D25 price increases.

[Guild Man]

Noticed today that the D25s have really jumped in price . Even the beat up ones. Maybe the word got out that they were being undersold? Just an observation.

 

[davenumber2]

Prices have been high for a while now. Here's a graph of the last couple years D25 sales on Reverb.

 

[Br1ck]

I think the overall market price increases have driven more to look at cheaper alternatives, one obvious solution is a D 25. Eight years ago when I was deciding to get my D 35 fixed, I played some very nice alternatives. You could get a Larrivee dread for $1200 at the time. I would have $1400 in my D 35. Still I thought it worthwhile. I could have bought a D 35 is playable condition, if not my D 35s vintage for $1000 at the time. D 25s were going for $750 or so. New Guilds have been getting raves from their owners putting a spotlight on the brand. Rising tides and all that.

 

[Guild Man]

I am seeing on Reverb 1,100 1,395 1,275 2,287 1,699 1,650 1,500. Anywhere from Fair, very good, excellent, good.

 

[davenumber2]

I am seeing on Reverb 1,100 1,395 1,275 2,287 1,699 1,650 1,500. Anywhere from Fair, very good, excellent, good.

Asking price and selling price are two different things. I have to imagine those are the listed price.

EDIT: Now that I look again, there are quite a few that have sold for 1200-1500. Prices really run the gamut it seems.

 

[NM156]

For a while I thought that maybe some day I'd own a Martin. Doesn't seem realistic anymore. This still makes the D-25 a bargain, especially the ones in campfire condition.

 

[GGJaguar]

The D-4, D-15 and D-17 might be viable, lower cost options.

 

[Br1ck]

I have seen less than five year old Martins advertised on craigslist for as low as $1700, with most around $2000. This is three or four hundred less than pandemic prices. It is a very worthwhile goal, but I must say, I don't own one because of my Guild D 35 fills the slot. The Santa Cruz more than fills the slot.

But don't let anyone tell you the D 25 is not a satisfying guitar.

 

[twocorgis]

I am seeing on Reverb 1,100 1,395 1,275 2,287 1,699 1,650 1,500. Anywhere from Fair, very good, excellent, good.

If you're looking to buy one, I might be selling my D25 "25th Anniversary" for what I have into it soon. And that would be quite a bit less than that.

 

[E-Type]

I’d love to know how the arch back came to be. And why they chose to use it for both high end (F40/F-50) and the low end D-25. My D-25 my not have all the harmonic overtones of a D-50, but it’s focused piano like tone is awesome.

 

[adorshki]

I’d love to know how the arch back came to be. And why they chose to use it for both high end (F40/F-50) and the low end D-25. My D-25 my not have all the harmonic overtones of a D-50, but it’s focused piano like tone is awesome.

For the F50 and F40, same molds as the ones used for arched tops. For the dreads they made new dies for the press.

An archback actually emphasizes under/overtones across a broader spectrum than a flatback, which "sweetens" maple and 'hog but might be overkill with rosewood. I suspect that's why there were so few rosewood archbacks in the line (only 3 I always recall, and possibly a couple I'm forgetting at the moment) and none lasting more than 3 or 4 years. I figure there must be a reason for that.

Some of the earliest F50R's actually had arched laminated backs example, but they only ever made a couple of runs of 6 pieces (IIRC about the numbers) of that version.

It's also said the arch serves as a parabolic reflector, focusing sound out of the soundhole, but I suspect that's not as big a factor as the "compression" effect of the arch in increasing volume somewhat. What they really do is create really lush sounding chords for strummers.

After years with my D25 and my D40 I really started hearing the difference. A few folks like my analogy that an archback is like a parachute flare, it lights up everything with a diffuse glow, whereas a fatback is like spotlight, a tight focused beam. The D25 for example can evoke the woody tones of a stand-up bass but the '40 is more like a Fender P-bass. "Punchy" The relatively consistent depth of a flatback favors fundamentals.

Anyway that's my layman's interpretation, and funny enough after 26 years with the D25 and 18 with the D40, I think I actually love my D40 more now. For sure the best sound I've ever recorded was with the '40.

Comparo?

Note the '25's strung with silk'n'bronzes here (still is) and I can hear a wee bit of flutter way down low due to the slightly lower tension.

Actually now that I think about it, that's something else I've noticed over about the last 8 years of making vids: both the archbacks distort much more readily while recording, (on cell phone at least), regardless of tuning tension, but it's almost non-existent with the '40. I now believe flatbacks record more easily, allowing for the known issues with rosewood. Sub-harmonics, flutter.

The '40 got the nod for this exercise:

Good 'ol EJ-16's with an .025 G single subbed in to replicate Guild's L350 lights set ca '00, whole step down.

 

[NM156]

For the F50 and F40, same molds as the ones used for arched tops. For the dreads they made new dies for the press.

An archback actually emphasizes under/overtones across a broader spectrum than a flatback, which "sweetens" maple and 'hog but might be overkill with rosewood. I suspect that's why there were so few rosewood archbacks in the line (only 3 I always recall, and possibly a couple I'm forgetting at the moment) and none lasting more than 3 or 4 years. I figure there must be a reason for that.

Some of the earliest F50R's actually had arched laminated backs example, but they only ever made a couple of runs of 6 pieces (IIRC about the numbers) of that version.

It's also said the arch serves as a parabolic reflector, focusing sound out of the soundhole, but I suspect that's not as big a factor as the "compression" effect of the arch in increasing volume somewhat. What they really do is create really lush sounding chords for strummers.

After years with my D25 and my D40 I really started hearing the difference. A few folks like my analogy that an archback is like a parachute flare, it lights up everything with a diffuse glow, whereas a fatback is like spotlight, a tight focused beam. The D25 for example can evoke the woody tones of a stand-up bass but the '40 is more like a Fender P-bass. "Punchy" The relatively consistent depth of a flatback favors fundamentals.

Anyway that's my layman's interpretation, and funny enough after 26 years with the D25 and 18 with the D40, I think I actually love my D40 more now. For sure the best sound I've ever recorded was with the '40.

Comparo?

Note the '25's strung with silk'n'bronzes here (still is) and I can hear a wee bit of flutter way down low due to the slightly lower tension.

Actually now that I think about it, that's something else I've noticed over about the last 8 years of making vids: both the archbacks distort much more readily while recording, (on cell phone at least), regardless of tuning tension, but it's almost non-existent with the '40. I now believe flatbacks record more easily, allowing for the known issues with rosewood. Sub-harmonics, flutter.

The '40 got the nod for this exercise:

Good 'ol EJ-16's with an .025 G single subbed in to replicate Guild's L350 lights set ca '00, whole step down.

Very nice. I don't have the dexterity, so for me it's mostly strumming open chords and trying to let open strings ring, which the D-25 seems to be perfect for.

 

[adorshki]

Asking price and selling price are two different things. I have to imagine those are the listed price.

EDIT: Now that I look again, there are quite a few that have sold for 1200-1500. Prices really run the gamut it seems.

Right. For all my growing D40 love, I'll still never sell the '25. My first good guitar.
Bought new in March '97 for $700.00 "out the door". 2 complete re-frets and a bone nut and saddle for about $500.00 in the last 26 years. I think she's up to around 1500 hours playing time now, I stopped tracking at about 1300 around '09 I think it was

Nice to know it'll still get what I've got into it after all that time, which is one of the reasons I insisted on buying American when I got it.
But I'd never be able to replicate all the playing time on her, I just don't have the stamina anymore. Nor would be able to replicate the quality of materials and workmanship even at an inflation-adjusted price.

So to me she's even more valuable than new even if she's now basically a free rental after 26 years...how many guitars can you really say that about?

I expect the other 2 to follow suit and they're in even better condition, "near-mint", I think the D40's barely hit 500 hours and the F65ce maybe around 350 now?.

 

[E-Type]

Who else at the time was doing the arch backs? I'm curious as to how someone at Guild decided to give it a try. And then, even after seeing the positive effect of the arched back, they clearly thought that it should be the new most affordable model, the D-25. Why not make it a new model, (e.g. D-45) and sell it as a somewhat higher end model than the D-40 with similar other details (chesterfield, etc.)? Unless the arch back was waaay cheaper to make than a flat back (which I doubt), there was no need for it to be the bottom of the lineup.

 

[NM156]

Who else at the time was doing the arch backs? I'm curious as to how someone at Guild decided to give it a try. And then, even after seeing the positive effect of the arched back, they clearly thought that it should be the new most affordable model, the D-25. Why not make it a new model, (e.g. D-45) and sell it as a somewhat higher end model than the D-40 with similar other details (chesterfield, etc.)? Unless the arch back was waaay cheaper to make than a flat back (which I doubt), there was no need for it to be the bottom of the lineup.

If they did it to set it apart from the competition, whatever the competition was, it seems to have worked in the mid to late 1970s.

 

[adorshki]

Who else at the time was doing the arch backs? I'm curious as to how someone at Guild decided to give it a try. And then, even after seeing the positive effect of the arched back, they clearly thought that it should be the new most affordable model, the D-25. Why not make it a new model, (e.g. D-45) and sell it as a somewhat higher end model than the D-40 with similar other details (chesterfield, etc.)?

Gibson as early as the '20's albeit they were archtops.
https://www.pickerssupply.com/?product=1924-gibson-l-3-snakehead-archtop

F40 follows the formula of the J200, 16" lower bout maple body jumbo, but don't recall if they ever made archback versions of it, (Seem to recall somebody mentioning Gib J200 as an alternative to my search for a shortscale F-40 body with 1-11/16 nut from Guild, but it was a flatback which didn't interest me at the time. (Now I want a shortscale F47Rce with the 1-11/16nut, but I suspect if they ever made one it was a fluke due to the known variations in nut widths at Westerly. But never seen one reported yet)

Don't know if Epi made archback flattops at the time, but Guild was founded with disgruntled Epi employees, who refused to relocate when Gibson moved the Epi factory after a strike. Al Dronge and a partner stepped in and formed Guild with some of the former Epi employees. Epi styling cues show up on early Guild archtops which were Al Dronge's first love.

Unless the arch back was waaay cheaper to make than a flat back (which I doubt), there was no need for it to be the bottom of the lineup.

Actually suspect the labor costs saved on braces and glue-up and shaping of a 2-piece flatback compared to pressing and trimming a laminated arched back are significant. They also offer magnificent durability and are stronger by weight than equal thickness solid wood, which is what laminates are all about in the first place.

 

[Prince of Darkness]

Gibson as early as the '20's albeit they were archtops.
https://www.pickerssupply.com/?product=1924-gibson-l-3-snakehead-archtop

F40 follows the formula of the J200, 16" lower bout maple body jumbo, but don't recall if they ever made archback versions of it, (Seem to recall somebody mentioning Gib J200 as an alternative to my search for a shortscale F-40 body with 1-11/16 nut from Guild, but it was a flatback which didn't interest me at the time. (Now I want a shortscale F47Rce with the 1-11/16nut, but I suspect if they ever made one it was a fluke due to the known variations in nut widths at Westerly. But never seen one reported yet)

Don't know if Epi made archback flattops at the time, but Guild was founded with disgruntled Epi employees, who refused to relocate when Gibson moved the Epi factory after a strike. Al Dronge and a partner stepped in and formed Guild with some of the former Epi employees. Epi styling cues show up on early Guild archtops which were Al Dronge's first love.



Actually suspect the labor costs saved on braces and glue-up and shaping of a 2-piece flatback compared to pressing and trimming a laminated arched back are significant. They also offer magnificent durability and are stronger by weight than equal thickness solid wood, which is what laminates are all about in the first place.

Pretty sure that I've seen elsewhere that Epiphone were making archback flattops, so it may well be that the idea was brought across with their former employees

 

[plaidseason]

The D-4, D-15 and D-17 might be viable, lower cost options.

That's part of how I ended up with a DCE1.

 

[twocorgis]

F40 follows the formula of the J200, 16" lower bout maple body jumbo, but don't recall if they ever made archback versions of it.

Pretty sure the J200 has a 17" lower bout Al. The J185 has a 16" lower bout like the F40. I don't think I've seen either with an archback.

 

[Westerly Wood]

I still wish I had one, but they are now priced out of my market lol
and I mean I wish I had an arched version.