What to do with a Martin C-1?

[Rick Homan]

There is good news and bad news.

The good news is it is a 1932 Martin C-1 and I am getting it for free (it's not here yet).

The bad news is . . . well, there is a lot of bad news.

1) The guy I am getting it from says that when he got it, it was painted red so he stripped it to bare wood (see photos).

2) His ex took it by the neck, and swung it like a baseball bat against something very solid (see photos). The missing pieces are supposed to bagged up and coming along with it.

3) The tuners are non-original (not shown).

It would seem that whatever value this may have had has been stripped away or splintered, so I should just treat it as a free guitar kit. Agreed?

If so, I would rather play a 000 flat-top than an archtop, so I guess I would repair the back and sides, re-set the neck and put a new flat top on it. I could always hang the original, smashed top on the wall of my shop as a reminder that it is better to talk through problems.

Any reason to do otherwise?

[Ned Knepp]

I suppose I'm playing "Devil's advocate" but I would glue together the cross grain breaks and use Franks's cross grain, inside patch technique ( as demonstrated on a cross grain break on a Gibson Mandolin) on these areas. Most of the cross grain joint would fall under a sunburst finish which was an option on this guitar.

I don't like the break around the head block on the back and I would replace it but then I think the top is much more important than the back and side.

I like the idea of labeling the instrument as a " ( builders name), repaired/rebuild by ( repairman's name)" That would solves my ethical problem with replacing a lot of an instrument while maintaining credibility of the original builder.