Martin, the only way what you say can be true is if, and only if, the low end Martin is deemed a good instrument. If a newbie picks up a low end junk Martin and is laughed at, or has it come apart in his/her hands, cannot keep it tuned, etc., then it doesn't matter how highly the other Martins are praised. The ONLY way a manufacturer can maintain solid customer loyalty is to produce high quality products from the top end of their line to the bottom. Martin has, in my opinion and in the opinion of a LOT of other people (both in this forum and other on-line forums) sold their birthright for a lumpy bowl of porridge.
You have your older Martin and it is probably worth more to you than you would ever ask to sell it. Fine. Most of us feel that way about our "old faithfuls". But I guarantee you if I knew of someone who wanted to learn how to play the guitar and had less than, say, $300 to spend on a good beginner's instrument, I would steer them as far away from the low end Martins as I could.
Auggie, "Craftsmanship is a montage of training, materials, experience and conscience." Amen, amen. However, I disagree with your disparaging fine guitars as investments. Many instruments increase in value rather than devalue. That does not mean that one has to lock it in its case and stuff it under the bed. I tend to believe you can own a fine piece of workmanship that will in all liklihood increase its value and still play it and enjoy it. There are "beaters" for the campfire and such, and there are the "keepers" for the sing along in the living room. Both are legitimate uses, and IMO its better to have more than one guitar anyway!! : )
Anyway, I'm keeping the old "Yammerhammer" until the day an offer comes along that I just cannot refuse.