Acoustic steel string flatop guitars

[NSJ]

I confess I know next to nothing about these type of gutiars (in comparison to jazz boxes and classical guitars). Some questions and some recommendations would be appreciated.

1. is it like a classical guitar where price correlates to quality? I.e., if you want a semi- decent sounding guitar, you have to pony up a few thousand at least (unlike a jazz box, where you can get a decent guitar for not so much, comparatively speaking?)

2. I'd like a smaller "parlor" type of guitar, size wize. What am I sacrificing vis-a-vis the big ass dreadnaughts (I presume that must be the name).

3. Anyone give me a run down on particular brands and their respective qualities (i.e, I know about Martin Taylor, but not much about Martin or Taylor. )

4. Solid wood vs laminates--must make a big difference, no?

5. Presumably best played with a plectrum, but what about fingerstyle? Any brands more suited for that?

6. Volume and tone quality verses a conventional acoustic jazz box?

Thanks in advance for any advice.

[mr. beaumont]

I'm not an expert, but I do a lot of flat top playing.

1. I don't think you need to spend several thousand to get a good sounding guitar. I think there's a lot of excellent instruments between 1.5-3k, and a lot of "pretty darn good" ones for under that, even.

2. Parlors will be mid focused, often. You'll lose bass and highs. That probably sounds like it'd be good to an archtop player, but I had one and just couldn't get along with it (although it recorded very well)I'm not a huge fan of their tone, generally, with steel strings I like say Martin's OM size and up. Dreadnaughts are boxy shaped and uncomfortable to me, but you might find a Jumbo size surprisingly comfortable while seated.

3. Brands are kind of all over the map, I'd think more about woods than brands.

4. Big difference. Definitely go all solid if you can, although I have played some solid top/laminated back and sides guitars that sounded very good. Laminated top, no so much.

5. Fingerstyle seems to be a body size/nut width/string spacing thing. Most "fingerstyle" players I know of trend toward smaller guitars, and prefer wider nut/string spacing options. But of course, there's exceptions.

6. Depending on the body size, the tone varies, but you're probably looking at more bass and highs, with more sustain. Certain wood combinations (like spruce top/rosewood back and sides) create a lot of overtones in strummed chords, kind of a "shimmer," which you may or may not like. Versus a solid wood archtop, they'll seem louder to the player and quieter out front, in my experience.

I enjoy playing flat tops at home, and for writing stuff. Gigging them is a damn nightmare

[matt.guitarteacher]

I confess I know next to nothing about these type of gutiars (in comparison to jazz boxes and classical guitars). Some questions and some recommendations would be appreciated.

1. is it like a classical guitar where price correlates to quality? I.e., if you want a semi- decent sounding guitar, you have to pony up a few thousand at least (unlike a jazz box, where you can get a decent guitar for not so much, comparatively speaking?)

I don't have a really expensive classical , but there is a general principle of getting what you pay for in these types of instruments, just like anything else. The more you spend, the more you get into diminishing returns, like golf clubs or anything else.

2. I'd like a smaller "parlor" type of guitar, size wize. What am I sacrificing vis-a-vis the big ass dreadnaughts (I presume that must be the name).

Dreadnoughts are not balanced instruments sonically. They are designed for specific style , and when played for a long period of time evoke certain kind of playing from the musician. Not much in midrange. If it's a full-sized instrument you want, you probably want something which is full-sized non-dreadnought . You're going to like this sound better as a starting point, if you're not a bluegrass player already. All of them have a different voice. "Good, better, best" is really the best way to compare these things. Even if you don't know what is best. That's largely subjective. Line up about three instruments you're kind of looking at the store, and try to play exactly the same thing on each one . Let it speak to you. They all have a different voice, evoke different things . Your ears will tell you what you prefer at the moment.

3. Anyone give me a run down on particular brands and their respective qualities (i.e, I know about Martin Taylor, but not much about Martin or Taylor. )

Again, you generally get what you pay for, but you'll get a slight bump in price when you go for the biggest brands always. Maybe start by checking out standard Taylor and Martin models as a beginning reference . Then, compare to some other things. I got a Larivee , Canadian made, about 15 years ago , and at the time, you got a substantial amount of increased value per dollar compared to Taylor, because it was a lesser-known brand. It's definitely not that way as much with that brand anymore , but there are similar types of comparisons to be done I'm sure. Again, your ears won't lie.

4. Solid wood vs laminates--must make a big difference, no?

Solid top is the absolute starting point with anything . As far as sides/back etc., again, I would just line then up and use my ears. Mine sounds great with solid back and sides, but the actual benefit versus solid top-only may be marginal, and how do you really measure how much of that sound really comes from the solid sides and back? Again, line them up.

5. Presumably best played with a plectrum, but what about fingerstyle? Any brands more suited for that?

probably more about body style than brand. A lot of people like the parlors in smaller sizes , but it depends on what you want in terms of bass etc.

"Line them up" is kind of my mantra , but understand that all things aren't equal at the store. Spruce is most common for the top and has to be "played in" over years/months, whereas cedar is a naturally "open" wood . Always wondered why my cheaper cedar top sounded better to my ears than the new spruce top expensive guitars at our store, until I found that out. Spruce has to be played in, and will sound better and better over time. So, account for that.

[mje]

There's a lot of variability even between identical looking guitars and woods. About half a year ago I bought an inexpensive ($125 used) Recording King O-sized guitar with a painted finish that has a great punchy midrange sound. It records well for rhythm and has a very archtop-like sound, with short decay compared to, say, a dreadnaught. I have a very nice 1970s Guild D-35 that's a better instrument in every way, but this little Recording King walks all over it when it comes to traditional jazz styles.

[goldenwave77]

Matt's previous post makes most of the points.

If you buy used, have the instrument checked out. When I buy a used car, I expect to go to a mechanic of my choice to put the car on a lift, and go over it with a fine tooth comb, and to pay him his hourly rate. For $75, this saved me from buying a station wagon with broken tie rods (a safety issue). The dealer agreed when his guy went over it, and replaced them:My 2 small children were grateful. A luthier or tech with a mirror can look internally, and check out neck and saddle issues. Acoustic problems might not be fixable. A good saddle fit can mean a lot.

Individual guitars vary a lot. I once spent 3 or 4 hrs. playing 15 different Martins, and of these, 2 or 3 were clearly better. I couldn't decide, though.

Brands differ. Someone once said Gibsons are like biting into a Big Mac (big bass and mids), Martins are like sucking on a hard candy for hrs. (more mids), and Taylor are like Cotton Candy (treble-y). Some exaggeration, but some truth, here. Guilds and Ibanez are in the middle.

I remember you saying you're focusing on fingerstyle. Look at the OO and OOO sized guitars...loud but more balanced in sound. I prize clarity, maybe above all, in instruments.

Tone woods do matter, I believe. Mahogany is mellow; spruce is ring-ier; and all maple (jumbo models) are big and ringy. Side and back woods, matter less, but do have some effect.

Electronics or not are an issue. Whatever you decide, plug it into the amp you'll be using...most people agree that amplification of acoustics is not really quite there yet, for tonal veracity.

Lots of great brands: Gibsons, Taylor, Ibanez, Guilds, Martins, L'Arrivee. I have a Heritage 445 Dreadnaught which is a bluegrass killer...big, clear sound, but again not balanced...pronounced bass.

I think $500 can get a sound, quality used instrument, and $1000 almost certainly so. The less fancy Martins in the 00 and 000 size I think are about $2300 new, and about 2/3 of this used.

Bling adds a lot of cost...A Martin D-45 is the same, structurally as a lower-priced model, but if you can't live without abalone or fancy purfling, you can certainly spend a lot to get it.

I've played Chinese Mahogany instruments that I thought sounded better than their American models.

String selection matters, which can complicate evaluation.

Like stereo speakers, once you get above a bare minimum price, you can spend whole lots more and get little incremental value...but there are imperfections in the marketplace.

[Longways to Go]

One of my favorite guitar topics!

I play a lot of flat top steel string acoustic -- it's pretty much my "home base" for guitar.
I play fingerstyle, mostly jazz & blues, plus a little rock & country.

My personal preference is for Gibsons. I have owned a couple of Taylors, and I have played a lot of Martins, but there's just something about Gibson acoustics that speaks to me. A certain sweetness of tone, I guess. My #1 favorite is a J-45 custom slope-shouldered dreadnought -- spruce top with rosewood sides. It is a spectacular instrument IMO. I like the idea of the parlor size guitars, but I prefer the sound of the dreadnought. It's a big deep voice that works great with my relatively quiet fingerpicking style.

A while back, I got interested in buying a Collings acoustic & tried a bunch of those. I didn't end up buying one (Yet!) but I was surprised to find that of all their guitars I played, I liked their dreadnought best too. Not what I was expecting, but it made me realize I'm pretty much a dreadnought guy.

Regarding woods, I think spruce top is best, with Rosewood or Mahogany back & sides giving two different flavors -- both very good.

There are many fine flat top acoustics out there. I would get out and play a bunch of them to see what inspires you.

[NSJ]

Thanks for the feedback. Lots of info to consider. Some immediate provisional answers, also.

Right now, the only non-nylon/classical acoustic guitar I have is a Solomon Imperial (CAVEAT: I put one of those Guild DeArmond 1000s on it, but I still use it purely acoustically), which I bought here from Roger P. Which is a FANTASTIC instrument, I must say, very complex sounds. Apparently, from those who have played it, they said it has *flattop like elements*. I interpreted that to mean *not exclusively midrangey*.

I was just thinking aloud of the consequences of that, given that I don't own an actual flat top steel string guitar.

No way, by the way, am I getting rid of my Solomon. It's a very unique instrument.

[dhd]

Do you have any interest in carbon fiber acoustic flat tops ?
If so you may want to check out manufactures like Rainsong, Emerald, Blackbird and Composite Acoustics.

For an example, the image below is an Emerald X7 Artisan, Amber color
24" scale, body length is 16.5", nut width 1.75", and it only weighs 3.5 pounds.
The rounded edges and compact size makes it the most comfortable guitars I've every played.
Unlike wood acoustic guitar, most carbon fiber acoustic have no internal bracing, and are very responsive and they are not affected by humidity or temperature swings.
I currently own two carbon fiber acoustic guitars and will never purchase another wood acoustic guitar.


If you wish to read other comments, a group of Carbon Fiber Acoustic Guitar Owners can be found on the following link
Carbon Fiber - The Acoustic Guitar Forum

[Al_F]

Hi, Really like OM size - loud, nice balance from bass to shimmery highs and really comfortable to play. Good luck!

[John A.]

1. is it like a classical guitar where price correlates to quality? I.e., if you want a semi- decent sounding guitar, you have to pony up a few thousand at least (unlike a jazz box, where you can get a decent guitar for not so much, comparatively speaking?)

You can get very good flattops for well under $1000, even under $500. As with archtops, there's a collector's market and various flavors of brand snobbery that result in very non-linear price:quality relationships. Stuff like Seagull (same company as Godin), Blue Ridge, and Recording King are really nice, and pretty cheap.

2. I'd like a smaller "parlor" type of guitar, size wize. What am I sacrificing vis-a-vis the big ass dreadnaughts (I presume that must be the name).

Potentially not sacrificing anything. First, a lot depends on your needs. Dreadnoughts are usually loud, which isn't always useful, e.g. for accompanying a quiet singer, and tend to be "scooped" sounding (especially Martins), which isn't to everyone's tastes. Also, some smaller guitars are actually very loud and bassy. As a generalization, bigger body = louder/bassier tone, but there are many exceptions in both both directions because of differences in wood, construction details, etc.

3. Anyone give me a run down on particular brands and their respective qualities (i.e, I know about Martin Taylor, but not much about Martin or Taylor. )

I would say Martin, Gibson, and Taylor do have characteristic tones, and most others are working off those as reference points, but I don't really know how to put that into words. Also, those characteristic tones are not necessarily consistent across body styles and bracing types. It's one of those things where you kind of have to play a bunch of 'em before you get it.

4. Solid wood vs laminates--must make a big difference, no?

In tops, there's a very big difference; solid is much better than laminated. [Laminated tops are kind of a rarity these days; solid tops go nearly all the way down the food chain.] In back and sides much less so, and the differences don't necessarily equate to better/worse. FWIW, I have a solid top, laminated back and sides dreadnought ('69 Gibson Blue Ridge). It sounds quite good.

5. Presumably best played with a plectrum, but what about fingerstyle? Any brands more suited for that?

Pick, finger picks, fingers, nails, whatever. All work with any guitar. In general, finge-rpickers tend to prefer smaller bodies with wider fingerboards/nuts, and strummers and bluegrass flat-pickers tend to prefer dreadnoughts, but there are plenty of exceptions (e.g., round shoulder Gibson dreads are popular among fingerpickers; Doc Watson played finger-style on a Martin D-18)

6. Volume and tone quality verses a conventional acoustic jazz box?

It really depends. There's a fair amount of overlap, but very generally, flat tops tend to have a broader more overtone-rich sound with a bit more zing at the top and more boom at the bottom. Archtops tend to have a more mid-ranged focused tone. But I'm sure most of us could be fooled in blind tests.

John

[Cavalier]

I think the best buy you could get would be a A-braced Ovation Legend 1117 acoustic or 1617 acoustic-electric. from the 80s The tone and volume are full and even throughout the neck and it has a really robust truss rod/neck stability system. Solid AAA spruce top, pretty easy to find for less than $400 in good shape. Why pay more if you are trying out steel strings? A 12 fret wide neck option would be their Folklore from the same era. They'll hold their own with anything and probably be louder.

[Cunamara]

I really prefer the OM size for fingerstyle, as Al_F mentioned. The best I have played was a Martin David Bromberg signature model. Wow, what a great, rich voice and just a cannon. But way beyond my price point.

My flattop is a 1978 Takamine F340S dreadnought, my very first guitar bought new in 1979 for IIRC $200... it's still worth $200! And it's a blatant trademark violatin' ripoff of the Martin look. However it's a very nice sounding and playing guitar. It does not have the zing and sizzle of a Martin, though, despite being a close copy. And it's the guitar I learned on for the first 6 years I played guitar, and I owe it a debt of gratitude and respect. It'll probably be the guitar I have till the day I play the final coda... just cuz it's such an old friend.

Yep, I'm a mush!

[rlrhett]

I have owned and built a number of flat-tops before I turned my focus on arch-tops. I can share these observations:

1) Acoustic guitars are extremely complicated acoustic machines. As luthier Alan Carruth says, "It's not rocket science... it's harder." You can't rely on swapping out pickups or changing amp settings. It's in the guitar or it isn't. Buy a guitar with the tone and playability you like from the get go. You can't upgrade it later, and life is too short to play a crappy guitar.

2) Wood is variable. No two guitars built to exactly the same dimensions with the same wood species will sound alike. You can't rely on brand or wood choice alone.

3) The standard plans for building a flat-top guitar have been around for nearly a century and can produce good sounding guitars no matter what. However, reliably adjusting your build to accommodate the individual qualities of the wood is a luxury cheaper instruments can't afford. The more time and care put into building the guitar, and the more experience the builder has, the more likely the tone of the guitar will be intentional and not random.

4) A broken clock is right twice every day. Likewise, one in a very many indifferently made cheaper factory guitars can be just as good as the best masterbuilt guitar.

5) Larger guitars tend to have more volume, smaller tend to be quieter. Beyond that a large Jumbo can sound thin and banjo-y and a ukulele can sound deep and soulful, and anything in between. It is up to the skill or luck of the luthier to coax the desired tone out of the instrument.

6) "Good" tone is subjective. However, most of us grew up either hearing Martin dreadnoughts or Gibson Jumbos. They are usually a person's benchmark for what a "good" guitar should sound like.

7) Bling starts to account for price more than quality at about the $3500 mark.

So what does that mean?

To me it means that you should first play several Martin dreadnaughts and Gibson Jumbos. Most steel string acoustic guitars will be trying to imitate that sound. Decide what you like about it, and what you don't.

Next, find a size of guitar that suits your playing/body/preference. Play everything from a Jumbo to a Terz. Find what works for you.

Next, you should play as many in that size as you can get your hands on. Listen for the variations from the "standard" Martin or Gibson that you personally like.

Same as any guitar, brand doesn't really matter (except for resale). The big name factories like Martin spend a little extra time selecting good wood. Taylor is a marvel of quality control and predictability. However none of the big factories can afford to have a luthier adjust the bracing, voice a top, select complimentary wood for the neck, choose lighter tuners to balance the guitar, etc.

Collins, Santa Cruz, Bourgeois, all take the time to really listen to the guitar as it is being built and adjust their build to the wood selected. They still get some real dogs!

Likewise, the mass produced really cheap guitars are built from whatever wood comes to the factory by assembly line workers who have never played a guitar in their lives under pressure to produce high volume quickly. That doesn't mean one wont slip out that is an absolute gem.

More expensive guitars should reliably get you a "good" tone, but if you are prepared to sample dozens and dozens you may find a gem in the cheap pile.

It depends on your patience and budget. Also, if bling matters to you reach deep into that wallet.

Conclusion:

You may play dozens of Chinese Yamahas or Seagulls, every Martin in your town, or just a couple of Santa Cruz or Collins, but you will find one you fall in love with if you go out and try them. Buy it. Take it home. Love it. Make beautiful music with it.

[newsense]

In my experience, buying a flat-top is much easier than buying an archtop, for one reason: every (and I mean every) guitar store has a wall full of acoustic flat-tops. You can spend a full day in your home town trying out acoustics. Whereas for many of us, we may have to travel a hundred miles just to test maybe 3 or 4 archtops.

[m_d]

Eastman's line of acoustics hasn't been mentioned yet. I have no personal experience with their acoustics but given how pleased I've been with my two jazz Eastmans, I thought it deserved mention. They do get excellent reviews, too.

[Longways to Go]

Eastman's line of acoustics hasn't been mentioned yet. I have no personal experience with their acoustics but given how pleased I've been with my two jazz Eastmans, I thought it deserved mention. They do get excellent reviews, too.

True! I've played quite a few really nice Eastman acoustics at the local dealer. They are well built and tuneful.
Very nice really, but I'm already a Gibson junkie . . .

[Thumpalumpacus]

I confess I know next to nothing about these type of gutiars (in comparison to jazz boxes and classical guitars). Some questions and some recommendations would be appreciated.

1. is it like a classical guitar where price correlates to quality? I.e., if you want a semi- decent sounding guitar, you have to pony up a few thousand at least (unlike a jazz box, where you can get a decent guitar for not so much, comparatively speaking?)

As with everything in life, you get what you pay for. But you can find some really good acoustics for under a grand.

2. I'd like a smaller "parlor" type of guitar, size wize. What am I sacrificing vis-a-vis the big ass dreadnaughts (I presume that must be the name).

You'll lose the boom, and gain midrange. If that sounds good to you, skip the parlor and get an OM-style body -- you'll get about the same midrange, and get better projection with the bass.

3. Anyone give me a run down on particular brands and their respective qualities (i.e, I know about Martin Taylor, but not much about Martin or Taylor. )

I love Taylors, well-built, great-sounding, and affordable.

4. Solid wood vs laminates--must make a big difference, no?

With the top, yes. With the sides, not so much.

5. Presumably best played with a plectrum, but what about fingerstyle? Any brands more suited for that?

There's a Taylor x14 model in my future, because fingerpicking is important to my playing, and that body-size/build does both fingering and strumming very well.

6. Volume and tone quality verses a conventional acoustic jazz box?

Thanks in advance for any advice.

A good flattop dreadnought will give you much more volume than any acoustic archtop I've ever played. Tone? Well, that depends on what you like.

[Jonah]

1. is it like a classical guitar where price correlates to quality? I.e., if you want a semi- decent sounding guitar, you have to pony up a few thousand at least (unlike a jazz box, where you can get a decent guitar for not so much, comparatively speaking?)

I am not really sure about classical by the way... top concert instruments may be expensive, but semi-decent classical can be taken for about usd 1000 or so.

As per still string flattops.. to my feeling it's simple with them to hide poor sound, steel strings are brighter and have much more tension, that makes it a bit more crude sound-wise in comparison to classicals, so I believe it is easier to find good steel string guitar at a lower price than classical. It depends on guitar too... jumbos or dreadnougts having quite open and direct sound - purposed for strumming style often 0 are even easier to find at low price.

2. I'd like a smaller "parlor" type of guitar, size wize. What am I sacrificing vis-a-vis the big ass dreadnaughts (I presume that must be the name).

I have been thinking about parlors for about a year now and tried many, they are sooo different. The one I like the best was Art&Lutherie Ami Burgundy with solid spruce top (not they have the same model with cedar top). Now they do not produce it any more, but still available in the shops. In comparison to others I tried it has very subtle deep and warm and at teh same time bright enough tone - well balanced in soloing or fingerstyle, and very sonorous in strumming. For me also very convinient body shape (but it depends on how you sit, you probably could need a belt to fix it properly.

3. Anyone give me a run down on particular brands and their respective qualities (i.e, I know about Martin Taylor, but not much about Martin or Taylor. )

I did not tried so many to make any comparison

4. Solid wood vs laminates--must make a big difference, no?

I would definitely go for solid wood. At least solid top. It's not a guarantee of a good sound per se. But any more or less serious acoustic should have solid top, it's what makes it live in a litteral sense, the sound would change with time.

5. Presumably best played with a plectrum, but what about fingerstyle? Any brands more suited for that?

Not brands but types maybe, concerts are more balanced in fingerstyle, parlors could be too... but I play fingerstyle superjumbo and also feel fine though it has too many overtones and sustain maybe...
The problem with any steel string flattop could be bass line... basses in fingerstyle could sound a bit dull with any striings, so you may feel like you need nail or thumb-pick to make it in balance... but it depends.

6. Volume and tone quality verses a conventional acoustic jazz box?

To me good acoustic archtops just have their own type of sound. Flattops are usually brighter and maybe more versatyle. Another thing - sometimes it is taken taken for granted that acoustic archtop should sound bad, so they try to justify poor work with that - and sometimes there poor acoustic archtops that the seller tries to sell convincing that 'this is how it should be' . It does not work with flattops.

I also add very nice video where Julian Lage and Chris Eldridge play different vintage acoustics and share their opinions (flattops and archtops)... though it's not probably what you would buy but it gives a good comparison

[Flat]

NSJ, I can tell you about the three flat-tops I am lucky enough to own. Maybe the differences will give you some ideas about what might work for you.

1974 Martin D-28:
I bought this guitar new with my life savings ($400!) when I graduated from high school. It’s big, loud, bold, and rich with overtones and great highs. It’s Neil Young and Paul McCartney and Michael Hedges and that Martin sound that everybody knows forever. I keep TI Plectrums on all of my flattops these days, and play 80% fingerstyle, but sometimes with a flatpick or thumb-pick. The D-28 has been happy in DADGAD in recent months. Sitka spruce over East Indian Rosewood. 14-frets nut-to-body join. The rap on some 70s Martin’s is that the bridge was slightly misplaced and derails intonation. I don’t know. Mine seems fine. I had the neck reset and added fossilized walrus ivory bridge pins and saddle—it really brought a little extra life to the guitar, which is heavily built and can tend to fall asleep and become dull without constant love.

1996 Martin 00-21GE:
You mentioned “parlor” guitar and some cats have mentioned that you might miss out on bass. I think of a Martin 00 as maybe one step bigger than parlor. Depends where you draw that line. This 00 is sort of parlor-ish, I suppose. Sounds great in small rooms. A very nice piece of Adirondack Spruce over East Indian Rosewood. Big wide 1.75 nut, and hence a much different feel than the D-28. 12-fret neck. A lot of people like this string spacing better for fingerstyle, but I have skinny fingers and never had any trouble playing fingerstyle on a D-28. But I don’t really think of this 00 as lacking in bass at all. In fact, it kicks it pretty good! The body is small and I’m a little tall, so I have to watch myself to keep from hulking and hunching over it. But it will probably be the guitar I grow old(er) with just because it is light and comfy. And sounds like heaven. A few guys have mentioned an OM. I think that would be a great all-around choice.

1990s Gibson Roy Smeck Stage Deluxe Reissue:
This is spruce over mahogany, in a slope-shouldered dreadnaught with an extra-deep body. The deep body does a lot. Big powerful bass. It’s also a 12-fretter. Ry Cooder slides on (a real vintage) one. And Jackson Browne used it as the basis for his signature model (but with English Walnut instead of mahogany). This is a coarse generalization, but “some say” that mahogany will let you hear the fundamental of a tone better, while rosewood will enhance the shimmering overtones. It depends on what sound you’re after, but in a lot of ways mahogany might be better suited to complex jazz chord work. You might be able to hear the individual notes better. Maybe. Who knows?

Good luck in your search!

[ugarte]

I think with the right string choice and technique there are very few styles that can't be played on a steel string flat top, so it really can be the swiss-army-knife guitar. The only transitition issues I occasionally run into have to do with playing a classical too much and I tend to slip into plucking and rasquedos when playing fingerstyle, but lots of real musicians seem to have no problem going back in forth so I'm certain it is my own laziness.

For anything except gigging (and even then with some additional electronics) I find the 000 size ideal, some people call this "concert" size but its substantially smaller than a dreadnaught and to my ear (and others) it seems a little more tonally balanced. Nut width is always an issue for me but its not specific to guitar size, different makers do different widths.

There are many many choices under $1K if you are willing to purchase pre-owned and Asian, stepping up from that might be something from Larrivee or Martin and you can still do well there for under $2K. If you want to try a decent sounding 000 flattop for remarkably little money hunt around for a Blueridge BR-163 or BR-143.

[lammie200]

Martin Special Edition SP 000C-16R | Reverb

I have one of these. I would say that size wise, tone wise, and playability wise it is pretty close to an archtop. Before this I had a 60's Martin D-18 and a 60's Gibson J-45. Both were great guitars and I regret not having them anymore. I remember playing the Gibson for a group and someone coming up to me later and saying that they thought that I was playing a trumpet. Everyone has preferences and I like both Martin and Gibson acoustics. My only suggestion is to try some out and be sure to get solids woods - no laminates, etc. I have also had two different Seagull acoustics with solid tops and laminated backs and sides. I got them to be beaters, but they never acquired a full acoustic tone in my estimation.

[Guitarbean25]

Consider a Collings SJ...spruce top and maple back, sides, and neck. All the woods and size of a jazz archtop in flat top form!

It has a drier sound vs rosewood backs with other tops and sounds divine!

[Jabberwocky]

[iim7V7IM7]

Interesting video, yet I would point out that most 0 and 00 guitars are 12-fret guitars and not the 14-fret versions used in the video. This of course alters their timbre from those presented.

[bohemian46]

Not a Taylor fan but t consider the 14 size in a 5 or 6 series presuming 6 is still maple.


Eastmans..


Narrow string spacing at the bridge short 25" scales on the so called OMs which are actually 000.
Their 1 3/4 nut width have nut slots cut for 1 11/16ths.... but they did have a model with an arched back in a mini jumbo.. very cool

Watch out for spruce top center seam glue bleed.... weird brown drift.