Buying old, vintage Guilds

jmascis said:

What is also strange is we're told there's a scarcity of woods, yet on $160 Yahama you can now get a spruce top and a rosewood board and dovetail joint. Meanwhile, on many 1k+ US guitars you now get a Richlite board (not all of course, but many) and now bolt on necks. To me this brings into question the wood scarcity debate. It seems this is more about economics: inflation and labor. In the US there is high inflation and high living standards, so to combat that the guitar companies are using Richlite and M/T joints, etc. Then they tell us wood is scares. In China, labor is dirt cheap, and while inflation is high, it's mostly in bubble assets that don't hit the common man. So there, we see improvements to cheap guitars. The Yahama 700 series had laminate tops. The 800 series now has spruce top and scalloped bracing. All this says to me the big US companies want to sell us on this idea of scarcity and that "guitar players need to adapt to new materials" because it allows them to use these cheaper materials to maintain profits without raising costs too much. Is that conspiracy thinking? I don't know. They have Bob Taylor out there doing promos saying we all need to accept new materials, Martin doing the same, and meanwhile Yahama is actually giving customers more wood for less money.

My girlfriend has a composite Martin, btw, and it actually has a Richlite board. It plays well, I can't deny that. It's a bit boxy sounding but warm and the fretboard is nice. I didn't know they were expected to break down. I'll have to tell her that. I will tell you this: it smells awful. It's only a few weeks old, but I can smell the chemicals (I assume it's from pressing the wood/glues they used). I actually had to put it down and stop practicing last week because I was feeling ill from the scent. If that's what Martin and Bob Taylor expect guitar players to accept, I'll just go all Bob Dylan blasphemy and go pure electric.

Click to expand...

English is a funny language. If I say something is "scarce" I just mean that I can't get as much as I want or need. But I am not trying to say whether the quantity I need does not exist, or that I cannot afford the quantity I need, or that the supply chain cannot deliver what I need. When I listen to Bob Taylor's comments about wood and hear what the folks in New Hartford said, the message is I take away is not that wood is scarce but that the supply of the quality of wood desired is dwindling and thus rising in price. In some cases the supply is dwindling because the "correct" trees were not planted 20 years ago and anything planted today won't be good enough for guitars for 30 years. In some cases the wood is there but using it would price the resulting instrument to non-competitive levels.

I have not looked at Yamaha guitars - I forget they make anything besides motorcycles - but it would not surprise me if the wood was lower in quality than what would be used in an over $1000 MSRP Made In USA guitar. When they talked about wood in New Hartford they mentioned about how grading standards were not universal and every batch of AAA grade wood that came in was still inspected by Guild and not everything in the batch was accepted. Since the rejected by Guild wood was almost certainly sold to someone else there were jokes about buying guitars made from wood rejected by Guild and who would want to do that? Somebody's using the AA and A grades but not for high end instruments.

So while I am well aware of the tendency of companies and corporations to find a way to slant anything so that it sounds like they are doing something good or necessary when the only reason is profit, in this case I am inclined to accept the general idea that if "we" don't address the wood supply now, in 50 years there won't be enough to make guitars.

It is true that labor costs are cheaper in China, but about 5 years ago one of the people at Guild who was responsible for overseeing the MIC production noted that labor costs in China were rising and it was quite possible that it would be economically feasible to bring production back to the US. I think we need another five years before we know his prediction was wrong.

jmascis said:

What is also strange is we're told there's a scarcity of woods, yet on $160 Yahama you can now get a spruce top and a rosewood board and dovetail joint. Meanwhile, on many 1k+ US guitars you now get a Richlite board (not all of course, but many) and now bolt on necks. To me this brings into question the wood scarcity debate. It seems this is more about economics: inflation and labor. In the US there is high inflation and high living standards, so to combat that the guitar companies are using Richlite and M/T joints, etc. Then they tell us wood is scares. In China, labor is dirt cheap, and while inflation is high, it's mostly in bubble assets that don't hit the common man. So there, we see improvements to cheap guitars. The Yahama 700 series had laminate tops. The 800 series now has spruce top and scalloped bracing. All this says to me the big US companies want to sell us on this idea of scarcity and that "guitar players need to adapt to new materials" because it allows them to use these cheaper materials to maintain profits without raising costs too much. Is that conspiracy thinking? I don't know. They have Bob Taylor out there doing promos saying we all need to accept new materials, Martin doing the same, and meanwhile Yahama is actually giving customers more wood for less money.

My girlfriend has a composite Martin, btw, and it actually has a Richlite board. It plays well, I can't deny that. It's a bit boxy sounding but warm and the fretboard is nice. I didn't know they were expected to break down. I'll have to tell her that. I will tell you this: it smells awful. It's only a few weeks old, but I can smell the chemicals (I assume it's from pressing the wood/glues they used). I actually had to put it down and stop practicing last week because I was feeling ill from the scent. If that's what Martin and Bob Taylor expect guitar players to accept, I'll just go all Bob Dylan blasphemy and go pure electric.

Click to expand...

English is a funny language. If I say something is "scarce" I just mean that I can't get as much as I want or need. But I am not trying to say whether the quantity I need does not exist, or that I cannot afford the quantity I need, or that the supply chain cannot deliver what I need. When I listen to Bob Taylor's comments about wood and hear what the folks in New Hartford said, the message is I take away is not that wood is scarce but that the supply of the quality of wood desired is dwindling and thus rising in price. In some cases the supply is dwindling because the "correct" trees were not planted 20 years ago and anything planted today won't be good enough for guitars for 30 years. In some cases the wood is there but using it would price the resulting instrument to non-competitive levels.

I have not looked at Yamaha guitars - I forget they make anything besides motorcycles - but it would not surprise me if the wood was lower in quality than what would be used in an over $1000 MSRP Made In USA guitar. When they talked about wood in New Hartford they mentioned about how grading standards were not universal and every batch of AAA grade wood that came in was still inspected by Guild and not everything in the batch was accepted. Since the rejected by Guild wood was almost certainly sold to someone else there were jokes about buying guitars made from wood rejected by Guild and who would want to do that? Somebody's using the AA and A grades but not for high end instruments.

So while I am well aware of the tendency of companies and corporations to find a way to slant anything so that it sounds like they are doing something good or necessary when the only reason is profit, in this case I am inclined to accept the general idea that if "we" don't address the wood supply now, in 50 years there won't be enough to make guitars.

It is true that labor costs are cheaper in China, but about 5 years ago one of the people at Guild who was responsible for overseeing the MIC production noted that labor costs in China were rising and it was quite possible that it would be economically feasible to bring production back to the US. I think we need another five years before we know his prediction was wrong.

fronobulax said:

English is a funny language. If I say something is "scarce" I just mean that I can't get as much as I want or need. But I am not trying to say whether the quantity I need does not exist, or that I cannot afford the quantity I need, or that the supply chain cannot deliver what I need. When I listen to Bob Taylor's comments about wood and hear what the folks in New Hartford said, the message is I take away is not that wood is scarce but that the supply of the quality of wood desired is dwindling and thus rising in price. In some cases the supply is dwindling because the "correct" trees were not planted 20 years ago and anything planted today won't be good enough for guitars for 30 years. In some cases the wood is there but using it would price the resulting instrument to non-competitive levels.

I have not looked at Yamaha guitars - I forget they make anything besides motorcycles - but it would not surprise me if the wood was lower in quality than what would be used in an over $1000 MSRP Made In USA guitar. When they talked about wood in New Hartford they mentioned about how grading standards were not universal and every batch of AAA grade wood that came in was still inspected by Guild and not everything in the batch was accepted. Since the rejected by Guild wood was almost certainly sold to someone else there were jokes about buying guitars made from wood rejected by Guild and who would want to do that? Somebody's using the AA and A grades but not for high end instruments.

So while I am well aware of the tendency of companies and corporations to find a way to slant anything so that it sounds like they are doing something good or necessary when the only reason is profit, in this case I am inclined to accept the general idea that if "we" don't address the wood supply now, in 50 years there won't be enough to make guitars.

It is true that labor costs are cheaper in China, but about 5 years ago one of the people at Guild who was responsible for overseeing the MIC production noted that labor costs in China were rising and it was quite possible that it would be economically feasible to bring production back to the US. I think we need another five years before we know his prediction was wrong.

Click to expand...

That's funny that Yahama is known for motorcycles. They began as a piano company in the 1880s and made guitars dating back to the 1940s. They didn't build motorcycles until the mid 50s.
I really like their guitars for the price. My playing level is "upper intermediate", and I find them to be great values simply due to their labor costs (and they have also built their own factory so they don't source through someone else's). By cutting out all those middle men they can offer a guitar that should cost $500-600 for $150-200. I'm not a Yahama fanboy and don't like Chinese made product in general, but all I am saying is the low labor costs does allow us instruments that should cost substantially more. They might not be great guitars, but they are great value guitars. If they were built in the US they'd cost 3x the money and I think people would respect them more because the price. Despite how we try, people associate price with quality. It's natural. The Yahama might use a lower grade of wood, but they claim they source it from sustainable sources and it's top grade and even their lower end guitars are mostly hand built. There is a video on youtube about the Yahama factory you should check it out.

Again, I am not writing all this because I'm a Yahama fanboy (in fact, I just bought a Guild and a Yahama FG800 last week, and I like many other brand acoustics like Gibson and Martin). I am just sharing this because I find the economics interesting and honestly a bit fishy. By sharing what I read, people can research it more and decide for themselves. I'm personally confused how a company like Yahama can increase the specs on their guitars and offer real wood, scalloped bracing, and a wood fingerboard, yet companies like Martin use richlite, M/T joints, on mid grade $1500 guitars and then tell guitarists they need to change their expectations...if it's not purely a labor issue.

I don't know! It would be interesting to hear from people who buy the woods for these companies or are out their monitoring these forests, if they're allowed to speak openly and truthfully with video/photos of the situation and not sworn to silence. Lol.

Update: this is the video I was referencing. It's 7 years old and references the FG700 series, but the FG800s have spruce tops, scalloped bracing, and dovetails.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyFZmvvalMo

I also saw Chinese Eastman guitars for $600 with nice, all black ebony boards...

Bill Ashton said:

Neal, you forgot Collings...:blushed:

Click to expand...

Don't forget S.L. Mossman. I have one from 1976 (bought new) that has bolted/glued mortise-tenon joint. It's not shy by any means.

jmascis said:

What is also strange is we're told there's a scarcity of woods, yet on $160 Yahama you can now get a spruce top and a rosewood board and dovetail joint.

Click to expand...

Not trying to sound contentious, but I really only pay attention to Guild specs, so, re Yamaha: solid spruce top? And, as Frono mentioned, grade of the woods?
And there's lots of rosewoods available (only Brazilian is truly endangered), the remaining unlisted species were only CITES listed so as to try to ensure continued sustainable harvesting and use.
To be fair Yamaha does have a great rep and it's also possible their sheer corporate size*** offers them cost advantages of scale not available even to Martin or Gibson at the top of the American guitar "food chain".
***EDIT:Forgot to say: Let's not forget they're the world's largest piano maker so I bet they're gettin' some hellacious volume pricing on wood.

jmascis said:

Meanwhile, on many 1k+ US guitars you now get a Richlite board (not all of course, but many) and now bolt on necks. To me this brings into question the wood scarcity debate. It seems this is more about economics: inflation and labor. In the US there is high inflation and high living standards, so to combat that the guitar companies are using Richlite and M/T joints, etc. Then they tell us wood is scares.

Click to expand...

The "scarcity" is due to constraints (CITES listing) being placed on what used to be unrestricted harvesting of commercially valuable species.
Given a choice between cheap wood now or ANY wood later, I'll take having wood at all, later.

jmascis said:

In China, labor is dirt cheap, and while inflation is high, it's mostly in bubble assets that don't hit the common man. So there, we see improvements to cheap guitars. The Yahama 700 series had laminate tops. The 800 series now has spruce top and scalloped bracing. All this says to me the big US companies want to sell us on this idea of scarcity and that "guitar players need to adapt to new materials" because it allows them to use these cheaper materials to maintain profits without raising costs too much. Is that conspiracy thinking? I don't know.

Click to expand...

I must be honest and admit I do have a knee-jerk reaction against jumping to the conclusion that makers are trying to maximize their profits by promoting a myth. It just doesn't make sense when they've also gotta compete against other domestic makers.
I think the real issue is they've got to compete with those offshore makers that DO have labor cost advantages. And labor's by far a larger cost than raw materials. (And I'm open to evidence to the contrary, but I prefer to see evidence instead of generalized suspicions when accusing anybody of a "rip-off" or "conspiracy". . It could be true but the case would be better made with evidence)

jmascis said:

They have Bob Taylor out there doing promos saying we all need to accept new materials, Martin doing the same, and meanwhile Yahama is actually giving customers more wood for less money.

Click to expand...

I think Taylor is promoting sustainable use as and adapting to new materials does allow them to keep costs down.
Whether or not the market will accept it or be willing to pay more for "real wood" is yet to be seen, I think.

jmascis said:

My girlfriend has a composite Martin, btw, and it actually has a Richlite board. It plays well, I can't deny that. It's a bit boxy sounding but warm and the fretboard is nice. I didn't know they were expected to break down.

Click to expand...

Actually I was talking about the bodies of a composite-bodied series, I haven't heard that Richlite is expected to break down over time. But again I don't pay that much attention to other maker's specs.
Your observation that the smell is counterproductive is interesting though. I can relate to that big time. Could be one of those things that turns out to backfire on 'em.

jmascis said:

I'll just go all Bob Dylan blasphemy and go pure electric.

Click to expand...

For Bob that was just a return to his roots.
(from "the usual source"):
"He formed several bands while attending Hibbing High School. In the Golden Chords, he performed covers of songs by Little Richard[11] and Elvis Presley.[12] Their performance of Danny & the Juniors' "Rock and Roll Is Here to Stay" at their high school talent show was so loud that the principal cut the microphone.[13]"
:biggrin-new:

Back when I was getting into motorcycles in the late 60's, the Yamaha logo was three tuning forks oriented in a sort of propeller...

Damn, I am old :frustrating:

Heh... I'm getting there too!

Remember also... you might have met the nicest people on Hondas... but you met the swinging-est
HOT ones on Yamahas!

Yes, long ago I worked at a Honda/Yamaha dealership, and the tuning fork logo on Yamaha motorcycles was exactly the same as the headstock logo on my first guitar, a Yamaha FG-160. Very classy logo, imho.

As for the cost of USA vs pacific rim production, it's all about labor costs, and has been since Japan took over the low end guitar market in the '70s. First Japan, and then any country where labor costs remained low. Like rolling thunder, they just moved on to the next country, and the next, and so on.

At a certain price-point, virtually all makers will put out a product that is in an ideal sweet spot, given their labor costs. Beyond that, you'll start to see price increases based on all kinds of factors, such as artist models & wood combinations. These specialized instruments may not cost a red cent more to produce, but beyond the basics, it's often all about marketing.

bobouz said:

As for the cost of USA vs pacific rim production, it's all about labor costs, and has been since Japan took over the low end guitar market in the '70s. First Japan, and then any country where labor costs remained low. Like rolling thunder, they just moved on to the next country, and the next, and so on.

Click to expand...

Right. When I got my D25 the GC sales rep explained that: how, starting in the mid '80's, Korea had been moving in and by the mid '90's had developed the world's biggest guitar manufacturing complex.
In '97 China wasn't even a blip on the guitar radar yet.
And they're already past the top of their curve, I think.

adorshki said:

Not trying to sound contentious

Click to expand...

Yeah I wasn't trying to sound that way, either. It's the internet where inflection and all context is lost.

All I was pondering *aloud* is how, other than pure economics (whether of scale and/or labor), this is first and foremost a wood scarcity issue as I've seen it presented lately.

Regarding the Martin, she bought the "Little Martin" (I think that's the name) -- it's all bit off left over wood that they basically glue together using some resin or chemical. I'm not sure the exact process. Then the fretboard is richlite. It was $350. It sounds warm yet boxy. It's kinda cool for finger picking. BUT, I told her she could get a wood guitar for half that. The problem is she has very small hands and this one fit her well. I think the market for those is small children, people with tiny hands, backpackers, etc. They record surprisingly well, though if you cut the low end and boxy frequencies...so maybe some studio applications for people not going for a pristine sound. But boy do they smell bad when new. I'm hoping it fades quickly.

Back to the OP's question, I'd be very careful buying a Guild pre 75 or so. What makes them so good, makes them so bad, light construction. All the manufacturers started building sturdier guitars from the early seventies, perhaps slightly before. The lighter build sounds better IMHO, but comes with risk.

But most any USA Guild guitar will blow the socks off most any import Guild.

I had, and regrettably sold to a friend, an early Martin 000 16. It was Martin's first foray into competing with Taylor's cheaper guitars. They sacrificed the dovetail and the gloss finish. That is an outstanding sounding guitar. The brands mentioned above negate any notion of the inferiority of the bolt on neck.

While Yamaha is known for their "value for the dollar: guitars, they have made some guitars that are as good as any factory made guitars made by anybody (and yes, that includes Guild). THy have made two lines of guitars, the LS and the LL series that most people are unaware of, and were for all intents and purposes, handbuilt instruments. The two that I have heard were great, not merely good, but truly great sounding guitars.

Yamaha is also a major supplier of brass and woodwind instruments for classical music, in addition to pianos.

I think that Yamaha's core knowledge is resonance and how to manipulate it. Resonance in guitars, classical instruments, pianos, and internal combustion engine intakes (as in motorcycles, and in the case of the Ford Taurus SHO and SVO, car engines).

kostask said:

While Yamaha is known for their "value for the dollar: guitars, they have made some guitars that are as good as any factory made guitars made by anybody (and yes, that includes Guild). THy have made two lines of guitars, the LS and the LL series that most people are unaware of, and were for all intents and purposes, handbuilt instruments. The two that I have heard were great, not merely good, but truly great sounding guitars.

Yamaha is also a major supplier of brass and woodwind instruments for classical music, in addition to pianos.

I think that Yamaha's core knowledge is resonance and how to manipulate it. Resonance in guitars, classical instruments, pianos, and internal combustion engine intakes (as in motorcycles, and in the case of the Ford Taurus SHO and SVO, car engines).

Click to expand...

I agree. Great guitars and undervalued/under appreciated except by beginners who get fine instruments for sub 200 and the few who take a plunge and get a more expensive one.
For some reason the name doesn't have any sex appeal or respect. It's fine, keeps them cheap.

When I was a kid a real piano was a Steinway and Baldwin was for people on a budget. It's not that there weren't other brands, I just wasn't aware of them. Honda motorcycles were available in the US but I remember seeing my first Honda car. I was the passenger on a Honda motorcycle. The bike had the bigger engine and we were actually looking down on the top of the car. But my friend's bike is probably why I knew the names of cycle brands.

There were still vocal WW II vets around who would insist that it was un-Americian to buy any product form our former enemies, the Japanese, especially if the Japanese company had made munitions during the war. Mitsubishi sticks out in my mind as being particularly hated. The Zero perhaps?

In any event it is strange how out knowledge and recollection of brands is shaped.

On the veer at hand, I don't think there is a conspiracy to shift guitar buyers to a product with less wood because of some direct and devious profit motive. I have swallowed the Kool-Aid and think if we don't do something now we won't have guitars and guitar quality wood later. I also think there is some apples and oranges going on when we make blanket statements about hand picked wood used in a factory that produces less than 20,000 instruments a year and wood used in a factory that produces 10,000 instruments a month. But the conversations is civil and we are learning things so....

I think Al's recollection of Dylan being electric in high school and being told to Turn It Down is not right. According to thisisnotreal.com the noise complaint was because Dylan had a D25 that drowned out everything else.

Frank Ford (Gryphon Stringed instruments) did a neck reset on my '74 D-40NT about ten years ago. I don't think the cost was over $400 and the work was superb.

I remember him telling me he didn't like doing neck resets on Guilds, but he still was willing to do mine.

Br1ck said:

Back to the OP's question, I'd be very careful buying a Guild pre 75 or so. What makes them so good, makes them so bad, light construction. All the manufacturers started building sturdier guitars from the early seventies, perhaps slightly before. The lighter build sounds better IMHO, but comes with risk.

But most any USA Guild guitar will blow the socks off most any import Guild.

I had, and regrettably sold to a friend, an early Martin 000 16. It was Martin's first foray into competing with Taylor's cheaper guitars. They sacrificed the dovetail and the gloss finish. That is an outstanding sounding guitar. The brands mentioned above negate any notion of the inferiority of the bolt on neck.

Click to expand...

+1. I still have all three of the early Westerly Guilds ('70 - '73) I ever bought. I have been through a number of later Westerly's, and they are all gone, except for my '81 D-212. To my ears, the very early Westerly's just sound better, more lively. And they are a lot lighter.

None of the three have had a neck reset, but all have a low saddle, ramped bridge pin slots, and a Bridge Doctor installed to improve playability and resist further bellying.

The little F-20, for instance, had a huge belly that I was slowly able to reduce.

The truth is very complicated. It involves market manipulation by some Governments (ie. Brazil), unnecessary (and in many ways, miguided)regulation by unelected officials (ie. UN), and the vanity of guitar buyers.

Brazilian rosewood is not endangered. Brazilians are cutting down more rosewood than all of the guitar world could ever use. They have been clear cutting tropical rain forests, with a lot of Brazilian rosewood being cut down as well, for decades. The trees are not used in any way, but the export of this wood requires the Brazilian government to certify the wood. They will, for a very substantial price; it is a significant source of income. They are not issuing a lot of certifications, therefore the wood is scarnce; not due to the tree being endangered, but because it cannot be legally exported out of Brazil.

The CITES list has both good and bad aspects. It is good that it is an attempt to limit the trade in endangered species. It is not good in that it has been applied retroactively. Shipping a guitar that was built 20, 30, 50,or even 80 years ago across bordere is now very difficult. A guitar with an ebony or rosewood fingerboard from Canada to the US now requires a "passport". This is essentially a government fee. None of this does anything to prevent the extinction of rosewood or ebony. It just limits the free movement of goods, and adds government interference. There is no species preservation when the tree was cut down 30+ years ago. And if there is some supposed species preservation, why will the government sell "passports" to allow the guitar to cross borders?

Guitar buyers are part of the problem as well. Everybody wants a rosewood or mahogany giotar/ Mp argument they can be great sounding guitars. What about walnut, cherry, ash, maple, pearwood, wenge, or Australian blackwood/acacia guitars? Is it even remotely possible that they can be good guitars? In my opinion, yes, having owned both walnut and cherry guitars. Most people wouldn't give them a second look. Look what happened with Guild's pearwood back and sides guitars. Discontinued because they were not selling. They are however, good sounding guitars as per the two that I have heard. All of the above woods are in plentiful supply, can make for good sounding guitars, and can look really, really good. However, guitar buyers want rosewood or mahogany.

Just some data points. (And a couple of opinions.)

I bought my '65 D-40 off the wall in '67. About 20 years later, my repairman thought it could use a neck reset, so he did one. So far, that adjustment has held--the guitar plays and sounds fine. (What it needs right now is a new bridge, or at least a re-repair of the crack that runs through the endpin holes. But even that is pretty stable.)

I've spent a lot of time with repairmen and luthiers (and count two of the best among my friends), and I don't recall hearing any complaints about doing resets on Guilds. Which doesn't mean that there aren't competent repairmen who find them a pain for whatever reason. But after a couple decades spent doing guitar journalism (Acoustic Guitar, Acoustic Musician) I didn't run across any.

One of the things Guilds have always been known for is sturdiness, and in my experience (Over the last 50 years I've owned a half-dozen of various models and ages and played dozens from every period of manufacture just short of the Cordoba acquisition) they do not need to be tuned down or lightly strung. Which doesn't mean that there are no outliers in the huge output across six decades, or that those variables don't affect an instrument's voice or ease of playing. Just that understringing or -tuning is unlikely to make a significant difference in the instrument's durability.

Your experience and opinion is comforting, and reinforces my tendency for tuning down for better singing key access and ease of fretting for tired hands, and not necessarily to prolong it's 'health'. I don't feel I'm sacrificing perceptible tone. My Hoboken F20 doesn't seem 'delicate' like other smaller bods I've played, yet it has the nice full brightness I didn't get from guitars like the sturdy Gibson LG2.

jedzep - just on a whim, tuned the JF30 down a full step last night, played for awhile, then went up a half step... really surprised me, both
the difference in tone - definitely deeper, but not unpleasant at all! - and fretting was indeed easier - and also
singing songs that are on the brink of being out-of-vocal range were certainly easier. Thinking I might just leave this one tuned down and
enjoy the difference in sound and character... thanks for suggesting.