Thanks for the great content Mark. Being a new Luthier, it is very important to have great minds like yourself spreading the knowledge we need to keep building beautiful sounding instruments. You are appreciated.
I am so grateful for your putting this video up! I have a 1975 D-35 all original. The D-35 is unique in the Martin line because of the 1/4" bracing. And, you are absolutely correct on top thickness. Too many people will have a seventies Martin destroyed by replacing the bridgeplate and removing the popcycle brace. In fact, most neck resets happen not so much from the bridge lifting, but from the top around the sound hole sinking! If the bridgeplate is replaced and the popcycle brace is removed and a neck reset is done it will be the last time the guitar will be playable, the body will literally destroy itself from lack of rigidity. If you have an HD-35 it has scalloped 1/4" bracing. Those are fantastic sounding guitars, but VERY delicate! Thanks again, well done!!!
I'd add that if you own a modern HD-35 with scalloped 1/4" bracing, don't use any strings heavier than light gauge. Mediums will surely destroy a guitar like this.
I decided to follow your lead and spend less time watching RUclips, and now you come out with this, another interesting and informative video. and now I'm back on RUclips.. thanks a lot!
Great video - really appreciate your take and that you took the time to share this. The more time I spend with my new-to-me '74 D28, the less modification I want to do with it. I've found that the more I play it, the more it opens. The more I play it the more I get to know it for what it isn't and the less I worry about what it isn't.
Great video and some fascinating facts about older Martins that I hadn't known about. Very interesting about the thinner tops from the seventies. Always a pleasure to watch your videos Mark. . . . and a Happy 2025 to you too.
@@TheFolkwayMusic It doesn't make sense to take these braces out. In the pre-WWII Martins, there wasn't a popsicle brace. In some instruments, this resulted in cracks forming and running alongside the fingerboard, often onto the soundhole. I once owned a '38 where this had happened - the late Stan Jay of Mandolin Brothers told me that this wasn't unusual. The popsicle brace is there for a reason - leave well alone!
Terrific insight into Martins of this era. I have an unmolested 1973 D-35 which, in spite of being strung with 12-54s for the last 50 years rather than the 13-56s it shipped with, has quite a bulge behind the bridge, and the saddle slot now has a convex base profile. Consequently it is on the cusp of requiring a neck reset, but it still plays well has a great tone that easily matches those of my Martin Golden Eras and Marquis. In 2023 I bought an HD-35 which has forward shifted scalloped 1/4" bracing, and it is noticeable that the top is of a superior quality sitka with very pronounced cross-graining - I wondered if this was a conscious decision on Martins part to provide a stiffer top counteract the lightness of the bracing (and yes, it too is now fitted with light gauge strings rather than the recommended medium gauge - planning ahead!).
I suspect that Martin’s current top thickness spec offsets the reduced stiffness of the bracing. Computer controlled everything at Martin these days, so tolerances are tight and controlled.
My '77 had pronounced belly bulge from years of 80% plus humidity. When I moved to the High desert it stayed in the case for a year and flattened out again. I'm using 14/60 GHS strings.
Great video. Your example of the popsicle brace is very important. It’s there for a reason. While removing it may improve the sound to the players ear you’re also limiting the chance of a 60-year-old instrument lasting another 60 years
A friend has a guild 12 string. It looks like guild did not use a popsicle brace, but attempted to work around this. Not stable in the long term, imho.
I've been checking some background regarding the D-35's bracing because all of this stirred some memories. I have a copy of Mike Longworth's 'Martin Guitars - A History'. It's the 3rd edition, and on page 89 he tells readers that the model was first introduced in the 1966 catalogue. The first example was listed as X-35 #201792 Six more sample D-35s were made. D-35A #202219-220 had Dreadnought top braces and 000 sized back braces. D-35B #202121-122 had 00 top braces and D back bracing. D-35C #202223-224 had 00 top braces and 000 back braces. The version finally selected was style C.
I own a D28 made in 1974. I've never been tempted to replace the bridge plate or modify the "popsicle" braces. I did have a luthier correct the intonation caused by the improper placement of the bridge but he did that by moving the saddle.
Nice Video! I own a strike era D28, original owner. The trebele strings were Loud. A few years ago I visited the factory in Nazareth. The guide that day told me he had worked there during that time. Management and the newbies took over the line. I didnt know the bridge was in the wrong place or the neck angle was wrong. I thought it was supposed to be hard to play! many years later everythings been corrected and it sounds the way you describe. Balanced and mellow.
An interesting posting; thank you. Get a good one, and I'd say a '70s Martin is just fine - I owned a 1976 D-18 for many years. It had a clear sparkling tone with plenty of punch. I've heard stories of people shaving braces on guitars of this era by working through the soundhole in the hope of 'improving' the sound. This makes no sense to me - messing with a fine guitar in this way. I've always subscribed to the view that if you don't care for the sound of your guitar or have fallen out of love with it, then sell it and find another. There are plenty out there.
Good to know. I have an 85 that has the big rosewood and I thought it had to go. I think I just need more saddle which likely means neck reset but I know it’ll be worth it
I have a 1972 D-35. I looked inside and it has the original bridgeplate and it looks to have all of the original bracing with no modifications. However, indeed the intonation is very sharp; some days even basic first position chords sound a little off. Also, the action is quite high and it is tough to play. I purchased a compensated bone saddle from Martin and brought it down as far as I can, but it's not enough. I think it needs a neck reset, but your video has taught me there many subtleties to this particular guitar and it needs an experienced hand. Would you know anyone in the Syracuse/central NY State region that you could recommend? It is possible I could make it to your shop if you do think you are the best people for the job... Fascinating video. Thanks. Bob
I’d love to answer that, but I can’t. There was surely some rationale that involved tone and stiffness, but you’d need to ask a Martin’s historian rather than a Martin repairer.
@@TheFolkwayMusic…Understood. So I’ll speculate that they were thinking that using leftover small pieces of Brazilian under the bridge would sprinkle a little pixie dust into the tone. 😀
Great video! I have a 1967 D-35 I purchased in 1975. It has developed a haze on the surface in some spots that I cannot seem to remove. I have not tried Virtuoso, or Naphtha. I keep it in the case, I clean it, and have never really gigged with it. Do you have a suggestion?
Is it a haze that keeps coming back once you wipe it off, or is it always there? Martins from that era have a finish that gets a hazy film on it if its left in the case for any amount of time. It just wipes off. Virtuoso cleaner is great for gunk. A whitish haze can be a blushed finish (moisture stuck under it) which can only be removed by waking up the finish with retrarder or solvent (don't try this!!)
Modern guitars can be very uniform in top thickness. Those with more hand-work tend to be more variable. Many builders intentionally vary thickness such that the top is thinner around its perimeter.
Thanks for this. I got a low number Martin Ceo7 with a crack running half way through the bridge plate at the pin holes and i have that small lift/hump on the bass side right over the xbrace. So with the top being thinner on these. I figured the same issue. Good call. Found the separation with a feeler gauge. Now the question is do i fix the crack add a support plate over the bridge pin holes or do i just replace the bridge all together. Im leaning to repair instead of replace.
That's a question that can only be answered with a first-hand look at the guitar. Our suggestion is to bring the guitar to a trustworthy repair person for a consult.
Thanks for sharing. I own a 1976 D-35 that I purchased new and have never tried to modify it. I had a partial fret job and setup two years ago and it sounds as wonderful as a 49 year old guitar should sound. Mine is set up for light gauge strings. I also bought a new OM-35 in early 2007 and a custom 000 in 2015 with a three piece mahogany back and sides. Three similar but different guitars with 1/4” top bracing.
Pulled a plate on a 68 after talking a big game about tone improvements. Total pain and if the tone was improved, it was so subtle as to be generally embarrassing. Same thing with the adjustable saddles on Gibsons. I think those actually sound worse with bone saddled bridge. Oh well, live and learn.
If it's done by someone that knows what they're doing, all should be well. It's when the weekend, Bob Vila types get in there that you need to be concerned. Obviously, if you don't have access to a luthier who is experienced in this sort of thing, it would be better to leave it alone. But there's no guarantee that your 70's Martin is going to explode should you "fix" what Martin got wrong. It may lose value (depends on the person buying it), but that's it.
Aside from the good advice to leave well enough alone, the video reinforced my belief that removing a bridge plate is the equivalent of heart surgery on a human. Unless the surgeon really knows what they are doing, bad things can happen. Thus, as rule, I never buy vintage guitars with a replaced bridge plate!
We liken bridge and plate removal to human surgery too, and we like to avoid elective surgeries as a rule. That said, certain bridge plates are relatively simple to remove if required - but 70s Martin plates don't fall into that category!
@@TheFolkwayMusic Also, I read somewhere (perhaps in one of Longworth's books on the history of Martin) that the D-35 bracing has essentially the same dimensions as on a OOO-18. I need to check.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for the great content Mark. Being a new Luthier, it is very important to have great minds like yourself spreading the knowledge we need to keep building beautiful sounding instruments. You are appreciated.
I am so grateful for your putting this video up! I have a 1975 D-35 all original. The D-35 is unique in the Martin line because of the 1/4" bracing. And, you are absolutely correct on top thickness. Too many people will have a seventies Martin destroyed by replacing the bridgeplate and removing the popcycle brace. In fact, most neck resets happen not so much from the bridge lifting, but from the top around the sound hole sinking! If the bridgeplate is replaced and the popcycle brace is removed and a neck reset is done it will be the last time the guitar will be playable, the body will literally destroy itself from lack of rigidity. If you have an HD-35 it has scalloped 1/4" bracing. Those are fantastic sounding guitars, but VERY delicate! Thanks again, well done!!!
I'd add that if you own a modern HD-35 with scalloped 1/4" bracing, don't use any strings heavier than light gauge. Mediums will surely destroy a guitar like this.
@ correct, I use custom lights on mine.
I decided to follow your lead and spend less time watching RUclips, and now you come out with this, another interesting and informative video. and now I'm back on RUclips.. thanks a lot!
hahaha! hope you learned something. lol.
Great video - really appreciate your take and that you took the time to share this. The more time I spend with my new-to-me '74 D28, the less modification I want to do with it. I've found that the more I play it, the more it opens. The more I play it the more I get to know it for what it isn't and the less I worry about what it isn't.
Always a good day when Mark drops a video.
Fascinating and very informative.
Great video. Very informative
Great video and some fascinating facts about older Martins that I hadn't known about. Very interesting about the thinner tops from the seventies. Always a pleasure to watch your videos Mark. . . . and a Happy 2025 to you too.
Cool video, thanks for sharing Mark
Technicality really well-explained in layman's terms! Note: @10:06 - dosen't Bryan Kimsey take a lot of popsicle braces out of guitars?
Yes, Kimsey offers that service. We don't agree with the practice.
@@TheFolkwayMusic It doesn't make sense to take these braces out. In the pre-WWII Martins, there wasn't a popsicle brace. In some instruments, this resulted in cracks forming and running alongside the fingerboard, often onto the soundhole. I once owned a '38 where this had happened - the late Stan Jay of Mandolin Brothers told me that this wasn't unusual.
The popsicle brace is there for a reason - leave well alone!
Great video. Thanks
Terrific insight into Martins of this era. I have an unmolested 1973 D-35 which, in spite of being strung with 12-54s for the last 50 years rather than the 13-56s it shipped with, has quite a bulge behind the bridge, and the saddle slot now has a convex base profile. Consequently it is on the cusp of requiring a neck reset, but it still plays well has a great tone that easily matches those of my Martin Golden Eras and Marquis. In 2023 I bought an HD-35 which has forward shifted scalloped 1/4" bracing, and it is noticeable that the top is of a superior quality sitka with very pronounced cross-graining - I wondered if this was a conscious decision on Martins part to provide a stiffer top counteract the lightness of the bracing (and yes, it too is now fitted with light gauge strings rather than the recommended medium gauge - planning ahead!).
I suspect that Martin’s current top thickness spec offsets the reduced stiffness of the bracing. Computer controlled everything at Martin these days, so tolerances are tight and controlled.
My '77 had pronounced belly bulge from years of 80% plus humidity. When I moved to the High desert it stayed in the case for a year and flattened out again. I'm using 14/60 GHS strings.
Great video. Your example of the popsicle brace is very important. It’s there for a reason. While removing it may improve the sound to the players ear you’re also limiting the chance of a 60-year-old instrument lasting another 60 years
A friend has a guild 12 string. It looks like guild did not use a popsicle brace, but attempted to work around this. Not stable in the long term, imho.
Great vid and well explained.
Brilliant stuff, as always, Mark!
Excellent advice, Mark. Maybe just fix intonation on those ‘70s Martins and good enough! Thanks for sharing.
I've been checking some background regarding the D-35's bracing because all of this stirred some memories.
I have a copy of Mike Longworth's 'Martin Guitars - A History'.
It's the 3rd edition, and on page 89 he tells readers that the model was first introduced in the 1966 catalogue. The first example was listed as X-35 #201792
Six more sample D-35s were made.
D-35A #202219-220 had Dreadnought top braces and 000 sized back braces.
D-35B #202121-122 had 00 top braces and D back bracing.
D-35C #202223-224 had 00 top braces and 000 back braces.
The version finally selected was style C.
I own a D28 made in 1974. I've never been tempted to replace the bridge plate or modify the "popsicle" braces. I did have a luthier correct the intonation caused by the improper placement of the bridge but he did that by moving the saddle.
That's the standard procedure and is quite effective.
Thank you
Nice Video! I own a strike era D28, original owner. The trebele strings were Loud. A few years ago I visited the factory in Nazareth. The guide that day told me he had worked there during that time. Management and the newbies took over the line. I didnt know the bridge was in the wrong place or the neck angle was wrong. I thought it was supposed to be hard to play! many years later everythings been corrected and it sounds the way you describe. Balanced and mellow.
An interesting posting; thank you. Get a good one, and I'd say a '70s Martin is just fine - I owned a 1976 D-18 for many years. It had a clear sparkling tone with plenty of punch.
I've heard stories of people shaving braces on guitars of this era by working through the soundhole in the hope of 'improving' the sound. This makes no sense to me - messing with a fine guitar in this way. I've always subscribed to the view that if you don't care for the sound of your guitar or have fallen out of love with it, then sell it and find another. There are plenty out there.
Interesting upload. I didn’t realize 70’s tops were thinner.
Good to know. I have an 85 that has the big rosewood and I thought it had to go. I think I just need more saddle which likely means neck reset but I know it’ll be worth it
That D35 looks just like the one I dropped off last week! 😊
It might just be!
I have a 1972 D-35. I looked inside and it has the original bridgeplate and it looks to have all of the original bracing with no modifications. However, indeed the intonation is very sharp; some days even basic first position chords sound a little off. Also, the action is quite high and it is tough to play. I purchased a compensated bone saddle from Martin and brought it down as far as I can, but it's not enough. I think it needs a neck reset, but your video has taught me there many subtleties to this particular guitar and it needs an experienced hand. Would you know anyone in the Syracuse/central NY State region that you could recommend? It is possible I could make it to your shop if you do think you are the best people for the job...
Fascinating video. Thanks.
Bob
It does sound like you need a reset and saddle relocation. Unfortunately, I don't know the luthier landscape in your area.
This is a great informative video. Love it!
Why was the plate material changed to rosewood vice just a bigger maple plate?
I’d love to answer that, but I can’t. There was surely some rationale that involved tone and stiffness, but you’d need to ask a Martin’s historian rather than a Martin repairer.
@@TheFolkwayMusic…Understood. So I’ll speculate that they were thinking that using leftover small pieces of Brazilian under the bridge would sprinkle a little pixie dust into the tone. 😀
Great video! I have a 1967 D-35 I purchased in 1975. It has developed a haze on the surface in some spots that I cannot seem to remove. I have not tried Virtuoso, or Naphtha. I keep it in the case, I clean it, and have never really gigged with it. Do you have a suggestion?
Is it a haze that keeps coming back once you wipe it off, or is it always there? Martins from that era have a finish that gets a hazy film on it if its left in the case for any amount of time. It just wipes off.
Virtuoso cleaner is great for gunk. A whitish haze can be a blushed finish (moisture stuck under it) which can only be removed by waking up the finish with retrarder or solvent (don't try this!!)
Curiously, are flat tops uniform in thickness?
Modern guitars can be very uniform in top thickness. Those with more hand-work tend to be more variable. Many builders intentionally vary thickness such that the top is thinner around its perimeter.
Thanks for this. I got a low number Martin Ceo7 with a crack running half way through the bridge plate at the pin holes and i have that small lift/hump on the bass side right over the xbrace. So with the top being thinner on these. I figured the same issue. Good call. Found the separation with a feeler gauge. Now the question is do i fix the crack add a support plate over the bridge pin holes or do i just replace the bridge all together. Im leaning to repair instead of replace.
That's a question that can only be answered with a first-hand look at the guitar. Our suggestion is to bring the guitar to a trustworthy repair person for a consult.
Thanks for sharing. I own a 1976 D-35 that I purchased new and have never tried to modify it. I had a partial fret job and setup two years ago and it sounds as wonderful as a 49 year old guitar should sound. Mine is set up for light gauge strings. I also bought a new OM-35 in early 2007 and a custom 000 in 2015 with a three piece mahogany back and sides. Three similar but different guitars with 1/4” top bracing.
Thank you…..
Pulled a plate on a 68 after talking a big game about tone improvements. Total pain and if the tone was improved, it was so subtle as to be generally embarrassing. Same thing with the adjustable saddles on Gibsons. I think those actually sound worse with bone saddled bridge. Oh well, live and learn.
It's always a crapshoot. We don't replace adjustable saddle bridges all too much any longer. A good ADJ bridge guitar is a great sounding thing.
If it's done by someone that knows what they're doing, all should be well. It's when the weekend, Bob Vila types get in there that you need to be concerned. Obviously, if you don't have access to a luthier who is experienced in this sort of thing, it would be better to leave it alone. But there's no guarantee that your 70's Martin is going to explode should you "fix" what Martin got wrong. It may lose value (depends on the person buying it), but that's it.
Aside from the good advice to leave well enough alone, the video reinforced my belief that removing a bridge plate is the equivalent of heart surgery on a human. Unless the surgeon really knows what they are doing, bad things can happen. Thus, as rule, I never buy vintage guitars with a replaced bridge plate!
We liken bridge and plate removal to human surgery too, and we like to avoid elective surgeries as a rule.
That said, certain bridge plates are relatively simple to remove if required - but 70s Martin plates don't fall into that category!
D35 did not and do not have scalloped bracing...
That is correct. D-35 had and has 1/4” wide bracing. It wasn’t suggested that a D-35 has or had scalloped braces.
@@TheFolkwayMusic Also, I read somewhere (perhaps in one of Longworth's books on the history of Martin) that the D-35 bracing has essentially the same dimensions as on a OOO-18. I need to check.
I had a '74 D35. I like my Zager's much better.