Here it is in the cheap cardboard case it came in. I’ve promised it a new case also. The Guild website has an F-30 case, but I’ll probably give Jacobs’ shop a chance to sell me one first.
Got to say this cheap little case did it’s job for 53 years, but it has given all it’s got.
Mike
Here it is in the cheap cardboard case it came in. I’ve promised it a new case also. The Guild website has an F-30 case, but I’ll probably give Jacobs’ shop a chance to sell me one first.
Right, kinda pointless since it's already cracked.I’m not sure shaving the bridge is an option. The strings are already only 7/16ths above the top. However, y’all have convinced me to have Tom Jacobs look at it. I’ll know a lot more with an expert opinion.
Mike
Right.Please make sure you buy a replacement truss rod cover and install it upside down. There are people here on this forum that live for that.
I’m not sure shaving the bridge is an option. The strings are already only 7/16ths above the top. However, y’all have convinced me to have Tom Jacobs look at it. I’ll know a lot more with an expert opinion.
Mike
Tuners remind me of the Klusons on my '62 Epiphone.Adorshki, yeah, I misspoke, the bridge will have to be replaced. Should have said a thinner bridge might not be an option at this point. In any event, we’ll see what Mr. Fixit has to say.
Rampside, yes, I’ll hang on to the case. However, I think I’ll retire it to a quiet, dry place in a closet, and find a fresh, young case to assume it’s functional duties.
The truss rod cover went missing several years ago. It’s on the list of things to discuss with Mr. Fixit, but perhaps a fit question for this crowd as well. Anyone know where to get a period correct truss rod cover? I have looked at Hans Moust’s site, and the 60’s covers are sold out, although there were a couple others that looked close. Any other recommended sources?
Finally, anyone know who made the “3 on a plate” tuners on this guitar? They are working fine, although they’ve never been the smoothest. I’ve always wondered who made them.
I bet Hans knows, but given what we've seen about how Guild operated it wouldn't surprise me if Guild was actually using both body bucks for a while, introducing the new body outline as a "running production change".I noticed also, both guitars have different shapes, the 66 has the mini-jumbo shape and the 65 has the classic OM shape. Did the shape change in 66 or were both models produced at the same time?
Clyde, good eye, that is the same crack in the same place. Noticed it myself just this morning when I was wiping it down before taking some more pictures.
Not sure about the size question, but the pick guards are different also.
Mike
Hopefully, Hans can chime in on the 65 vs 66 body style.
Just to keep things interesting, here's one ID'd as a '65 (and correctly, according to the s/n charts):
And it's showing the "mini-jumbo" outline and the new pickguard but appears to have the same tuners as yours, identified as Van Ghent by the seller, here:
http://www.retrofret.com/products.asp?ProductID=7034
I do remember Hans referencing them before, now, but I think MJ's are a Japanese maker, just can't recall the name.
It looks like the change actually occurred during '65.
Which goes right along with all kinds of previous evidence we've seen that Guild just changed things as needed, like when "old parts" ran out; I can't recall ever seeing a change that was tied to a calendar year roll-over, if that's what you were thinking.
I also see that your guitar has no volute but MJ's does.
(And I thought it was the older ones that had the volute!)
But the mini-jumbo shaped '65 shown above doesn't have one either.
So it looks like they changed the neck style even after they introduced the new body shape.
MJ: Can you tell we kinda enjoy digging into all these little production anomalies ?
:biggrin-new:
Oh, btw, for comparison, (also correctly ID'd as a 65 according to s/n charts, here) here's the "old" outline which had wider looking/flatter shoulders and a more angular pinch at the waist, and a flatter bottom, too, more easily seen from a head-on perspective:
Difference most readily apparent in the upper bout shapes.