NS Starfires getting built better these days?

lungimsam

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
2,568
Reaction score
1,622
Guild Total
2
Still holding out for a Sunburst.
My red one is doing great.

I think I got mine 4 years ago.

Was wondering if the builds/craftsmanship is getting any better as the MSRP's are going up...and up!

Got mine for $1050, iirc.

It is a great bass, but I have had some build issues:

1. One of the rosewood bridge broke so I replaced my bridges with brass ones, which I like a lot.
2. Cannot lower action as low as I would like to try. When I get the harp low enough, the bridge harp just won't go lower on the lower bout side. Stays in mid air and grub screw no longer effective. Only solution I can think of is to sand down the rubber pieces under the bridge to enable the back end to lower more. I am not asking for anything too low. Just 6/64 at 17th fret, no press. I don't think there is a reason why the harp should not be able to go that low, unless these basses were never meant for that kind of action.
3. Significant finish issue the bass came with on the side edge of fingerboard on first and second frets.

#3 I was ok with at the start, so did not return, #1 and 2 happened outside of warranty period, iirc.

So , anyone buy some lately? Are they getting any better?
 

Minnesota Flats

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
1,284
Reaction score
1,164
I have only played earlier-production NS SFs (made before they changed the nut width spec) so can't say whether QC has changed for better or worse. The ones I've played have had no issues, but I have noticed that those being sold on the internet as "B-stock" or "factory refurb" often seem to have the finish fogging along the edge of the fingerboard that you mentioned. You might want to buy used and just ask the seller very specific questions that will address your concerns before bidding/buying. I've noticed several used NS SF Is and IIs that were not marked and re-serial-numbered (which B-stock usually is) going for under $1K.

I'm not happy that they widened the nut. I know it's not by much, but I thought the early necks were perfect. Evidently, a lot of people must have felt differently and told them so.
 

lungimsam

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
2,568
Reaction score
1,622
Guild Total
2
Mine was sold to me as new from Sweetwater.
I forgot what year.
Serial is ksg1301614
Fingerboard at nut measures 3.6cm or just under 1.5”.
I think we got ours about the same time. Is your serial number close to mine? How wide are they widen the nuts?
 

fronobulax

Bassist, GAD and the Hot Mess Mods
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
24,708
Reaction score
8,836
Location
Central Virginia, USA
Guild Total
5
Haven't paid attention since I got mine and have not heard anything about deliberate spec changes or general quality issues.

I thought mine had some finish issues on the neck but on closer examination what I was seeing was the wood under the finish.

My only broken saddle on three harp equipped basses was on the '67.

You may be asking for lower action than the bridge was designed for.

Not sure what it would take to get me to buy another one. Probably a finish color that is not available on a vintage bass.
 

Minnesota Flats

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
1,284
Reaction score
1,164
"Current site says still 1.5” "

You're right: I just looked at the Guild site and that's what it says.

That's interesting, because in response to a direct inquiry about this last May to Guild I was told:

"Thank you for your interest in Guild guitars!
Yes, all of our new production Starfire Basses come with the 1 11/16" (43mm) nut width." which is what it said then on their own site at that time. I see that they have now, indeed changed it back to 1.50".

Sweetwater told me the same thing at about the same time and the ones for sale on their site today say 1.6875".

MF currently lists the nut of Flamed Maple NS SF II as 1.69"/43mm.

So, there seems to be more than a bit of confusion about this, even with the mfg. and among retailers.

I have no idea what the correct answer is. I thought I had it sorted, but it appears not.
 
Last edited:

mellowgerman

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
4,100
Reaction score
1,506
Location
Orlando, FL
Based on my experience a harp bridge shouldn't have any issues of not going low enough. My 1970 Starfire has very nice low action and the bridge still has a lot more room to go lower. Maybe it's a matter of the angle at which the neck was set in at the factory? I did notice that the neck on the NS 6-string hollow SF-II guitar sat a bit lower above the top of the body than the vintage specimens I've played.
Another idea might be to slightly loosen the bridge mounting screws in the back... that might give the bridge a little more downward tilt flexibility
 
Last edited:

lungimsam

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
2,568
Reaction score
1,622
Guild Total
2
So should the harp bridge be tight or loose at those two screws when strings relaxed/off?
Mine is tightened down tight. And I have two rectangular foam pads under them that are very hard and hold the bridge plate up off the face.
 

fronobulax

Bassist, GAD and the Hot Mess Mods
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
24,708
Reaction score
8,836
Location
Central Virginia, USA
Guild Total
5
So should the harp bridge be tight or loose at those two screws when strings relaxed/off?
Mine is tightened down tight. And I have two rectangular foam pads under them that are very hard and hold the bridge plate up off the face.

Mine all all tight but I think mellow's suggestion is to relax them a bit.
 

lungimsam

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
2,568
Reaction score
1,622
Guild Total
2
Update:
Backed off the two large bridge plate screws by 1/2 turn and now can get action down even lower than needed. Thanks for the suggestion! Cross #2 off the list.
 
Top