fronobulax
Bassist, GAD and the Hot Mess Mods
- Joined
- May 3, 2007
- Messages
- 24,756
- Reaction score
- 8,889
- Location
- Central Virginia, USA
- Guild Total
- 5
Mavuser and I have been discussing this and in the process of writing The Ultimate Rebuttal, I realized he was not as wrong as I thought.
To set bounds and definitions, I am restricting this to factory SF I's and IIs with Bisonics which effectively means a BA prefixed serial number and a date of 1970 or earlier. I note that SF II's were introduced in 1967 although there are documented examples that appear to predate the official or catalog introduction. Of tangential interest is that 1967 is when the curved bridge and "suck switch" first appeared.
The Starfire I had a pickup in what is often called the "sweet spot" which is 26.5" from the bottom of the nut to the leading edge of the riser for the pup. (Measurement made on a NS bass so confirmation from a vintage bass would be useful). The corresponding measurement for one 1967 SF II is 27".
The hypothesis is that there are two different SF II configurations. One with the bridge PU at 26.5" and the other with it at 27".
I kept trying to insist, based upon photos, that there was only one configuration. But we know there were SF IIs in circulation before 1967 and if Guild did the obvious and made them by routing out a second PU on an existing SF I then it is possible that there are SF IIs with the neck PU added to the sweet spot.
So are there two different SF II configurations? If so, since the SF I sweet spot was "discontinued" in 1966, is 1967 a reasonable line to draw and say the sweet spot SF II is much more likely before 1967? (Opinions are solicited, but measurements and serial numbers are even more welcome).
We know that several prominent bassists had SF II's during or before 1967 and there is a case being made that Phil Lesh had a sweet spot SF II.
There is a 68 SF II that may be a sweet spot SF II (waiting for measurements). Assuming it is, one can imagine a sweet spot body from 66 or 67 getting misplaced and then used when it was discovered.
So this post is a request for measurements, a public apology to mavuser, and (assuming the expected evidence appears) a reminder to use "unlikely" rather than "never" when I am talking about what Guild did.
Apologies to the metric speaking readers as well ;-)
To set bounds and definitions, I am restricting this to factory SF I's and IIs with Bisonics which effectively means a BA prefixed serial number and a date of 1970 or earlier. I note that SF II's were introduced in 1967 although there are documented examples that appear to predate the official or catalog introduction. Of tangential interest is that 1967 is when the curved bridge and "suck switch" first appeared.
The Starfire I had a pickup in what is often called the "sweet spot" which is 26.5" from the bottom of the nut to the leading edge of the riser for the pup. (Measurement made on a NS bass so confirmation from a vintage bass would be useful). The corresponding measurement for one 1967 SF II is 27".
The hypothesis is that there are two different SF II configurations. One with the bridge PU at 26.5" and the other with it at 27".
I kept trying to insist, based upon photos, that there was only one configuration. But we know there were SF IIs in circulation before 1967 and if Guild did the obvious and made them by routing out a second PU on an existing SF I then it is possible that there are SF IIs with the neck PU added to the sweet spot.
So are there two different SF II configurations? If so, since the SF I sweet spot was "discontinued" in 1966, is 1967 a reasonable line to draw and say the sweet spot SF II is much more likely before 1967? (Opinions are solicited, but measurements and serial numbers are even more welcome).
We know that several prominent bassists had SF II's during or before 1967 and there is a case being made that Phil Lesh had a sweet spot SF II.
There is a 68 SF II that may be a sweet spot SF II (waiting for measurements). Assuming it is, one can imagine a sweet spot body from 66 or 67 getting misplaced and then used when it was discovered.
So this post is a request for measurements, a public apology to mavuser, and (assuming the expected evidence appears) a reminder to use "unlikely" rather than "never" when I am talking about what Guild did.
Apologies to the metric speaking readers as well ;-)