# thoughts on two acoustics - Taylor and Seagull



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

In no order:

Option A
316ce | Taylor Guitars

Option B
Seagull Guitars - Artist Series

I'm considering these two acoustic guitars for my "unplugged upgrade", and I'm just curious to read people's opinions on the two guitars.

Cheers


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

They're not very similar in shape and very likely in sound. They both doubtless sound very good, but the Seagull might have more bass if the body shape is any indication. It's impossible to tell without playing them, but I would assume the Seagull dread shape will be big and bold for strumming while the Taylor will be more of a fingerstyle guitar, even though both guitars may very well do both styles adequately. For amplified acoustic leads it's a crap shoot, but for an all round guitar, without hearing them, I'd pick the Seagull.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Cheers, Mooh. I chose this 300 series because in their description of body shape, it was stated that it's better for flatpicking than fingerpicking. "Richest, boldest voice, ultimate strummer" - Taylor's site. I've played the Seagull, but not against the Taylor.


----------



## WaltersLondon (May 11, 2011)

You can play one Thursday I hope.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

In this case I would go with the Seagull but if you were comparing apples to apples in size and shape, I would opt for the Taylor. I think they are a nicer sounding guitar but it's all relative to what you play and what your ears like.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

I'm pretty easy-going when it comes to acoustics, really. I know the biggest factor for me will be the neck profile of each, and how they feel standing up.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Budda said:


> Cheers, Mooh. I chose this 300 series because in their description of body shape, it was stated that it's better for flatpicking than fingerpicking. "Richest, boldest voice, ultimate strummer" - Taylor's site. I've played the Seagull, but not against the Taylor.


Maybe. I'm always leery of manufacturers descriptions, but the truth is in the playing. Buy the one that sings to *you*.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

While I get some folks really like the Seagull line I think they are pretty good but not in the same league really as most Taylors would be. I just have never found one that really speaks to me and makes me want to run out and buy one. Don't get me wrong they play fairly well and sound okay but they just have not truely moved me ( but to each there own ). ship


----------



## notjoeaverage (Oct 6, 2008)

These are two totally different and in my mind non-comparable guitars besides both being 6 string acoustics.

I've played Taylor 12 strings and love them, but for some reason I've never been a fan of their 6's. I had a chance once to play both a sapele and a rosewood on the same day, the rosewood sounded like a choir of angels and the sapele in comparison sounded like it was stuffed full of dirty old socks.

I've never really been a big fan of mahagony acoustics, I like the brightness of a rosewood or maple.

Just ask yourself what kind of sound you want vs what type of music you'll play and if you need access past the 12th fret and a cutaway or you want the volume , bass and projection from a dreadnaught. The only opinion that really matters is yours, since it's your wallet that will be emptied. That being said I vote for the Seagull, I have a Norman ST 68 CW and rosewood rules. 

I'm sure you can't go wrong with either one.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Thanks NJA! I'll be playing acoustic rock music (that exists, right?) and covers. I'm lead guitarist so I do need that cutaway and upper fret access. Everyone in my band except my drummer (yup, he plays acoustic) has a cutaway acoustic-electric.

I did enjoy the Seagull when I picked it up. Hopefully I can have both models at the store and see which one comes home!


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Buy both and sell the one that doesn't get played.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Danno (Jul 27, 2012)

Both are really nice guitars. For me, it becomes an issue about price. Can I feel and hear the dollar difference?


----------



## RobQ (May 29, 2008)

Both are great guitars. I have played really great sounding examples of both these guitars.

Some people find Taylors a little crashy and bright, but really that is a matter of taste.


----------



## Lance Romance (Jun 4, 2009)

Hey Budda, they've got some cool new ones in for you. Try the 414ce ovangkol alongside the 314ce.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

The Taylor can be neck reset while the Seagull cannot (epoxied neck tenon). That's enough reason for me to recommend against any recent Godin acoustic guitar, or in fact any acoustic guitar with a permanent neck joint. Acoustic guitars with permanent neck joints are disposable and plenty of them are under-set out of the factory.


----------



## lchender (Dec 6, 2011)

Go play them both. If possible, play as many examples of both models as you can. All of them will be a little different. Pick your favorite and buy it!


----------



## JimiGuy7 (Jan 10, 2008)

I find the Taylor's are a lot brighter then most acoustics, but not in a bad way. They have all of the lows, but the highs are far more present then in say a Martin D18. I thinkk the Taylors find an excellent mix of everything you want, where as something like a Seagull sounds far more focused to me. I find, and this is just my own opinion, the Seagull's to be more Martin then anything. I personally prefer the Taylor's


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

When did they start doing this? It's a crazy, sort of anti-customer, decision.

Peace, Mooh.



dradlin said:


> The Taylor can be neck reset while the Seagull cannot (epoxied neck tenon). That's enough reason for me to recommend against any recent Godin acoustic guitar, or in fact any acoustic guitar with a permanent neck joint. Acoustic guitars with permanent neck joints are disposable and plenty of them are under-set out of the factory.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

*From some random guy on the acoustic guitar forum, first up in a Google search:

"UPDATE:* 10/5/11 Just got a reply from Michel Belanger at Godin and my 2005 Artist model has the older neck that is simply bolted on and CAN be re-set ... the epoxied neck process began in 2006 ... this is good news for me, but I do agree with the comment made by RLV, that the higher-end models should be made in such a way that they can be adjusted. Michel confirmed to me by e-mail today that the newer Seagulls with the epoxied necks are indeed fully covered under warranty, so that's comforting for original owners. Either Godin is correct in their theory that these necks will not need re-set ... or they are going to be replacing a fair number of guitars under lifetime warranty for original owners. It's the people who buy them second-hand who may suffer, however"

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

Godin's claim is that their guitars never need a neck reset. That is false - eventually all desirable acoustic guitars will need a neck reset.

And plenty guitars leave the factory with underset necks. Those should be rejects but are sold every day to an uneducated consumer. Those guitars will take one setup and then no more string break over the saddle (time for a neck reset).

Godin's repair approach is to replace the bridge (one with a lower profile) to expose more saddle. They can get away with that maybe once but it is not correcting the fundamental problem (neck angle).

Warrantied to original owners... that leaves a lot of disposable guitars on the "used" market - buyers beware!

This problem exists on all recent Godin family acoustic guitars and all imports.

My recommendation is always buy a higher end "used" guitar (repairable) instead of something on the cheap. A higher end "used" guitar can hold its value too. If you buy it on the cheap then consider that eventually (maybe 10 years) it will not be feasible to repair it.


----------



## washburned (Oct 13, 2006)

Why would they use epoxy? Is hide glue banned in Quebec?


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

Hide glue and Titebond require close fitting joinery while epoxy doesn't.

Epoxy has gap filling properties which allows manufactures to get away with liberal tolerances (gaps).


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

Wow live long enough and you learn something new, I knew at one time they were bolt on necks which made it really easy to do a re-set on them. I wonder if thats why I stopped liking them I wonder how much of a change it was for the sound and the playability of the Godin line since they went the way of epoxy.ship


----------



## b-nads (Apr 9, 2010)

Having experience with both, the Taylor has a much nicer neck - I'm not typically a Taylor fan, and they charge too much for what they are, but in spite of the bolt-on nature of the neck, they are extremely playable necks.

The Taylor is gonna sound bright - I find their tone concentrated in lower mids and treble. The Seagull is not a poorly constructed guitar, by any means, but will not sound as lively as the Taylor - they sound clunky by comparison to my ears...like a guitar with softer wood and too much glue. You could liven up the Seagull by putting some Elixirs on it, or tame the Taylor by going to something warmer like Martin or Ernie Ball strings. Seagulls get a lot of press from happy owners. YMMV, but I've never played one that I would buy. I have a Taylor DN3 - it sounds bigger than the one you're considering (dred) and it has a wider string spacing, which suits me more - between those two, I'd go with the Taylor, but I wouldn't rule out other options - a Larrivee is much more guitar in that price range than either, IMHO.


----------



## TimelessInst (Apr 4, 2012)

dradlin said:


> Godin's claim is that their guitars never need a neck reset. That is false - eventually all desirable acoustic guitars will need a neck reset.
> 
> And plenty guitars leave the factory with underset necks. Those should be rejects but are sold every day to an uneducated consumer. Those guitars will take one setup and then no more string break over the saddle (time for a neck reset).
> 
> ...


Not to defend Godin, but just to qualify this statement. You CAN build guitars that don't need a neck reset, we build spanish neck joins and they hold solid. Granted, we build by hand, rather than production, and a lot more care is taken in getting a good strong joint. (technically you can reset a spanish join if you really want to, but it's lot of hair pulling). David's first guitar is 30 years old and has never needed a reset. This joint can be strong enough, we've been teaching that for years. I agree that low end guitars should have a method for neck resets available, I think truly high end guitars should be built to hold together. I'll plug a newer builder we discovered at the MGS this year, he's displaying some really good thought in his design. I hope guys like this are the future of lutherie, that's what we're trying to train too. LES GUITARES PELLERIN

just my 2 bits
Seth
Timeless Instruments


----------



## Thinline (Jan 17, 2007)

Perhaps it speaks to my relative inexperience, but I've never held an acoustic that felt as solid as my Seagull (Maritime SWS Rosewood). I play a mostly open D and it absolutely sings to me. Pick the instrument that does the same for you.


----------

