# Taylor 210 or Seagull MaritimeSWSpruce



## RBilly (Mar 28, 2011)

Am buying guitar for my daughter(20) who just started playing. Am considering the two in title. Which is easiest to play (light action) with best tone? Any major difference in neck( depth/width)?


----------



## wingsfan (Aug 26, 2010)

ok RBilly I'll bite on this one
construction on these guitars are very similar, both are laminate back and sides 
the Seagull may have a larger nut width but we are talking millimeters here not alot. I like both taylors and seagulls but the 210 is an entry level guitar, still a taylor and it will still have the taylor sound. Personnally I'd go with the seagull, but theres the rub. If you read some of the posts here you will realize that tone is a matter of taste. 
Beyond all considerations , the wow my parents bought me a taylor angle could be a consideration lol


----------



## Traivs (Aug 13, 2010)

I go for Seagulls too, but that's just my personal preferrence. I find them slightly more comfortable to play, and generally I prefer the tone. Both are very trusted names, though. I'm sure you can't go wrong with either.

I have to agree with wingsfan. "best tone" is a myth. There is no best tone because it's a matter of taste.

-Travis


----------



## washburned (Oct 13, 2006)

Being the proud owner of a 214, I'd have to say go for the Taylor. I replaced my Gibson J45 with it. (although mine was an early model with solid back and sides, but I don't hear a huge difference between it and the new ones) The 200s are just 300s without some of the bling. All the things that matter are there.


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

double post somehow, oops...


----------



## mrmatt1972 (Apr 3, 2008)

wingsfan said:


> ok RBilly I'll bite on this one
> construction on these guitars are very similar, both are laminate back and sides
> the Seagull may have a larger nut width but we are talking millimeters here not alot. I like both taylors and seagulls but the 210 is an entry level guitar, still a taylor and it will still have the taylor sound. Personnally I'd go with the seagull, but theres the rub. If you read some of the posts here you will realize that tone is a matter of taste.
> Beyond all considerations , the wow my parents bought me a taylor angle could be a consideration lol


The SWS series is all solid wood, no laminate at all. That's what SWS stands for - Solid Wood Series. The taylor 210 is laminated. Based on that difference alone I'd choose Seagull. Also, since you are buying for a woman, the Taylor is a dreadnaught, which many smaller bodied people find difficult to manage. The SWS series include an awesome mini-jumbo that is amazing for fingerstyle, but good with a pick too. Just some food for thought.


----------



## Merlin (Feb 23, 2009)

Go for the Seagull. Solid wood, Canadian made.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

I'm a woman and I would go for the Taylor. The action on them is just easier (for me anyway) to play. I have 2 Taylors, a dread and a GS. No problem with the size.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Any guitar can be set up by a competent luthier or tech to play well. I'm not a fan of low end Taylors, they haven't been as consistent in tone and feel compared to the mid to high end ones (not unexpected) in my experience. For the dollar, the Seagull would be my choice, solid wood, great tone, great bang for the buck, good hardware, fast action (in my experience, get the retailer to do a pro setup if necessary...that goes for any guitar), Canadian made, good looks.

How do the cases compare?

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## RBilly (Mar 28, 2011)

Thanks for replies. I lean towards the Seagull myself. My daughter is tall so Dreadnaught shouldn't be a problem. I have a '68 Gibson J-50 in excellent condition that I wouldn't change for anything.


----------



## RBilly (Mar 28, 2011)

Thanks wingsfan.


----------



## tranman (Feb 4, 2009)

washburned said:


> Being the proud owner of a 214, I'd have to say go for the Taylor. I replaced my Gibson J45 with it. (although mine was an early model with solid back and sides, but I don't hear a huge difference between it and the new ones) The 200s are just 300s without some of the bling. All the things that matter are there.


200s have laminate sides and back, 300s have solid wood and around $600 more...Whether it makes a difference for a beginner is subjective to how they like the sound.


----------



## washburned (Oct 13, 2006)

tranman said:


> 200s have laminate sides and back, 300s have solid wood and around $600 more...Whether it makes a difference for a beginner is subjective to how they like the sound.


 And I'm still recommending the 200 over the 300.


----------



## Mike MacLeod (Nov 27, 2006)

I think the most important things are ease of play and re-sale value. 
1. If it takes, this will only be her 1st guitar. Sound is less important than the ease of playing for a beginner. Their ear is not sophisticated yet. The sooner they can play their first barre chord and think that they have actually accomplished something, the better. 
2. Something like a Taylor or a Martin should sell very easily on the open market when it comes time to buy her Hand-built guitar. -That's when I'll be waiting for a phone call. 
3. Any reasonably well made guitar can be made to play extremely well with a good set-up. And with a better nut and saddle, can probably sound better, too.

You say she is tall, that's good. But a smaller guitar than a Dread is easier to hold and play. An instrument that you don't have to fight is one less barrier in the way of falling in love with guitar. I would suggest a 000 size.


----------



## n.milburn (Apr 5, 2011)

Solid wood for sides and back is in some ways not such an issue in this comparison. Some noteworthy classical guitars were actually built with laminate sides and back. And in this case, the Taylor is made with Indian rosewood laminate.

One thing to remember about the importance of sides and back is sonic reflectivity. The rosewoods are denser, harder, and more reflective than mahogany, so even if the guitars were built 100% the same except for sides/back, the Taylor would probably have a crisper and clearer individuality between strings, but the Seagull would probably be a bit mellower and possibly warmer sounding..

Both guitars should be fine purchases. I'd aim for the Seagull because I'm patriotic and try to support Canadian when possible.


----------



## washburned (Oct 13, 2006)

And here's a nice one in Halifax; "Up for sale is my 2005 Taylor 214 acoustic. All original, excellent shape and sounds great too. It's a solid Sapele body, Sitka spruce top, and ebony fretboard and bridge. 2007 models and up have used a cheaper laminate wood. No electronics. I will be putting fresh strings on it tonight. Could use a professional setup to lower the action a bit more. Comes with hard shell Taylor case. $800 Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for looking." KIJIJI ad 271579512....this is a good price for an early 214.


----------



## kazzelectro (Oct 25, 2007)

SWS - all solid wood! definitely! The price of a the 214 for a laminated wood guitar IMO is at least twice or more than twice as much as comparable laminated guitars. Example... Yamaha fs730 for less than $300. Great guitar at a great price. If the Seagull is solid wood I would definitely go with this guitar. The Taylor 214 is also made in Mexico, the Seagull I think is Canadian (correct me if I am wrong). Cool headstock too!


----------



## mlejeune (Apr 23, 2010)

Although I'm not a fan of Taylors in general, the 100 and 200 series guitars I've played have all been impressive. I recently bought a used Seagull 20th anniversary and was surprised by what a great guitar it was. The combination of shorter scale length, wider nut, and smaller (than "standard" dread) body make this guitar really easy to play. Advantages/differences of the Seagull you mention vs the Taylor = all solid wood, shorter scale, wider nut, made in Canada as opposed to Mexico. The Taylor has ebony fretboard and bridge vs. rosewood for the Seagull. Personally I think that Seagulls and their brethren are often underated. The upside of all of this is that either guitar is a winner.


----------



## Lance Romance (Jun 4, 2009)

Good points all around. Both brands are really good guitars for the money, so it's a win-win situation. Either would be an awesome first real guitar; something they'll remember forever.
Branding is something they recognise early on. This has pros and cons. Solid wood always trumps laminate in my book, but I've played examples of both that are average-to-great. This brings up the most important point, buy the one that sounds the best. Setup can dramatically change the playability, but the SOUND is what you're buying it for.
SPEND THE MONEY AND HAVE A PRO SET IT UP . Some shops will do this well and for free (support these people!), some do it and charge less, some do it for free and are worthless...just get someone who really knows what they're doing to set it up to the needs of a younger person.
Don't buy an acoustic guitar you haven't actually played. I've bought (not online) PRS and Musicman guitars sight un-seen/heard/played and been consistently delighted. These are two of the very few brands I can trust enough to do that. Acoustics in particular have way more subleties that can only be appreciated in person. The amount of guitars I'm brought for repair bought used online is alarming. eBay bargains, yeah, what a bargain.
Use your ears; works every time.


----------



## dwardle (Apr 30, 2011)

I love the Seagull nut width,and the sound is comparable if not better than the low end Taylors. For me it wouldn't even take a second thought to go with the Seagull


----------



## RBilly (Mar 28, 2011)

Thanks for all your feedback. Ended up buying a used Taylor 210 in excellent condition. Nice light action and good tone. Even though sides and back are a laminate I feel it will hold up better to a lot of travelling. I too am a Proud Canadian and was leaning toward a Seagull but price and Taylor name won out. Keep playin!


----------



## CHolmes (Feb 5, 2013)

The Seagull is not a Laminate Guitar, SWS stands for Solid Wood Series, as stated in the first post


----------



## fceltia (Feb 7, 2013)

I have Played both. I have owned the Seagul. I loved it>>>>


----------

