon Aug 21, 2006 5:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks Colin. I recently played a '46 Martin 00-18 that I really enjoyed. Very comfortable size and a really guttsy voice. Your suggestion is appreciated. And sounds like Mahogany would probably be the best choice of material for my first build (from what I have read) as well for the sound I hoping to capture. I do have Mahogany b/s and an Adirondack top already invested in a dread sized box that I started with. What kind of problems would you expect me to run into if I were to "take apart" the box - built from a kit (no binding on it yet) and use the material to build a 00. I'm thinking the biggest concern would be the top - since it already has the sound hole and roset placed. Or should I just start fresh with new material? |
|
| Author: | Colin S [ Mon Aug 21, 2006 7:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tony, I'd start from scratch, the cost of the materials, would be much less than the cost of the hassle, of trying to recycle, keep the other one and finish it later. I'm sure one of our fine sponsors would set you up almost painlessly! I love the old Martin 00-18, I've got 2 of them, one from '33 and a '63. The '33 is the guitar that really got me into building, I just had to try and get the sound on a guitar I could risk taking round the clubs! Still trying! I've got 000-28 and a rare OM-28 both from the 30s as well. But give me the sound of Mahogany over BRW anyday
Colin |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|