Two, when people say their bridge is lifting do they always mean it is pulling away from the top? Or is the issue along the lines of being able to put a thin piece of paper a little ways in around the edges? If it's the first then obviously that is a problem. If bare wood is showing they have to pull the bridge back off and do touch up. Why? Probably to be sure that bare wood doesn't end up showing. One, my impression is they intentionally leave a bare spot for the bridge that is smaller than the bridge profile. 'You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.' I'm wondering if my guitar is an issolated defect, or if this is a building issue that needs to be addressed?Į. I admit my frustration is due to owning an Ovation that saw 3 bridge repairs, but I thought I was past this with my Martin, especially considering the effort I've made to maintain it. Does a machine do this part of the building process? Isn't there someone looking over that area of the bridge before glueing? I'm just having a hard time wrapping my brain around the idea that 'sometimes Martin doesn't clean the finish all the way out to the bridge outline before glueing on the bridge.' If this is true, I wonder how they could miss this? Because bridge lifting is such a cronic problem among lower end guitars, you would think that Martin would make sure there was no finish under the bridge before setting it. I wanted better quality and construction.and I still believe I have gotten just that.

In fact, this defect on my Ovation is one of the reasons I chose a Martin.

I also understand that bridge lifting is hardly a Martin-only issue, as I have had the bridge on my Ovation repaired 3 times after it kept pulling off. to have high standards, and I understand that even the best of manufacturers have a 'failure rate' of some degree. I hope this thread wasn't interpreted as 'Martin bashing.' I too believe Martin Co.

Martin d28 bridge lift