OMC-2832

Three known examples

All pics courtesy of their respective owners

As noted above, there were at least three examples of this model made. Through the generous assistance of three different sources that all prefer to remain anonymous, the pics below show a couple of subtle differences between them. Judging by the serial numbers, they seem to have been finished and released for sale in two distinct batches: one guitar in very early 1991, and the other two much later in the same year. For convenience sake, let’s call them First (serial# 504xxx), Second (serial # 510xxx), and Third (serial#511xxx)

There are a couple of distinct differences between the two batches already apparent. The shape of the peghead on First is noticeably wider at the top than Second or Third. The other difference is in the shape of the tuner buttons: Schaller-style on First, and more of a butterbean shape on Second and Third. Now here’s where it really starts to get interesting….

Now let’s add another piece of the puzzle. Here are two direct quotes from C.S. Martin & Co customer service, in response to an inquiry made more than 20 years ago. That inquiry concerned the guitar that we’re calling First

——————————————————————————————————————-

"From the serial number you provided our system shows this is a OM2832B and is a prototype. We really would not have any information on a proto. I’m wandering what the “B” is for. Is the guitar black? Could you send some pictures?"

-------- answered, with a detailed description plus a few suitable pics ----------

“This is what we found. Sometimes it’s hard to find information on models, as years ago we did not keep real good records. You have one of two prototypes. The “B” stands for Laminate Brazilian Rosewood. We also made 24 production models. These were all made in 1992 and they retailed for $1,590.00. That’s all we really have , we searched for the specs but could not find them”

———————————————————————————————————————

While the model number stamped into the neck block of all three of the instruments shown on this page is shown simply as OMC-2832, just below that is stamped the word “Brazil”, followed by the respective serial numbers at the bottom. That very likely accounts for the “B” suffix listed in the Martin factory’s records. But the response quoted above raises more questions than it answers. First off, the inquiry was about a model OMC, not a straight-up OM (no cutaway), leaving a mismatch between the model number as shown in the factory records and the model number actually stamped onto the guitar. In addition, the serial numbers of all three instruments shown above are known, and all three decode to 1991, not 1992. On top of that, the response from Martin mentioned that there were only two prototypes, not three. Something’s not adding up here… A possible explanation is hinted at by a PM that the Webmaster received all the way back in 2010, sent to me by a UMGF member who had what was apparently a prototype OM (no cutaway)

“Hi, I have an OM 2832 Brazilian that I bought directly from Martin in the early 90's. Martin told me they made 2 of them for the NAMM show but did not put them into production. One of the 2 was a cutaway and the other was not. I bought the non-cutaway and it has been a workhorse of a guitar for me ever since with wonderful tone. The wood is absolutely Brazilian Rosewood in appearance and is beautiful with some swirl in the grain. Nice guitar, nice Sitka top and nice neck. Serial 504xxx.”

Now add in another piece of the puzzle: a post on a 10 year old thread on the UGMF concerning the Shenandoah OM-2832 (no cutaway)

“it was a batch of 24, 511007-511030 I called martin and confirmed my serial number and the customer service rep looked up and down the serial number list to confirm this. Those guys are really helpful.”

Put all that together and what do we have?

Two guitars bearing serial numbers in the 504xxx range, one of which has a cutaway and one that doesn’t. That would account for the two prototypes mentioned by the Martin rep in the first two quotes shown above, assuming a minor error in Martin’s records (the omission of the “C” in the model number of the cutaway prototype). So what about the “batch of 24” straight-up OM’s? The database maintained by the Webmaster contains pics and full serial numbers of two different OM-2832’s. Both of those recorded serial numbers fall into the range quoted above for the 24 production models. This still leaves the two later OMC models shown on this page - serial # 510xxx (otherwise known as Second) and serial # 511xxx (otherwise known as Third). Neither of these has a serial number that falls within that quoted range, although they’re both very close to it…. There is also the issue of the numeral “2” stamped into the peghead of the OMC that we are calling Second.

Absent any evidence to the contrary, my best guess is that Second happens to be precisely that: an OMC-2832 completed at the end of 1991 that had a minor but noticeable flaw. Nothing deemed by the QC inspectors at Martin to be completely unacceptable, but just enough to merit the “2” stamped into the back of the peghead. This would allow Martin to still offer it for sale through their dealer network as a factory second and recoup at least some of the money already invested in it. The current owner states that they examined every inch of the instrument and found no problems whatsoever. Having carefully looked over two completely different sets of good hi-res pics of what is obviously the same instrument (wood grain is just like a fingerprint, especially with Brazilian Rosewood), my working theory is that the “flaw” is nothing more than the grain pattern displayed on the back. Each half of the bookmatched back has an area of very wild and swirly grain that fades into two small black knots. With a solid wood back, this would be something to be concerned about, due to the high risk of cracking. With a laminated back, IMHO it is essentially a minor cosmetic issue that doesn’t affect the structural integrity of the guitar in the slightest

Second Third

And what about Third? The serial # of Third is very close to that of Second. Close enough to suggest that they were completed only days apart, if not on the very same day. My working theory here is that the two were built together, shipped together, and assembled together as a matched pair. One of the pair got flagged by a very nit-picky QC department and the other didn’t. Simple as that. If you have a better theory than mine, don’t hesitate to use that Contact button and I’ll be happy to talk it over :-)