Tone: Collings vs. Bourgeois vs. Martin

[TDavis]

Generally speaking, what are the differences between small-bodied Collings & Bourgeois guitars, versus the Martin products? I know most Collings guitars have a brighter, more “balanced” tone than a Martin…but is that true of the Dana Bourgeois models as well?

[jaymarsch]

Over the years, I have found Collings guitars to be the most consistent of the three makers. One of the nicest 00s that I have played was a Bourgeois - Italian spruce and Pau Ferro. Warm and full but with great note separation. I find they each have their own tonal signature, as it were, so it just comes down to playing them and see what your ears and hands like best.
I would, generally, say that Martin probably is the “darkest” sounding of the three. Not in a bad way, just that deeper warmth that they can have, even in the small bodies.
Best,
Jayne

[Kh1967]

Originally Posted by jaymarsch

Over the years, I have found Collings guitars to be the most consistent of the three makers. One of the nicest 00s that I have played was a Bourgeois - Italian spruce and Pau Ferro. Warm and full but with great note separation. I find they each have their own tonal signature, as it were, so it just comes down to playing them and see what your ears and hands like best.
I would, generally, say that Martin probably is the “darkest” sounding of the three. Not in a bad way, just that deeper warmth that they can have, even in the small bodies.
Best,
Jayne

I agree with Jayne. In many cases, I think Bourgeois kind of splits the difference between Collings and Martin in the small bodies.

But, from a pure consistency of tone, Collings seems to deliver much more often to my ear. All three can build incredible guitars, but if I am buying site unseen/unplayed, my vote would be for the Collings.

[Jay5150]

Originally Posted by jaymarsch

Over the years, I have found Collings guitars to be the most consistent of the three makers. One of the nicest 00s that I have played was a Bourgeois - Italian spruce and Pau Ferro. Warm and full but with great note separation. I find they each have their own tonal signature, as it were, so it just comes down to playing them and see what your ears and hands like best.
I would, generally, say that Martin probably is the “darkest” sounding of the three. Not in a bad way, just that deeper warmth that they can have, even in the small bodies.
Best,
Jayne

That’s pretty much what I feel too. My experience is that Martin is the darker of the 3. The Collings I played were more « open sounding », full range and 3D sounding than Martin (bare in mind, I have only played OM and 00 Collings). The only Bourgeois I have tried felt like a D-18 with infinite sustain. But the price was 3 times the price of a D-18. Tone was pretty much in the same ballpark as Martin.
However, I have never played Authentic series of Martin. The priciest I have tried I still the HD-28 I bought in a heartbeat.

[MHC]

Originally Posted by Kh1967

I agree with Jayne. In many cases, I think Bourgeois kind of splits the difference between Collings and Martin in the small bodies.

I have owned all three (in OMs and 00s) and I also agree with this assessment. If Collings offers an ethereal sound, Bourgeois is a bit more down to earth, while Martin has its feet firmly planted on terra firma.

But I will also add, in my experience with the smaller guitar variants, Bourgeois has a tad less volume than the other two.

These days I tend toward the Bourgeois tone. I currently have a Bourgeois DB signature 00 (rosewood) that lacks nothing at all in terms of warmth and complexity of tone over any of the OMs I've played. That said, I have loved guitars from all three of these makers and could have lived with any one of them permanently -- it is only my curious nature that kept me brand hopping to see what's out there.

[musicman1951]

Originally Posted by Ozarkpicker

Generally speaking, what are the differences between small-bodied Collings & Bourgeois guitars, versus the Martin products?

I find the Collings too bright for my taste. Beautiful guitars, but kind of a cold brightness. I find the Bourgeois in the middle of the three, balanced but considerably warmer than the Collings. I've only played a handful of the Bourgeois, but I would have been happy to take any of them home, which I can't say for any of the Collings. But lots of people like them and their fit and finish is wonderful.

Martin is Martin, although I have to say that my 000-42 Marquis is incredibly balanced with plenty of power. It sounds like a Martin, but not like a dread.

[Mr. Jelly]

The Martins always have that Martin rumble going on and no midrange to speak of. My Santa Cruz and Collings 00s are better balanced and so the mids come out more with less Martin bass rumble. My Collings is a traditional so it has more mids and less of the typical Collings sound.

[brencat]

An OM is considered "small body" to me, so take this for what it's worth.

Bourgeois is a lot closer to the Martin sound than Collings. Bourgeois guitars also tend to emphasize the lower mids at the expense of a snappy high end like a Martin would have. Collings meanwhile have a "hot" midrange and very strong highs at the expense of the lower registers. I've heard other people say this is actually what 'balanced' means, but for someone whose ears are tuned to the Martin/Gibson vintage voicing, it means "lacks bass" and it's noticeable.

If you want warmth and vintage voicing, it's Martin. If you want volume and clarity it's Collings. If you want to split the difference at the expense of high end snap, go Bourgeois.

[Tempotantrum]

Originally Posted by brencat

An OM is considered "small body" to me, so take this for what it's worth.

Bourgeois is a lot closer to the Martin sound than Collings. Bourgeois guitars also tend to emphasize the lower mids at the expense of a snappy high end like a Martin would have. Collings meanwhile have a "hot" midrange and very strong highs at the expense of the lower registers. I've heard other people say this is actually what 'balanced' means, but for someone whose ears are tuned to the Martin/Gibson vintage voicing, it means "lacks bass" and it's noticeable.

If you want warmth and vintage voicing, it's Martin. If you want volume and clarity it's Collings. If you want to split the difference at the expense of high end snap, go Bourgeois.

Having owned good examples from each of these makers I think this is accurate. I would add however, the Collings T series - especially the recent examples with features like Neck support redesign and thin Satin finishes moves Collings more towards warmth and a "looseness" that feels great. The simple answer - one of each!

[ntotoro]

Originally Posted by brencat

An OM is considered "small body" to me, so take this for what it's worth.

Bourgeois is a lot closer to the Martin sound than Collings. Bourgeois guitars also tend to emphasize the lower mids at the expense of a snappy high end like a Martin would have. Collings meanwhile have a "hot" midrange and very strong highs at the expense of the lower registers. I've heard other people say this is actually what 'balanced' means, but for someone whose ears are tuned to the Martin/Gibson vintage voicing, it means "lacks bass" and it's noticeable.

If you want warmth and vintage voicing, it's Martin. If you want volume and clarity it's Collings. If you want to split the difference at the expense of high end snap, go Bourgeois.

The Martin/Bourgeois comparison/contrast is definitely my experience, also. Comparing/Contrasting a CB Deluxe Dread I used to have (that unwillingly sold, but am glad a member here actually is enjoying) and a D18-GE I used to have, the Martin had considerably more low-end growl snd the Bourgeois was smoother and fuller in the low-mids. Also slightly smoother snd thicker overall.

I currently have a Vintage Heirloom Custom D and even that has the same differences as a nice rosewood Martin D. I mean… it’s an amazing guitar, but the fundamental construction differences in tone are still there.

Nick