SFIV1967
Venerated Member
Yes, both correct, this was the video that showed it in action, at about 2:24 you see the f-holes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S56BXEPUBjU (Note the removed neck pickup?)
Ralf
Newark Street M-85 review and discussion
- Thread starter Happy Face
- Start date
Ralf
mavuser
Enlightened Member
Happy, he is calling it "early 70s" and it also has the 70s/westerly (slightly larger) headstock, so that would appear to make sense.
mavuser
Enlightened Member
is that even a possibility with the bridge drilled into the body like a JS/Starfire bass (as opposed to a floating bridge like a SF II/III guitar...)?
matsickma
Senior Member
It is my understanding and experiance that when a guitar or bass is described as "semi-solid" that means the upper half of the guitar is hollow and the lower half from the bridge down has a lot of added blocks of wood to fill in the chamber. It isn't a routed chamber like a modern Bluesbird but is a hollow body with added maple blocks of wood filled in in many places starting at the bridge. The blocks of wood are wider that a semihollow block but don't completely fill the lower half of the body. They do fill a lot of the lower half of the body.
When I examined the body of the 60's M85 I thought the majority of the body was hollow with some extra bracing near the bridge. Similar for the early 70's M85 with HB pups. Unfortuantly I didn't keep good records and am working from memory.
On the other hand I have an early M-75 with HB-1's that has a semi-solid body and is constructed the way I described "semi-solid" above.
M
When I examined the body of the 60's M85 I thought the majority of the body was hollow with some extra bracing near the bridge. Similar for the early 70's M85 with HB pups. Unfortuantly I didn't keep good records and am working from memory.
On the other hand I have an early M-75 with HB-1's that has a semi-solid body and is constructed the way I described "semi-solid" above.
M
fronobulax
Bassist, GAD and the Hot Mess Mods
- Joined
- May 3, 2007
- Messages
- 24,715
- Reaction score
- 8,848
- Location
- Central Virginia, USA
- Guild Total
- 5
All over the map.
The original thread on the Last Bass Outpost contains a fair amount of confusion about the new M85's. In particular people do not seem to realize the difference between the limited edition GSR M85II and the production volume Newark Street M85I both of which are in the "new" market at the moment. The review and discussion muddies the comparison between the NS and Bisonic, which is not the reviewer's fault, because of the suggestion that the body depth is a factor and thus a Starfire should sound different than a M85 with the same configurations. (That was not my experience, but I played Grot's M85I for all of 15 minutes so I'm sure my opinion is not definitive). I also saw the word "nasal" applied to a vintage Bisonic. I understand where the comment comes from but where they heard nasal I heard "woody" and I wonder whether the characteristic I look for in a Bisonic replacement is considered a flaw by others. In any event, given the absence of a Newark Street M85 owner posting here, it is a good read.
Factory M85s were "hollow" (see below) with no f holes or (after 1971) solid bodied. The "Phil Lesh" M85 owned by mgod is fretless, has f holes and is one of three instruments custom build by Guild. I am trying to quote this article so if that doesn't sound right then I need to practice my reading skills.
Most bassists I talk to don't bother to distinguish bodies beyond "hollow" or "solid". The Starfire is more precisely a semi-hollow as it has a block of wood running down the center, almost as if the neck continued into the body. I am unclear whether the M85 has the same block or not. If it doesn't then there is probably a piece of wood under the bridge that gives the screws something to hold on to. If that is the case I would argue for hollow rather than semi-hollow. I can't recall that I have ever heard of a chambered bass - which might also be called semi-hollow - where a chamber was "dug out" of a solid block of wood. I'm sure one exists but it just isn't on my radar.
The original thread on the Last Bass Outpost contains a fair amount of confusion about the new M85's. In particular people do not seem to realize the difference between the limited edition GSR M85II and the production volume Newark Street M85I both of which are in the "new" market at the moment. The review and discussion muddies the comparison between the NS and Bisonic, which is not the reviewer's fault, because of the suggestion that the body depth is a factor and thus a Starfire should sound different than a M85 with the same configurations. (That was not my experience, but I played Grot's M85I for all of 15 minutes so I'm sure my opinion is not definitive). I also saw the word "nasal" applied to a vintage Bisonic. I understand where the comment comes from but where they heard nasal I heard "woody" and I wonder whether the characteristic I look for in a Bisonic replacement is considered a flaw by others. In any event, given the absence of a Newark Street M85 owner posting here, it is a good read.
Factory M85s were "hollow" (see below) with no f holes or (after 1971) solid bodied. The "Phil Lesh" M85 owned by mgod is fretless, has f holes and is one of three instruments custom build by Guild. I am trying to quote this article so if that doesn't sound right then I need to practice my reading skills.
Most bassists I talk to don't bother to distinguish bodies beyond "hollow" or "solid". The Starfire is more precisely a semi-hollow as it has a block of wood running down the center, almost as if the neck continued into the body. I am unclear whether the M85 has the same block or not. If it doesn't then there is probably a piece of wood under the bridge that gives the screws something to hold on to. If that is the case I would argue for hollow rather than semi-hollow. I can't recall that I have ever heard of a chambered bass - which might also be called semi-hollow - where a chamber was "dug out" of a solid block of wood. I'm sure one exists but it just isn't on my radar.
SFIV1967
Venerated Member
That could be part of the confusion. Looking at the Guild ads they say semi-solid, whatever that exactly means for the M-85:
Ralf
Just for fun, I went to vintageguitarandbass.com and looked at the '69, '70 and '71 Guild electric catalogues.
In '69 the M-85 basses were described in the fine print as being semi-solid.
In '70, the M-85 basses were described in a bold print description as being semi-solid.
In '70, well, they were already showing the solid-body M-85s
Here's the link to the '69 catalogue. You can get to the '69 and '70 catalogues by checking out the links on the left side of the page:
http://www.vintageguitarandbass.com/guild/catalogues/1969_index.php
In '69 the M-85 basses were described in the fine print as being semi-solid.
In '70, the M-85 basses were described in a bold print description as being semi-solid.
In '70, well, they were already showing the solid-body M-85s
Here's the link to the '69 catalogue. You can get to the '69 and '70 catalogues by checking out the links on the left side of the page:
http://www.vintageguitarandbass.com/guild/catalogues/1969_index.php
fronobulax
Bassist, GAD and the Hot Mess Mods
- Joined
- May 3, 2007
- Messages
- 24,715
- Reaction score
- 8,848
- Location
- Central Virginia, USA
- Guild Total
- 5
Well I'm not sure why Guild went with "semi-solid" instead of "semi-hollow" but it does sound like I should infer that the M85 also has the interior block dividing it in half.
matsickma
Senior Member
I think we need the help of Hans on this issue.
It was my understanding that in the early 70's Guild was looking to reduce the feedback tendencies of some of its guitars. They experimented with the hollow M-75 by adding different blocks of wood inside the body. They arraved at teh term semi-solid because semi-hollow denoted a solid block down the middle of the instrument. I seem to recall Hans describing Guilds period of experimentation on the hollow body M-75 and indicating that various configurations of "semi-solid" were tried.
Given that background I could see Guild trying to retain their signature hollow body styling while attempting to get the feedback control of a solid.
If I remember correctly wasn't it Mark Dronge who encouraged the solid body line of instruments and father Al reluctant to abandon the jazz style instruments?
M
It was my understanding that in the early 70's Guild was looking to reduce the feedback tendencies of some of its guitars. They experimented with the hollow M-75 by adding different blocks of wood inside the body. They arraved at teh term semi-solid because semi-hollow denoted a solid block down the middle of the instrument. I seem to recall Hans describing Guilds period of experimentation on the hollow body M-75 and indicating that various configurations of "semi-solid" were tried.
Given that background I could see Guild trying to retain their signature hollow body styling while attempting to get the feedback control of a solid.
If I remember correctly wasn't it Mark Dronge who encouraged the solid body line of instruments and father Al reluctant to abandon the jazz style instruments?
M