Vintage Guild F-20 (or M-20) tonal response compared to a Martin 00-18 (or 00-15M)

[J.K.]

Junior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2018
Messages
57
Reaction score
8
I must've caught Guild fever. I've been looking at the older F-20 and M-20 guitars and have been wondering how they compare to something like a Martin. I know the 20 series are closer to the 0-sized Martins, but 0-sized Martins are fairly uncommon, and most of them I've found tend to be 12-fret models with slotted headstocks, which is a different ballgame.

Right now I have a 00-15M Martin, which I'm very fond of, but it's incredibly tricky to record and get to sound as rich as I feel like it should. (I initially wanted a vintage M-20, but the 00-15M Martin landed in my lap at a very reasonable price, so I decided to go with it). If I had one complaint, though, it would be that the low E string is never quite sounds full enough in the mix. I've tried a number of things, but balancing a loud fundamental on the string along with enough overtones to make it feel at home in the mix is tricky, so it seems like I'm always trying to play that string a bit heavy when recording.

Anyway, I'd rather like a spruce-topped small body guitar to record more fingerstyle with, and I was curious as to how people felt the early F-20s compared to other offerings (specifically the Hoboken models with the short scale necks). I know my mini-jumbo style F-30 has a thinner neck, but I have long, thin fingers so the nut width doesn't really bother me much.

So, questions:
Are the earlier F-20s really toppy sounding, or do they have enough presence in the E and A strings to balance things out a bit? Any idea what the bracing is like for those models? I've played some recent 00-18 guitars, as well as a mid 50s 00-18, and everything about the older 00 was perfect (minus the price), especially how the highs mellowed out a bit and the midrange seemed to breathe a bit more. I was wondering if the older F-20s were at all similar. The one thing I've picked up comparing the (slightly varying) specs of the Hoboken 20s series guitars is that the bodies seem to have a slightly wider upper and lower bout, with a tighter waist as well. Not being a luthier, I wonder if that has much tonal difference compared to other models as well.

And, on the subject of the early 20 series guitars, how to the Hoboken M-20s compare to other similar mahogany guitars? Is smaller body size more obvious? I feel like the "boxy" sound of mahogany guitars is more greatly impacted by the body size, but I also see a lot of people with old M-20s that hold on to those guitars with a deep love for a long time.


Sorry for the huge list of questions. I've been looking all over the forums at people talking about the F-20s and M-20s, but I haven't seen a lot of direct comparisons to more familiar models, nor have I seen a very full assessment of their tonal response across the spectrum, so I was hoping a generous person might be able to share some insight. I've played some of the GAD models, but compared to the construction and tone of the vintage guitars, I can't imagine that's a whole lot to use as a reference.

Thanks so much!
 
Last edited:

Quantum Strummer

Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2015
Messages
2,382
Reaction score
118
Location
Michigan
I have a '62 F-20 and a '42 Martin 0-15. The two guitars are similar in body size and scale length. The Martin is all mahogany. AFAIK (and can see) both guitars use a standard X bracing pattern. The F-20's neck is thinner overall and narrower at the nut. The Martin has a wider & chunkier V neck. Tone & volume wise the Martin is louder, more even in volume and a bit darker while the Guild is more dynamic and snappier. With the Martin I can play as hard as I like without it ever topping out, which makes sense given it has a more compressed volume envelope to begin with, while the Guild has a ceiling beyond which it gets smaller sounding. Both guitars are IMO well balanced string to string and up & down the fretboard. The two complement each other well.

-Dave-
 
Top