The Martin Tax

Tannin

Dave_Mc said:

Jez6345789 said:

one, in particular, lectured me that they were not prepared to lose their dealership for being found out they were offering a discount

I could be wrong, but isn't that illegal? I know it's difficult to prove etc., of course, but at least technically I think it is. There's supposed to be competition between shops.

Absolutely. Illegal in the UK, the EU, Japan, Australia, New Zealand - basically illegal in every advanced economy there is ... except the USA. (Actually, even the US has some limitations on it: shops are allowed to discount so long as they pretend that they are not doing it. It is called the "MAP".)

But American companies often ride roughshod over pesky "foreign" laws, which they don't consider important. You see they getting prosecuted for it time and time again, in the UK, in Europe, here in Australia, and doubtless also in other places. 

I'm, not suggesting that the majority don't make an honest effort to comply with local laws, simply pointing out that a very significant number don't, and from time to time they get caught at it. Martin is probably one of the better ones in this regard; given their market stature I shouldn't think they would need to play dirty pool even if they were willing to do so. At least for the time being, no-one discounts Martin products here in Oz because they can't get enough of them to stock the shelves properly. Only a fool would discount when everything is already on back-order.  Probably it is similar in the UK. 

maltingsaudio

Dave_Mc said:

Jez6345789 said:

one, in particular, lectured me that they were not prepared to lose their dealership for being found out they were offering a discount

I could be wrong, but isn't that illegal? I know it's difficult to prove etc., of course, but at least technically I think it is. There's supposed to be competition between shops.

I expect it’s true, a shop can sell its goods for whatever it wants to, however the distributor can refuse to supply a shop if it’s in breach of its dealership conditions. Martin isn’t in the same league as a company like Fender for example, who produces so much gear it has to shift it by any means. Therefor it can afford to  pick and choose who it sells it’s products to. 

Dave_Mc

Tannin said:

Absolutely. Illegal in the UK, the EU, Japan, Australia, New Zealand - basically illegal in every advanced economy there is ... except the USA. (Actually, even the US has some limitations on it: shops are allowed to discount so long as they pretend that they are not doing it. It is called the "MAP".)

But American companies often ride roughshod over pesky "foreign" laws, which they don't consider important. You see they getting prosecuted for it time and time again, in the UK, in Europe, here in Australia, and doubtless also in other places. 

I'm, not suggesting that the majority don't make an honest effort to comply with local laws, simply pointing out that a very significant number don't, and from time to time they get caught at it. Martin is probably one of the better ones in this regard; given their market stature I shouldn't think they would need to play dirty pool even if they were willing to do so. At least for the time being, no-one discounts Martin products here in Oz because they can't get enough of them to stock the shelves properly. Only a fool would discount when everything is already on back-order.  Probably it is similar in the UK. 

Thanks, that's what I thought.

Proving it and stopping it are of course the problems...

maltingsaudio said:

I expect it’s true, a shop can sell its goods for whatever it wants to, however the distributor can refuse to supply a shop if it’s in breach of its dealership conditions. Martin isn’t in the same league as a company like Fender for example, who produces so much gear it has to shift it by any means. Therefor it can afford to  pick and choose who it sells it’s products to. 

Yeah but (presumably) those dealership conditions can be against the law. Wasn't one of the big manufacturers done for this (or something similar) not that long ago?

DavidR

Whatever love/hate relationship you may or may not have with Martin, they're not really managing any sales cartels in the UK imho. A cartel is a group of people or organisations getting together to try to fix prices. Think OPEC. I doubt very much if that is going on.

I just think Martin's business model, generally and everywhere, is to monetise their reputation. And fair enough tbh. For them anyway! All I am saying is that there are better value options to pursue without necessarily sacrificing quality. Which at the £2-4K sector of the acoustic market is generally very high now. Lucky us!

guitarjack66

I suppose the real question is 'Are you getting the quality you used to get with Martin you once did?' If they are now more or less mass manufacturer like most other brands then surely that would be a 'No?'

Tannin

The point of the thread - or at least the original point, threads do morph into other topics and take n a life of their own - was simply to examine the often-expressed opinion that British consumers are badly treated by Martin and forced to pay more than consumers in other markets, notably the USA. (I think I provided a pretty compelling argument to show that yes, UK consumers are overpaying relative to US customers, but not overpaying as ,much as Martin buyers in other parts of the world.)

The thread was not created to consider the value-for-money proposition that Martin guitars offer, simply to say "British consumers think they are getting ripped off: true or false?"

But seeing as the thread has morphed, my 2c.

Martin guitars are top-drawer instruments (well, their good ones, the Standard Series ones are what I mostly have in mind, their cheapies are competent but overpriced for what they are).Martins are right up there with the other top-drawer makers. As for the top end Martins, I think they are absolutely crazy. (The people who buy them, I mean, not the company. If people want to give you far too much money for not-very-good reasons, well, that is their look out.)

@guitarjack66 I don't think Martin quality has dropped off, not if we are considering their heart-and-soul products, the Standard Series. (D-18, HD-28, OM-28, 000-18, and similar.) These have pretty clearly improved significantly on the stuff they were churning out in the 1970s. 

But these days, Martin also makes vast numbers of (not very) cheap entry level guitars, mostly in Mexico. I haven't looked at them more than casually, but the ones I've seen have been perfectly decent instruments, albeit low end of the market ones priced like mid-range products. You could do better for the same money, but you could do worse too. 

I'd still rather like a Martin of my own one of these days, when the right one comes along. An HD-28 would be favourite, though I rather fancy 000-18s too. 

ditchboy

My OM28 is fairly new and I have to say is absolutely flawless. 

crunchman

guitarjack66 said:

I suppose the real question is 'Are you getting the quality you used to get with Martin you once did?' If they are now more or less mass manufacturer like most other brands then surely that would be a 'No?'

In terms of quality and sound, I'd far rather have a recent Martin than one from the 70s or early 80s.

guitarjack66

crunchman said:

guitarjack66 said:

I suppose the real question is 'Are you getting the quality you used to get with Martin you once did?' If they are now more or less mass manufacturer like most other brands then surely that would be a 'No?'

In terms of quality and sound, I'd far rather have a recent Martin than one from the 70s or early 80s.

Interesting. So you believe today's mass manufacture produces better results than a certain amount of hand finishing back then?

Jez6345789

Just coming back to this I need to say I am not someone who bashes Martin as a company, as they make good guitars and I would say today better than they did in the 70’s and 80’s certainly 70’s as these days with modern manufacturing the whole way we do each process and how well we do it is thought through and reviewed. Also in the 70’s production and the market was very small and the work force were often going through the motions. In my mind Chris Martin reinvigorated the company put pride back in the company that had been lost as they expanded in to drums electric and loads of non core expansions. 

For example Martin built heavier and heavier guitars back then to reduce the number of returns now those sorts of decision keep the effects on tonality as part of the solution rather than just say increase the X brace by 20% or some decision thought up by bean counters. Also modern controlled production stops the situation Martin had of moulds and templates simply worn out.

I visited Martin about 10 years ago and again this year with a friend who wanted the tour and in a good way the place is way more Taylor than it was 20 years ago in terms of modern production.

my personal view is the Uk distribution model is outdated offers a poor warranty in comparison to others Taylor and PRS who run and own their distribution in UK and Europe I seem to recall.

the main guitar company involved in price fixing was Fender who were fined considerable amount of their world wide income by the uk agency. Other were dragged in I think Yamaha Korg  so maybe things have improved but type D18 into Uk Google shopping and you get a shed load of companies selling at 2999.00 sure there may be deals out there but the US concept of a managed map seems to be operating.

Tannin

A managed MAP is illegal in the UK and you can be charged for it. (The same applies in most other Western countries.) Your lawyer will try to get you off by arguing that your anti-competitive policy somehow "wasn't really anti-competitive"  but  that isn't a defence you'd want to be relying on.

crunchman

guitarjack66 said:

crunchman said:

guitarjack66 said:

I suppose the real question is 'Are you getting the quality you used to get with Martin you once did?' If they are now more or less mass manufacturer like most other brands then surely that would be a 'No?'

In terms of quality and sound, I'd far rather have a recent Martin than one from the 70s or early 80s.

Interesting. So you believe today's mass manufacture produces better results than a certain amount of hand finishing back then?

They are made with a better recipe now than in the 70s or early 80s.

They changed the bridge plate material in the late 60s, and didn't change it back until the mid to late 80s.

They also didn't have adjustable truss rods until 1985.

The new ones also have the "forward shifted" pre war style bracing, which sounds far better to my ears than the post war style bracing.

In terms of how well they are put together, I don't know how much difference there is between eras, but the newer ones are definitely a better design.  The older guitars, when they still used Brazilian rosewood, might be a different proposition, but I'd definitely take a recent one over 70s to mid 80s.

Having said all that, if I was shopping for a good acoustic guitar now I'd be looking at brands like Atkin and Furch.  Martins are overpriced in the UK for what they are.

Kateskogs

I wouldn't buy a new Martin personally, I'd wait for the right one second hand. 

ditchboy

Kateskogs said:

I wouldn't buy a new Martin personally, I'd wait for the right one second hand. 

I’ve had two new ones in the last 7 years. Both extremely well made instruments. Actually just realise how little I have progressed as a player in that time as that is around the time I bought the first one that I started playing more. Still I can’t criticise the workmanship of any of the new guitars.