Asking price and selling price are two different things. I have to imagine those are the listed price.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.
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.
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.
Right. For all my growing D40 love, I'll still never sell the '25. My first good guitar.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.
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.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.
Gibson as early as the '20's albeit they were archtops.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.
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 employeesGibson 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.
That's part of how I ended up with a DCE1.The D-4, D-15 and D-17 might be viable, lower cost options.
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.