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?

[FRANK]

I GOT ONE OF THOSE ALSO THE SAME CRAZY JEALOUS WOMAN SMASHED A 1968 GIBSON C1 NYLON STRING MADE IN KALAMAZOO I BOUGHT IT FOR $10 CAME IN A ALLIGATOR SKIN CASE RE TOPPED IT SOLD IT FOR $500 NOT BAD

[Ned Knepp]

Not to hijack the thread but Paul, I really need to know what the model number is on your Dell. I have Dells in my house that use both types of connectors. I can look up the model number and find out what type of keyboard you need. Just send it to me via email.

Ned

[Ned Knepp]

I would wait to see how much of the top actually arrives. It's value is diminished but the archtop is what makes is a C1. If you replace it with a flat top, what do you have?

It's petty busted up but the strip job doesn't seem too bad... at least it doesn't look as though it was sanded over much and it could be that a glued up, refinished C1 will be worth more than an C1 that isn't a C1 anymore.

If you decide you don't want to do it, send it to me, I'd love a chance to piece it back together. Really though, it's free, right? That should give you a lot of value to work with so even if it is a lot of effort and not worth as much as it could be, there should be room for something of a profit when you are done.

[Rick Homan]

Interesting thoughts, Ned. If I replace the archtop with a flat-top, I have a C-1 conversion. Eric Schoenberg currently lists a "1935 Martin C-2 Conversion." In the description, he says, "conversion by Chris Berkov, with all original parts except the top." By the way, he is asking $14,495. Ka-ching! That's not a misprint: five figures!

You make a good point. Just putting it all back together would be cheaper than converting, and perhaps easier since I would not be changing the neck angle. BTW, the original ebony bridge is supposed to be concluded. Since it would be free + glue and supplies, if I got only a few hundred for it I would be ahead.

[Jeff Highland]

For me, There are too many crossgrain breaks on both the top and back especially around the headblock to do a structurally and cosmetically satisfactory repair.
I would pull it apart, save neck, Headblock, backstrip and as much as possible of the bracing etc and rebuild as a flattop with new back sides and top.

[Ned Knepp]

This brings up a question that I've had for some time. How much of an instrument restoration should be original to retain the original designation. If the top back and sides plus a large part of the bracing (because the flat top would require all new bracing ) are all new, is it still a "Martin" of does it then become "Homan" with some Martin parts?

I've got a perfect neck from a mid 60's Martin 12 string but no body. Since I don't have a 12 in my stable, I keep thinking I need to build a body for it. What would it be if I did? Should I remove the Martin decal from the top of the head? What if I got parts for a body from martin ( I already have a couple of sets of sides), will that make a difference? I really don't know but as someone that's done a lot of "fix this replace that" over the years, I often wonder.

I read a book once that talked about the fact that there probably isn't a single one of the great violins in the world that is even close to original. In some cases if not most, it is easily possible that nothing on the instrument is original yet we still refer to it by the original builder's name and we still pay millions to own one. Does that concept apply to guitars?

Ned

[Rick Homan]

I had not thought about the cross-grain breaks. Perhaps not even a kit then, just spare parts.

[Jeff Highland]

Yes it should definitely be labeled with both names. Perhaps "reconstructed with Martin and new parts by Rick Homan"
To me that would be worth more than a rough repair (and with that damage repair IS going to be very evident) with original wood.

[Russell Vance]

Hmmm, I note that USA NASCAR racing cars are highly modified to the extent that the only original Manufacturer's Part is the ashtray - they still proudly proclaim them to be Fords or Chevvies or Toyotas.......

Guitar custom shops use ghost builders all the time to build their top end guitars - they don't dual name or even declare this practice.......in this case you are repairing an instrument and it will be obviously so - the instrument is a Martin that has been repaired - that's all. Other wize next time you get your car repaired or resprayed get the repair shop to rename your car a Ford Joe's Panelbeating Shop Mustang so everyone will know........My two bobs worth. Rusty.

[Mark Dobbins]

A repaired Martin with a story

[Ned Knepp]

Russell,
Nascar has a long history which includes the idea that it is rooted in "stock" car racing. There was a time when the cars were so near stock that it was possible to drive the car to the track, race it and drive it home. That hasn't been true for decades and no one expects to see a "stock" car in a Nascar race. Everyone knows that the "Ford" is more advertisement than fact.

I understand making some replacements of faulty parts or replacing some faulty material but I think the question I posed is different. IF the body on an acoustic guitar is rebuilt just a few of the original parts, is it ethical to continue to label it as brand "X". In this case I was thinking about a guitar that wasn't even the same model anymore, that is rebuilding an archtop as a flat top with only a few parts carrying over to the flattop.

[Russell Vance]

Yep, I know the history and understand the situation - but, once again we as luthiers find ourselves without an accepted 'standard' or craft/industry guidance to go by when confronted with situations that many other industries and trades have dealt with for years. We generally just make it up as we go which leads to confusion and argument on a world wide basis.

The custom automobile trade, which is well established with national and international bodies does the same as the racing car industry - it names the car after the origin of the species and simply identifies the product as a 'custom'. No discussion necessary in this case - the E-Type Jag may be powerd by a Chev six or V8 but it is still an 'E-Type'. Similarly, whole generations of European sports cars were identified by manufacturer while sporting other people engines and running gear.

We are beset with reinventing the wheel here - everyone has an opinion (and rightfully so) because there is no overarching national or international organisation that governs the day to day administration and execution of our beloved trade. I guess Frank is our adopted godfather here - I'll wait for his say on this. R.