Takamine "lawsuit" acoustic guitars

[lex666]

My local GC has a Takamine "lawsuit" acoustic guitar. A visual knock-off of a Martin D28. The sales kid tried to talk me into buying it saying its very rare, approx 20 years old and built exactly like a Martin D28 - same woods, specs etc...

Can someone give me some history on this guitar and wether or not this guitar is as rare and expensive as stated?

 

[Bludave]

Re: Takamine "lawsuit" acoustic guitars

Martin sued takamine to stop building them. They are well made but nowhere in the same league as a martin. Good guitar though. I have a Takamine 363 that was made sometime after the "lawsuit" It is also a good guitar. The thing I find about most other guitars is they just can't seem to get a handle on the neck. The woods are good, and the construction is solid. A little overbuilt which makes them a little difficult to great fingerpicking out of them but overall a decent guitar. Its the necks & the overall tonal quality of the real deal that separates them. I have a few Martins & when I compare them to this..... well it just doesn't compare. this does not mean it is not a good guitar though. I keep mine in my office & when I have time I will play it a bit.

What are they asking for this "Lawsuit" model?

 

[lex666]

Re: Takamine "lawsuit" acoustic guitars

What are they asking for this "Lawsuit" model?

IIRC, the price tag was $435.00.

Becuz of the sales hype and pitch when compared to the price, my first instinct was BS - if it were that comperable to a Martin or that great and rare of a guitar I figured the price would correlate.

Edit: Also, a visual inspection revealed what appeared to be split back and top. Was not certain what type of woods used. Neck did feel fat & round just like all Tak's... not my personal fav. The Takamine headstock appeared to be in the style of the Martin & Co. Est. 1835 logo. Tonewise, it was somewhat unimpressive.

 

[Grandturk]

Re: Takamine "lawsuit" acoustic guitars

I believe it would have been older than 20 years.

 

[eschoendorff]

Re: Takamine "lawsuit" acoustic guitars

IIRC, the price tag was $435.00.

Becuz of the sales hype and pitch when compared to the price, my first instinct was BS - if it were that comperable to a Martin or that great and rare of a guitar I figured the price would correlate.

Edit: Also, a visual inspection revealed what appeared to be split back and top. Was not certain what type of woods used. Neck did feel fat & round just like all Tak's... not my personal fav. The Takamine headstock appeared to be in the style of the Martin & Co. Est. 1835 logo. Tonewise, it was somewhat unimpressive.

There's your answer. NO buy.

 

[Bludave]

Re: Takamine "lawsuit" acoustic guitars

If it wasn't cracked I would say it's not bad, but the cracks for me would be a deal breaker.

 

[Bludave]

Re: Takamine "lawsuit" acoustic guitars

From further investigation Martin never actually filed a lawsuit, but apparently Takamine violated other manufacturer's as well as Martin. Not really sure why they would want to build a guitar that looks very similar to someone elses guitar but that is what they did .

http://shop.ebay.com/items/takamine...1&MT_ID=70&tt_encode=raw&adgroup_id=799484091

 

[darnright]

Re: Takamine "lawsuit" acoustic guitars

Mine's an F-340 and I love it. It will be here for a long time.

-dave

 

[butnut]

Re: Takamine "lawsuit" acoustic guitars

Yep, I had a F340S Spruce top...good tone but I grew to hate the skinny neck. Sold it with a sweet white hard case for $100.00. I bought it new in the 70s for about $150.00.

 

[uOpt]

Re: Takamine "lawsuit" acoustic guitars

In general, the "lawsuit" area Japanese guitars have all been built before they went really high quality.

The cool Japanese guitars start around 1980 and by then they obey to the headstock rule etc.

 

[briggleman]

Re: Takamine "lawsuit" acoustic guitars

If it wasn't cracked I would say it's not bad, but the cracks for me would be a deal breaker.

If I understood his visual inspection correctly, he is talking about a two piece top and bottom, not a crack???

 

[lex666]

Re: Takamine "lawsuit" acoustic guitars

If I understood his visual inspection correctly, he is talking about a two piece top and bottom, not a crack???

Correct. 2 piece construction - not a solid top or back.

 

[briggleman]

Re: Takamine "lawsuit" acoustic guitars

Correct. 2 piece construction - not a solid top or back.

OK, still need clarification... Most, higher end solid tops are 2 piece, however they are from the same slab of wood. They are bookmatched, (The slab is sawed down the middle and then the two seams are joined together so the markings are the same on both sides. Same goes for the back, some are even 3 piece depending on the supply of the wood. Some of the inexpensive guitars use laminates for the backs and sides, but still use a solid top. A laminate will hold up better to humidly changes but lacks the tone of solid wood.

 

[mickeyemer]

Re: Takamine "lawsuit" acoustic guitars

Correct. 2 piece construction - not a solid top or back.

Yeah, that was probably the f360s or 363s. The "S" meaning solid top.
Martin never ever sued takamine, in fact they went to their factory and set them up, and tak owned the prewar martin plans. They were contracted to be Martins second line of guitars, but then tak backed out and sigma became their second line. Martin did send them a letter telling them to change their logo.
Misinformation from one site is never good, fact is tak built those guitars to rival Martins and many blow Martins away in sound, intoneation and playability. I own a f363 and it is awesome. Alway research from different sources. It's strange, even the lamtops can sound as good as the solid tops, but like any brand, can play the exact same two guitars and one might not just cut it. No Bs from that salesperson, they are amazing guitars.

 

[darnright]

Re: Takamine "lawsuit" acoustic guitars

I got mine at a Lexington KY pawnshop for $107.50.....Plays and sounds very good....not near a Martin, though.

-dave

 

[Smax410]

Re: Takamine "lawsuit" acoustic guitars

Yeah, that was probably the f360s or 363s. The "S" meaning solid top.
Martin never ever sued takamine, in fact they went to their factory and set them up, and tak owned the prewar martin plans. They were contracted to be Martins second line of guitars, but then tak backed out and sigma became their second line. Martin did send them a letter telling them to change their logo.

Misinformation from one site is never good, fact is tak built those guitars to rival Martins and many blow Martins away in sound, intoneation and playability. I own a f363 and it is awesome. Alway research from different sources. It's strange, even the lamtops can sound as good as the solid tops, but like any brand, can play the exact same two guitars and one might not just cut it. No Bs from that salesperson, they are amazing guitars.

I have to agree. I learned on my dad's 1980 f340s and I've never heard a guitar quite like it. I'd take it over any Martin any day.

In fact, I'm going to look at a 1977 f340s today. I don't have any hopes that it'll sound as good but if it's in the same range, I think it's a steal at 250.

With any guitar, it's about the sound quality. I've heard awful Taylor's and Martin's and a really great guitar bought for twenty dollars from some backwoods Luthier in Romania. If it sounds good and you're in the market, buy it, but never buy the name.

 

[treyhaislip]

Re: Takamine "lawsuit" acoustic guitars

I had the "D18" model one, was a good player and sounded great...but it was no Martin.

I think they make a decent copy for the price, but personally if you want to spend a little more, go with an Eastman such as the E6D as it will give you solid woods all around (majority of the Lawsuits used a lot of laminates) and offers incredible tone for the price, IMO. Still not a Martin but I paid $650 for my E8D (I prefer Rosewood sides and back rather than Mahogany) as opposed to $2,900 for the Martin HD28.