not a bad gad

I've poked around the forums to no avail, hope someone can shed a little light.

I played a Guild dred which I assume was a GAD, (missing sticker), the other night at an open mike. Owned by a much younger player. I had
my D-40 w/ me so of course we both gravitated to each other. He got it as a freebie from a parishioner in the church where he plays in the band so he did not know anything about it.

It had a dreadful crack through the center of the spruce top but the puppy just howled! Would love to hear it with the crack repaired!!

What piqued my interest was the fact that it seemed somewhat upscale, pretty wood binding, chesterfield etc.

I remember some discussions here that there were some "better" variations of the GADs but I cannot seem to find any specifics.

Hoping someone can lead me. I'd like to try one.

Thanks

Hmm, BC, the GADs were nicely adorned. A little fancier in their "GAD" designation than their "100"-series variants (and now the "Westerly" series). Not all of the models made transitions from one designation to another. They weren't just re-named, they were actually redesigned. We had a conversation with Tim Shaw of Fender years ago about his work with GAD transition to 100-series.

I'm sure a crack repair wouldn't make the guitar sound much different. It's nice to hear that you enjoyed it. The MIC models have always been nice alternatives at a low price point.

Oh, by the way, you can look here for the present state of affairs. The arch-backs were introduced earlier this year, and those are the latest additions to the line. http://guildguitars.com/guitars/acoustic-guitars/westerly-collection/

So a Gad 50 vs a 150??

That would make life easier. I just looked at a GAD 50 on the bay. It looks like a dead ringer to the one I played, burst and all

Yes. Well, again, the appointments changed between when they called it GAD, initially, and when they made the transition to the 100-series (it was really a redesign), but yes that's the best comparison.

Yep. I also have one of the earlier GAD's . . . also a GAD 50. I have a pretty good idea about what the O.P. is talking about. I traded a more expensive guitar (Larrivee) to for the GAD and a little cash. It's a fantastic guitar. It's loud, comfortable, balanced, and it has that great rosewood dread richness. I don't miss my old Larrivee at all. Compared to the later 100 series GAD's, the earlier GAD's had wood bindings, a differently shaped neck heels, Chesterfield inlays on the headstocks, bone nuts and saddles, Grover tuners, etc. . . . and some of them also had somewhat odd (non-Guild-ish) pointy pick guards. At first, the pick guard shape put me off a little, but I've come to like it over time.

I also own a later D125 GAD. It's a more than decent guitar in its own right, albeit with simpler appointments. I may trade it for something else eventually . . . perhaps an Oxnard Guild . . . or not . . . but my GAD 50 is certainly a keeper.

Oh . . . and I played one of the newer arched-back GAD guitars (D-240 I think) at a store recently and also an all-solid D-140 (Westerly Collection). The D-140 had real potential, but sound-wise, the arched-back model didn't impress me nearly as much.

This thread makes me happy, since I remember the "Are GADs even Guilds?" discussions. It is typical of Guild and the community that we now have three(?) distinct MIC eras - GAD, 100 and Westerly Series - and there are cases where vintage seems to be better.

frononbulax:

As you can tell by my sig I'm not a purist when it comes to Guild. (I also noticed I mis ID'd my D-40). But I do like to keep it in the family so to speak. My MIJ "Guild" was purchased new. I could have swung the $ for a "real" Guild back then, (1975), but the darn thing fit, sounded great and the owner of the shop said: "hey, the Japanese have been building stringed instruments for a few thousand years longer than the U.S. has been around". And , uh, it sounded great! And it still keeps perfect tune for hours to this day.

I've had several brands come and go but I've always been drawn and the core of my stable is Guild. Something about their "look" combined with what I've always considered above par workmanship has kept me in the flock. Think about a mid 70's Martin, horrible. There is no "bad" period in the Guild history. Corona blems aside, which were not "retail", Guild has been pretty high up on the JD Power reliability scale.

I suppose if the GAD had sounded like a dog rocket I'd never have given it a second thought, but it was reaally sweet, and very pretty to boot, in a tasteful way. I won't be ashamed to own a GAD if I can find the right one.

Many of us have objected to Guild being on the headstock of the MIC imports. Many of us, though, give grudging credit to the quality and the design of the products -- I don't want to speak for everyone on that point -- but distinguishing models in the used market is a little bit harder now since Fender started doing that back in 2004/2005. The fact is that the MIC (and more recently MIK electrics) are excellent values, as I mentioned earlier. The Madeiras maybe not so much. I don't know, I don't want to offend anyone on that point, BC.

At least with the Madeiras it was easy to distinguish USA-built products from the MIJ.

The initial GAD's had Grover tuners and bone nut and saddle, and an awful looking pickguard. There were some complaints of the poly finish being too heavy. The next batch came with Grover-copy tuners, synthetic (Nubone?) nut and saddle and lighter finish. Cannot remember now, but I do not think the second "edition" guitars were designated GADxxx .

Big-Al said:

The D-140 had real potential, but sound-wise, the arched-back model didn't impress me nearly as much.

Click to expand...

I played A D-140 as well, and thought it was very nice. Good value per dollar, IMO.