Kodachrome...A look back at the end of an era

See more about the Kodachrome Project here.

Why I'm more special than (or at least as special as) Drew Brees

With the annual meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP) last week and the Super Bowl coming up this weekend, I was wondering how rare or common are social psychologists compared to (American) football players?

• There are approximately 1,700 active professional football players (32 teams x 53 players on each roster), more if you count those guys on injured reserve or practice squads. So maybe there are 2,000 guys getting paid to play football in this country in any given year.
• SocialPsychology.org claims that it has an "interactive directory of over 1,800 professionals who specialize in social or personality psychology." Of course, not every social psychologist has a profile there (but most do); then again, some of the folks with profiles aren't currently active (e.g., retired or don't currently hold faculty positions).
• There were 3,400 people at SPSP, but that includes some personality psychologists and a lot of grad students (I'm not counting post-docs and grad students in my estimate of social psychologists; I'm also not including college football players in these numbers). Of course not all social psychologists go to SPSP; my guess is that there were 1,000 social psychologists with faculty positions, at most, at SPSP.
• I suppose I could get a pretty good sense of the number of social (and personality) psychologists by getting the membership records for SPSP (i.e., the non-student members); most social (and personality) psychologists are members there. But that seems like a lot of work to ask of someone just to satisfy my follies.
• The career of the average football player is much shorter than that of academic social psychologists (a few years vs. a few decades). So even if at any point in time there are the same number of people employed as social psychologists as football players, across the last 50 years there would have been many more professional football players than social psychology professors.

So my best guess is that in any given year the number of professional football players and social psychologists is probably pretty similar. But over time there have been more football players than social psychologists.

Of course, Drew Brees isn't the average football player. I am definitely not the Drew Brees of social psychologists, although we were at Purdue at the same time. I'm more like a backup offensive lineman or a punter... :-) 

(Please note, in case it's not obvious, the title of this post was written with tongue firmly in cheek.)

Another groovy Collings video

The vintage bug

I got a taste of it playing a '49 D-18 at Vintage Instruments last summer, but spending time with the "Dawg" '56 D-18 has really made me understand that there's something special about old guitars. Admittedly I don't have any experience with pre-war dreadnoughts, but I've now played a few D-18s from the late-40s through mid-50s (a '48, '49, '55, '56, and '57) and I'm starting to see why guitar-geeks go crazy over vintage guitars. Sound is so subjective and hard to describe, but I can say that they *feel* different. Much like your favorite broken-in faded blue jeans, they're worn in just the right places to be comfortable. Your hand knows exactly where it's supposed to be on the neck, following generations of players before you.

I'm a bit concerned that I'm developing a taste for vintage guitars. I'm starting to get it; there is something special about vintage guitars.

Willie Nelson's well-loved "Trigger"Of course, as I scientist I'm trained to think about various possible explanations. Why are old guitars different? Maybe it's attrition: the best guitars are the ones that made it through the last fifty or sixty years. It's musical survival of the fittest. Great sounding boxes were loved and cherished, while the dogs were cast aside as disposable guitars. I don't really buy this explanation; Martins and Gibsons have never been been cheap. Musicians wouldn't be carelessly casting these aside instruments, even the ones that might sound sub-par. And great sounding guitars would have been played a lot (i.e., used and abused); one can just as easily make a compelling argument that great sounding guitars would have been less likely to have survived.

If it's not a selection bias, it has to be either the quality of the construction (the materials and craftsmanship) or processes associated with aging. Good grapes, a skilled vintner, and some years of waiting make for a fine bottle of wine. Guitars aren't that different.

The Martin factory in Nazareth, PA circa 1939Clearly there was more premium wood to build with in the mid-20th century, and some of the more labor intensive building techniques that contribute to tone (e.g., hide-glue) were abandoned as production increased in the 60s. With less production it's possible that the craftsmen in Nazareth and Kalamazoo spent more time and care tuning each individual instrument. Then again, costs have always always been partly determined by the hours it takes to build an instrument; turning instruments out quickly would always have been important. But there is clearly a reason to believe that the quality of materials and construction techniques contributed to the great tone of these instruments.

The aging process is much more mystical. Maybe the wood settles in the the patterns of vibrations associated with musicality. Just like those old jeans get comfortable in just the right areas, guitars might start to loosen up at points corresponding to the frequencies where they'be been played. Maybe the wood continues to dry; the cellular structure changes and the wood becomes more dynamic and resonant.

I don't have any answers that this point. I'm just thinking out loud. This is a journey is just starting; I've got a lot to learn. But my guess is that there will be some old guitars in my future.

"Wildwood Flower" on a 1937 D-28

Chris Eldridge plays "Wildwood Flower" on a 1937 Martin D-28 (from Fretboard Journal). So tasty.

Kodak and Fujifilm: Past, present, and future

I stumbled upon this interesting article in The Economist on that state of two old rivals: Kodak and Fujifilm. As someone who is interested in film photography and has a Fujifilm X100, this piqued my interest. It's sad to see an icon like Kodak struggling, but at least we know that fans can keep niche film products alive, like when Polaroid ran into trouble.

Pickin' & trimmin'

Photo of the week - January 17, 2012

Nikon 50mm @ f/1.4, on a Nikon D90. Converted with Nik Silver Efex Pro.

Muleskinner live (featuring Clarence White, Peter Rowan, & David Grisman)

Awesome.

Fuji X-Pro1

A pretty cool new camera platform... If I wasn't already invested in the Nikon system and didn't have an X100, I might consider jumping into this.

The draw here, of course, is that it's an interchangeable lens system. But it's not as compact as the X100, and I'm finding I really like the X100's 23mm (~35mm equivalent) field of view.

Vices

image source: championdontstop.comWhen you think of all the things "other guys" are into, my one vice is relatively benign, isn't it? I don't have a cigarette (or cigar) habit, nor am I into beer, wine, or other types of alcohol. I don't golf, play poker, fish, or drive an expensive car (my ride is 10 years old and paid off, and gets 40mpg). I'd rather have a $5 burrito than a $30 steak; I don't wear suits or designer clothes. If you take that $3 y'all spend at Starbucks everyday, that starts to adds up to a pretty nice guitar every so often. Let's do the math for the year for the typically vices that most of you have (i.e., not including cigarettes; that would increase these numbers a lot):

• 300 coffees (@ $3 each) = $900
• A couple of six packs a month (@ ~$8 each, two per month) =  $200
• A glass of wine or two per week (~1 bottle a month @ ~$20) = $240
• A few rounds of golf a year (I have no idea how much a round costs; maybe $40?): $120
• Haircuts at a barbershop (every other month @ $20 each): $120
• Gym membership (@ ~$30 a month) = $360*

TOTAL = $1940

So, I'm good for about $2000 in guitars a year, right?

*Not that I go to the gym, but if I did I'd use the one at work for free.

RT does BS

Photo of the week - January 10, 2012

Newport Bridge, Newport, Oregon. Fuji X100 @ f/8. Converted with Nik Silver Efex Pro.

"Wild Horses" + bluegrass = excellence

A tale of two D-18's

1956 D-18 from www.mckenzierivermusic.comI've posted a couple of times about the 1956 "Dawg" D-18 from McKenzie River Music recently (here and here), and generally rambled on about D-18's a lot, so I figured it's time to write about this model a bit more. Rather than rattle off a list of artists who have played D-18's, I thought I'd provide a bit of history and technical information about this guitar.

Martin introduced the D-18 in 1934 and shortly after its debut it became their most popular guitar, a position it held until 1968, when production of the D-28 overtook it. There has been a steady evolution of the specifications of the model over the years, but the defining features of the D-18 is that it's a 14-frets to the body dreadnought ("D") guitar with mahogany back/sides, dovetail neck joint, spruce top, and dark (black or tortoise-colored) binding (style "18").

stock image of a D-18GE from www.martinguitar.comFor 60 years, from 1934 to 1994, there was only one D-18 in Martin's regular lineup; in 1995 the D-18V (including the reintroduction of some "vintage" features that had been changed over the years) was added to the family (along with a limited run of 1995 D-18 "Golden Era" 1937 guitars), and in 1999 the D-18GE "1934" (a very different guitar from the 1937 Golden Era D-18) joined the D-18 lineup. The D-18GE is a loose interpretation of the original D-18 from 1934, and brings back several desirable features that the D-18 lost over its evolution, including the location and shape of the braces (i.e., scalloped until 1944), an Adirondack spruce top (a.k.a., red spruce; Sitka spruce replaced red spruce on the D-18 in 1947, except for a few "mystery spruce" guitars in the 50's), and the 1-3/4" neck width at the nut with a V-shaped profile (rather than the slimmer 1-11/16" neck that had evolved over time). I first played a D-18GE in 2000 or so at Mass Street Music in Lawrence, KS.

In 2005 the D-18 "Authentic" (unofficially known as the D-18A), which is, to date, the truest recreation of a 1937 model handbuilt by a select group of luthiers at Martin, was introduced, but I haven't played one yet so I can't comment (although peeps on the interwebs seem to rave about them). So, in summary, the current (as of 2012) D-18 lineup, from least to most expensive, is the standard D-18, D-18V, D-18GE, and D-18 Authentic (there's also the recent/current D-18P, with a 1 3/4" neck width, and short scale D-18SS, and there was the D-18 Marquis, which was nearly identical to the D-18GE, although it lacked the Brazilian rosewood headstock overlay). UPDATE #1: in January 2012 Martin merged the features of the D-18V (bracing and appointments) and D-18P (neck) into a redesigned standard D-18. The current D-18 lineup is the (a) standard, (b) D-18GE, (c) D-18 Authentic, and (d) short scale D-18SS. UPDATE #2: in January 2013 Martin replaced the 1937 D-18 Authentic with a new D-18 Authentic based on the 1939 model.

D-18AG, based on Andy's own '56 D-18; image from www.martinguitar.comNote: The above doesn't speak to runs of limited edition and artist model D-18's like the D-18GL [Gordon Lightfoot], D-18CW [Clarence White], D-18AG [Andy Griffith], D-18DC [David Crosby], D-18 Del McCoury, HD-18JB [Jimmy Buffett], D-18 1955 CFM IV, D-18 75th Anniversary Edition, the early limited D-18V's of 1985 and 1992, the 1989 D-18 Special, or the maple-bound D-18MB of 1990.

I'm mostly writing here about the MRM Dawg 1956 D-18 and a D-18GE built in 2002, which are the two D-18's I've spent the most time with.

The first thing to note in the graphic below is the spike in Martin production that started in the mid-nineties, after the dip in the 80's that followed the folk boom of the mid-60's to late-70's. Martin has grown a lot in the last 20 years; the company, which was founded in 1833, has built about 2/3rds of its total guitars since 1992. Stated another way, in their first 160 years Martin built about 50,000 guitars; in the last 20 years, they've built twice that.

In 1956 Martin built 5,897 guitars; 1,078 of them (18%) were D-18s. By 2002 Martin was up to 68,208 guitars, but only 1,431 (2%) of those were D-18 variants (standard D-18, D-18V, and D-18GE). Comparing 1956 and 2002, Martin's production was 11.5 times greater in 2002, but they only built 353 more D-18 variants that year than in 1956. The D-18 used to be the bread and butter workhorse guitar for Martin; now it's one of many instruments that Martin makes, from entry-level to museum-showcase models.

Some of the key differences between a 1956 D-18 and a 2002 D-18GE include:

• Sitka spruce top (1956) vs. Adirondack spruce (2002)
• Brazilian rosewood fretboard and bridge (1956) vs. ebony (2002)
• Straight bracing (1956) vs. scalloped bracing (2002)
• "Forward shifted" bracing, i.e., the X-braces cross closer to the soundhole, on the 2002 D-18GE (which is a return to the pattern used prior to the late-30s)
• Non-adjustable T-bar (1956) to stiffen/support the neck vs. an adjustable truss rod (2002)
• Hide glue construction (1956) vs. modern tite-bond glue (2002)
• 1-11/16" neck at the nut, C-shaped neck profile (1956) vs. 1-3/4" with V-shape profile (2002)
• Kluson tuners (1956) vs. Waverly vintage-style tuners (2002)
• Tortoise-colored binding (1956) vs. black binding (2002)
• This particular 1956 D-18 has a (replacement) bone nut and saddle; the 2002 D-18GE has those components made from fossilized (mammoth) ivory; both have the vintage cut "through" saddle
• 46 years of playing

Note that the contemporary standard D-18 (not GE) is relatively similar to the 1956 version, at least nominally in specifications, other than the hide glue construction, truss rod, saddle, origin of rosewood for the bridge and fretboard (currently Indian rosewood), binding (currently black), and tuners (modern style). But these subtle differences plus several generations of playing will definitely create vastly different sounding guitars. The current standard D-18 is quite a separate animal from one circa mid-50's.

Pricing:

• In 1956 a D-18 was priced at $155; in 2002 dollars, this would be about $1020.
• A 2002 standard D-18 had a list price of $2099 (raised to $2159 by the end of the year); street price (i.e., actual cost after typical dealer discount) would have been $1260-1300.
• The list price of a 2002 D-18GE was $3795 with a street price of about $2300. The current (2011) list price is $4349; the street price is just north of $2600. 
• Assuming that Martins weren't sold at significant discount in 1956 (i.e., $155 was pretty much the street price), the standard D-18 sold for about $240 more (in 2002 dollars), or about 20% more, than it did in 1956. This is interesting because in 1956 there was much less automation at the Martin factory. I have to imagine that the number of hours to make a D-18 was greater in 1956 than 2002. Maybe the cost of some materials (e.g., mahogany) have gone up?
• In 2002 it cost about twice as much to get the vintage features in the GE vs. the standard D-18 (i.e., increased costs associated with Adirondack spruce, ebony, and Waverly tuners). There's no way that these upgrades and extra construction time (e.g., labor to scallop the braces) cost more than a few hundred dollars, so the profit margin on the D-18GE is likely much higher than the standard D-18. And given that the D-18GE sold (and continues to sell) really well, players are willing to pay a premium for the vintage features on the GE. 

Sound and tonal characteristics:

• The 2002 D-18GE has much more bass; it's warmer and balanced across the strings.
• The 1956 D-18 sustains a hair longer, has more "bark," and the sound explodes off the first four strings more. The bass is punchier and is not as round as the D-18GE. It's certainly not as even across the strings; it leans towards the treble. It's tighter, but in a good way; like a snare drum. I think it's a more powerful guitar. The D-18GE smoother, while the '56 has more "bite" to it. It sizzles.
• I haven't stood out front, but my guess is that the '56 is louder. It will likely cut through a jam better, while the D-18GE would probably be my choice for the solo "singer-songwriter" type. The GE envelops you in sound, whereas the '56 is more immediate and direct; more localized, if that makes sense. I've heard exceptional guitars referred to as "cannons" before; I'd say the '56 is more like a "rifle."

___________________________ 

Note: Much of the techincal and historical data came from the excellent resource Martin Guitars: A Technical Reference, by Johnston, Boak, & Longworth; the production numbers are from martinguitar.com.

Photo of the week - January 3, 2012

Newport Bridge, Newport, Oregon. Fuji X100 @ f/8, 1/160. Converted with Nik Silver Efex Pro.

"The D-18 Song"

"The D-18 Song," written by Jerry Faires, performed by Norman Blake (on a Gibson L-00, ironically).

Have I mentioned that I like D-18's?  :-)

1956 D-18, part 2

I was doing some more digging around on the 1956 D-18 that I wrote about the other day; seems like it was offered by Steve Swan Guitars at some point in the recent past. Here's what he wrote about it (this text comes from his site):

This 1956 D-18 has a bright, clear voice and has had little in the way of repairs. Honduras Mahogany back, sides, and neck, Medium grain Sitka Spruce top, Original Kluson Deluxe tuners, Brazilian Rosewood headstock overlay with gold "C.F. Martin" decal, Original ivory nut, Brazilian Rosewood fingerboard with pearl dots, Turtle-oid body binding, Black and white top edge and rosette purflings, Original Brazilian Rosewood bridge with original pins, Replacement bone bridge saddle, Original red turtle-oid pickguard, Brazilian Rosewood heelcap, Replacement endpin. PREVIOUS REPAIRS include: Neck reset and refret, bridge reglue, replaced bridge saddle. RECENT REPAIRS by Alan Perlman include: Glue split bass leg of X-brace, Install small ebony bridge plate cap, Glue 2 small hairline in treble side, Glue and cleat small interior pickguard crack, Level and crown frets. There is a little finish wear on the back of the neck, and pickwear on the bass side of the strings at the soundhole and below the pickguard. Dings and nicks from normal play wear. Four shallow "case bite" marks on the lower bass side of the top. The guitar feels great and responds very evenly. A fine flatpicking or bluegrass guitar.

(the above pictures are from www.steveswanguitars.com; click to see each larger)

I also found mention of this same guitar at Players Vintage Instruments:

1956 Martin D-18 VG ++ An exceptionally good sounding old dreadnought. And it is all original and all straight. The nicely aged spruce top has just barely the start of the usual pickguard crack and some case latch dings but is crack free. The mahogany back is likewise crack free but has some dings and scratches as does the bottom. The sides are crack free - there is one surface hairline on the bass side that cannot be seen from the inside - as is the nice C profile neck. Original Kluson Deluxe tuning pegs and the gold Martin script on the headstock.

So it looks like this guitar has been making its way around the some of the vintage guitar shops on the west coast.

Penn talks atheism and politics

Love it.

Tintin and Easy Rider

A clever illustration I stumbled across online:

image source: http://motorcycle-74.blogspot.com/2011/01/tintin-in-america-frank-margerin.html