Discussion:
Lowden, Collings or...?
(too old to reply)
Loki
2003-09-20 20:03:43 UTC
Permalink
I am looking at going from my Taylor 810 to a smaller bodied guitar. I
had been thinking of either an 812 or maybe a Martin OM, but have been
reading a lot of good stuff about Lowdens and Collings.

Any thoughts?


Loki
David Eidelberg
2003-09-20 20:23:49 UTC
Permalink
Larrivee OM10.
Post by Loki
I am looking at going from my Taylor 810 to a smaller bodied guitar. I
had been thinking of either an 812 or maybe a Martin OM, but have been
reading a lot of good stuff about Lowdens and Collings.
Any thoughts?
Loki
LarryLarry2003
2003-09-20 21:08:47 UTC
Permalink
David responded:
<<Larrivee OM10.>>

My guess is David is half serious, sice he us selling a nice Larruvee OM-10.
Ten years ago I was looking for a smaller bodied guitar. I had a Taylor 710
and a '60's Martin 000-18, but I was not happy with the Martin. I ended up
with a Larrivee OM-09 w/cedar top, Since then about 17 other more expensive
guitars have come and gone, but I still have that Larrivee.

Larry
capod
2003-09-20 20:39:53 UTC
Permalink
I ABSOLUTELY love my Santa Cruz OM. It has an advanced brace, which
helps with the bass somewhat. It is the lightest weight, easiest guitar
I have ever played. I am partial to Rosewood and Spruce. It has been a
while since I played a Collings and it was not a small body, so I cannot
say much about them. Don't know if I have ever played a Lowdens.

I would play everything you can get your hands on, and then pick the one
you like the best.

My 2 cents...good luck!

capod
Post by Loki
I am looking at going from my Taylor 810 to a smaller bodied guitar. I
had been thinking of either an 812 or maybe a Martin OM, but have been
reading a lot of good stuff about Lowdens and Collings.
Any thoughts?
Loki
Dar Shelton
2003-09-21 03:24:33 UTC
Permalink
Did somebody say "Lowden" ?......
I had a Taylor. Now I have a Lowden that's a little hard to play . It
has in intensely beautiful sound (especially with those Newtone strings)
and I am a stubborn s.o.b. so we're making progress. Someday (but maybe
not) I'll have another nice guitar (so many great brands to choose
from) and if so I'm going to get one that's really easy to play . But
hey, I almost gave up on the Lowden in frustration. Boy am I glad I
kept after it and began to tame the thing,
hot DAMN !.

"Never trust a channeled entity"
Alarius, a channeled entity
Sheltech
2003-09-21 03:47:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dar Shelton
Did somebody say "Lowden" ?......
I had a Taylor. Now I have a Lowden that's a little hard to play . It
has in intensely beautiful sound (especially with those Newtone strings)
and I am a stubborn s.o.b. so we're making progress. Someday (but maybe
not) I'll have another nice guitar (so many great brands to choose
from) and if so I'm going to get one that's really easy to play . But
hey, I almost gave up on the Lowden in frustration. Boy am I glad I
kept after it and began to tame the thing,
hot DAMN !.
Sounds like the same old thing from me....... I need some new material !!(^#
Hmm....... maybe if I try to answer the original question with some (if I have any)
pertinent firsthand experience........

Well, the Taylor I had was an 812 , rose/spruce . Same woods as the Lowden, and both
are the small body design (Lowden S-32) but the guitars are worlds apart tonewise.
The S-32 is substantially deeper bodied and has much more jump-out-and-grab-you
power. The Taylor had a more complex sound that I sometimes miss, but there is a fundamental
beauty about the S-32 that I don't have the familiarity with terminology to describe properly,
but that simply blows me away . Not just it's substantial presence, but a lush , full , healthy
sound that I thought the thinner bodied (and sounding) Taylor lacked. I can manhandle the Lowden
and it does nothing but keep responding , giving back any intensity I put into it. The 812 sort of crapped out
if I started to get aggressive. Talking about it makes me want to go finish playing, and I don' know nothin' about
no more geetars .

Well........ bye!

(Curly Bill to Wyatt Earp in 'Tombstone' )

Dar
Loki
2003-09-21 11:26:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dar Shelton
Did somebody say "Lowden" ?......
I had a Taylor. Now I have a Lowden that's a little hard to play . It
has in intensely beautiful sound (especially with those Newtone strings)
and I am a stubborn s.o.b. so we're making progress. Someday (but maybe
not) I'll have another nice guitar (so many great brands to choose
from) and if so I'm going to get one that's really easy to play . But
hey, I almost gave up on the Lowden in frustration. Boy am I glad I
kept after it and began to tame the thing,
hot DAMN !.
What do you mean by it is hard to play?


Loki
Sheltech
2003-09-21 23:51:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Loki
Post by Dar Shelton
Did somebody say "Lowden" ?......
I had a Taylor. Now I have a Lowden that's a little hard to play . It
has i(snippp) I almost gave up on the Lowden in frustration. Boy am I glad I
kept after it and began to tame the thing,
hot DAMN !.
What do you mean by it is hard to play?
Loki
It came with really high action , which was taken care of in stages, until it's as low as it can go without buzzing.
That made it much less of a struggle, and in fact made it like many other guitars in this (playability) regard.
I can't say for sure that it's harder than the average guitar to play, but it seems to have a higher tension than some.
The folks who actually know guitars can help with explaining along these lines, as I don't play many guitars.
I remember that I had to work for a while till I felt as comfortable on it as I was with the Taylor. String tension
that made it hard to fret properly, and the action. It's not really much of an issue now. If I didn't wear my hands out working
I'd
be able to do more of the kind of strength training that would really make it a non-issue. Recently, after doing a bunch of
pulling-
with-clasped-hands-exercises (I forgot the gym name for those (^#) I developed some numbness in my left pinky. Ixnay on the
ulling-pay for a while. Maybe I'm just being a puss about the Lowden, though..........

Dar

David Kilpatrick
2003-09-21 11:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dar Shelton
Did somebody say "Lowden" ?......
I had a Taylor. Now I have a Lowden that's a little hard to play . It
has in intensely beautiful sound (especially with those Newtone strings)
and I am a stubborn s.o.b. so we're making progress. Someday (but maybe
not) I'll have another nice guitar (so many great brands to choose
from) and if so I'm going to get one that's really easy to play . But
hey, I almost gave up on the Lowden in frustration. Boy am I glad I
kept after it and began to tame the thing,
hot DAMN !.
Problem I have with my current big Lowden, and the last one too, is that
the strings move so much physically the action would need to be really
high to avoid them clattering around on the frets. Every month or so I
de-shim it, try lighter strings, and play gently - the sound is
wonderful. Then I go to a session and someone complains that they simply
can not hear my guitar - everyone else is playing pick strummed
Washburn, cheap Koreans, Seagulls etc and the volume is MANY times what
a bare-finger played Lowden O-12 can achieve. So I get out a pick and
strum, and of course, it ends up as a rattlefest - little audible except
strings hitting frets. Then I put the shims back in, raise the action to
3mm-4mm instead of 1.9-2.9, put back 12-52 strings, and find I've lost a
lot of flexibility and ease of playing.

Yet put me in a concert situation - solo gig, small PA or no PA and
quiet room - and the Lowden is wonderful. The clarity, accuracy and the
tone of the instrument blow anything away and when not drowned out by
three loudly strummed (and slightly out of tune!) fellow session
songsters, it's perfect. In sessions, I find myself constantly wanting
to retune because my accurately and finely tuned guitar immediately
sounds out of tune when played alongside inaccurately and 'variously'
tuned instruments, which are simply not as sensitive to their mistuning.
The Lowden sound is so pure that tiny errors in tuning, whether against
itself or other instruments, sound awful.

It continues to be a problem for me. If I can really only play this
guitar well as a solo instrument, in a quiet audience situation or with
a mic/pickup being used, then I do not really need the large O body. In
fact I could use a very small instrument with the right qualities - I
don't need the 650mm scale either. I'm playing a couple of instruments
with 612mm and 540mm scales at the moment, and the speed and ease of the
540mm scale amazes me. Admittedly it's tuned up to GDGCDG, it's nylon
strung and it has only got a 43mm nut width, but this is a half-size
solid wood classical - smaller than a parlour guitar. It is amazingly
loud and clear if strummed hard yet very subtle if played fingerstyle.
If a small body like this can work for nylon string, and have a balanced
an good tone, it must be possible to make a steel string which can do
the same. It might need 14-58 strings for standard tuning. But why not?

David
TarBabyTunes
2003-09-21 18:04:27 UTC
Permalink
Collings are wonderful, and I am deeply, deeply in love with my Santa Cruz OM
PW. There have been good suggestions about what you can look for next...

Lowden...

I just had the good fortune to get a wonderful 032 (spruce/rosewood) Lowden in
mint condition for a lovely price. It sure is a different guitar from all the
American guitars I'm accustomed to! I change it back and forth from standard
to DADGAD. I play mostly in DADGAD, but the Lowden is a favorite in the
studio, so it gets a lot of use in standard (and I need to keep it there
sometimes so I don't completely forget how to play in std tuning... <G>).

I find it a bit hard to play also, but mostly from unfamilarity with a
different design. The neck seems wider and is definitely flatter than my other
guitars, but the guys who play big Taylors and D- Martins don't notice it as
much as I do.

I haven't had DavidK's problems with stringing and volume. I initially put
lights on it (my standard D'Addario EFT16 set, .012-.053) and I wanted a bit
more low-mid and bottom, so I moved it up to the EFT17 size (.013-.056). It
did a little bit toward emphasizing the low end, but mainly just made the thing
lowder (!!!). I'll go back to a .012 set next change.

I haven't made any changes in the truss rod nor the saddle heights. The action
was a -tad- more comfortable with the lighter strings, but most of the
std-tuning players did not notice the difference in the string sizes, so it
must not be significant.

The low-mids and bottom are so clear that it makes the SC OM PW sound as
'thunk-y' as a Martin! It's amazing. I have not spent any time with an 010
Lowden, but I wonder a lot about the cedar/mahogany combination, and also the
cedar/walnut ones. I may have to find one of those some day, too... <GG>

Lowdens are a very different instrument, indeed. The build quality is amazing
and I find my self just staring at the details quite often.

It does take some getting used to, but it is, as DavidK has said, a
tremendously rewarding guitar sonically.

steveV
Larry Pattis
2003-09-20 21:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Loki
I am looking at going from my Taylor 810 to a smaller bodied guitar. I
had been thinking of either an 812 or maybe a Martin OM, but have been
reading a lot of good stuff about Lowdens and Collings.
Any thoughts?
Loki
I recommend taking a long look at Martin's OO-18V.
--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" LarryPattis "dot" com
Guitar Odyssey
http://www.LarryPattis.com
Dan Carey
2003-09-20 22:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Loki
I am looking at going from my Taylor 810 to a smaller bodied guitar. I
had been thinking of either an 812 or maybe a Martin OM, but have been
reading a lot of good stuff about Lowdens and Collings.
Any thoughts?
Loki
Add a Larrivee to your list, then go play as many of them as you can before
you decide. They're all excellent choices and you can't go wrong.

Geezer
George W.
2003-09-20 22:23:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Loki
I am looking at going from my Taylor 810 to a smaller bodied guitar. I
had been thinking of either an 812 or maybe a Martin OM, but have been
reading a lot of good stuff about Lowdens and Collings.
Any thoughts?
Just that you need to try them for yourself. The guitars you mention
are all very different from each other.
Tony Done
2003-09-20 22:51:54 UTC
Permalink
From your list, I would likely look at Collings first.

Two more possibles are Santa Cruz and Bourgeois (Pantheon), which are the
same price, quality and reputation range as those you mention. Dana
Bourgeois has suffered from marketing problems, but I have never heard any
unfavourable comments about his guitars, and they seem to maintain a good
resale value.

Tony D
Post by Loki
I am looking at going from my Taylor 810 to a smaller bodied guitar. I
had been thinking of either an 812 or maybe a Martin OM, but have been
reading a lot of good stuff about Lowdens and Collings.
Any thoughts?
Loki
Stephen Boyke
2003-09-20 23:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Loki,

Collings and Lowden are rather different in sound overall. They are
both excellent brands. There are numerous other brands which are also
excellent.

Besides body style and luthier, other equally important decisions are
(i) wood combination and (ii) price range. There are dozens of wood
combinations, although a few are most common. Since you already have a
decent Taylor, I'd guess your price range would be at least $2,000 (list
price). There are many, many guitars out there at this price point.

Research different brands, wood combinations and body styles. Take the
time to play as many guitars as you can, even if it means taking a trip to
one of the large stores (Mandolin Bros., Buffalo Bros., Elderly, etc.). Ask
questions here or in other newsgroups. Trust your ears.

--
Stephen T. Boyke
Post by Loki
I am looking at going from my Taylor 810 to a smaller bodied guitar. I
had been thinking of either an 812 or maybe a Martin OM, but have been
reading a lot of good stuff about Lowdens and Collings.
Any thoughts?
Loki
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...