F40 vs D40

JohnW63 said:

"That was not true of the F-40 model of the past "

Until I looked at the videos, I figured the F-40 was the same size as my F-47R , which I would not call a jumbo. It's smaller than a dread, but just about as deep. I now know Oxnard has put the model name on a jumbo shape.

Click to expand...

Guild dreads are actually 15-3/4" lower bout width vs. 16" for "F40 family", and "jumbo" generically also means shape, not bout width.

Not sure how total soundbox volume and top compare, but I think it's very close, and general consensus is that it's the pinched waist that makes it "feel" smaller than a dread.

The original jumbo (Gibson) was a 16" lower bout:
"It had a 16" body, 41⁄2" deep,"

Why the original 17" (well, 16-7/8") jumbo was called the Super Jumbo by Gibson:
"The SJ-200 was named for its super-large 16 7/8" flat top body"

Are you implying that the F40 and F47 have been in the "jumbo" category?

JohnW63 said:

Are you implying that the F40 and F47 have been in the "jumbo" category?

Click to expand...

I thought I pretty much came out and said it.

Although granted its also been called "Traditional" (beginning with the GF series) and "Grand Auditorium", which Taylor uses. But the first jumbo was 16" lower bout.

BTW< ever tried fitting your F47 in a dreadnought case?

George Gruhn, in a historical look at Gibson’s 16” J-185, says, “The size and shape of the Gibson Jumbo body harks back to Orville Gibson, though the archtop instruments he famously designed were very different in construction.”

In fairly recent Gibson catalogs, you will find the 17” Super Jumbo category, and the 16” Jumbo category. Oh, and then for a few years there was the CJ-165, a 15” Compact Jumbo body.

We also might want to mention the ‘70s & early ‘80s 15” Guild F-30, which is commonly referred to as the F-30’s jumbo-shaped-body era. Or how about Guild’s current Junior Jumbo models?

A long & winding roadmap, based on the figure-8 body profile. Here’s an encore of my two favorite 16” jumbos & jumbo foot (respectfully borrowed from BGUF):

So I was looking to spend right around 2k on the D40, I get a semi regular coupon from Guitar Center for 20% off that allows guild. I had also been looking at the D18, and last night Musicians Friend had a deal for the D18 special with the VTS top for 2k, I price matched it at Guitar Center, and plan on making use of the 45 day return period. I'm pretty pleased I can actually try the Martin, and if I don't like it, return it and get the D40.

I'm interested in seeing how this Adi top with their weird aging system works too. Two things that might get it sent back for me:

The Martin famous "mid scoop".
The neck: when I read something like "low profile slim taper" I get bad 60s strat vibes, and tired hands, but we'll see.

On the D40, do they use an Adi top or just adi bracing? And does it have a nice significant neck size? Guild does a flatter radius too right?

Bob, ^ Is that the F-40 on the left? Which Gibby on the right?

chazmo said:

Bob, ^ Is that the F-40 on the left? Which Gibby on the right?

Click to expand...

Yes, it’s a 1974 Guild F-40, and a 2012 Gibson J-185.

Ghastly said:

On the D40, do they use an Adi top or just adi bracing? And does it have a nice significant neck size? Guild does a flatter radius too right?

Click to expand...

In Oxnard, Adi bracing only, and only on the "Traditional".

Gonna take a guess the neck will be nice and "beefy", seems to have been one of the ongoing traits of the D40 over all generations, can't recall anybody ever saying a D40 neck felt "skinny".

In fact, when I got mine, for a while I thought the action must have been a little high because the strings felt like they needed more tension to fret than the other two. But measuring showed it was spot-on at factory spec just like the other two, couldn't figure it out until one night I happened to notice it was actually thicker (deeper) than the other two, which I'm sure you'd categorize as "skinny", what Fender called a modern flat oval at the time, while the '40 was definitely more of a "D" or even "C" cross section.

Finally realized that was what must be making it feel "tight", but as I've aged it's actually pretty comfortable now, like the hand wants a little more beef for "support".

Aha, "bingo"! Website shows "C" profile and 12" radius, a long-standing Guild spec:

adorshki said:

In Oxnard, Adi bracing only, and only on the "Traditional".

Gonna take a guess the neck will be nice and "beefy", seems to have been one of the ongoing traits of the D40 over all generations, can't recall anybody ever saying a D40 neck felt "skinny".

In fact, when I got mine, for a while I thought the action must have been a little high because the strings felt like they needed more tension to fret than the other two. But measuring showed it was spot-on at factory spec just like the other two, couldn't figure it out until one night I happened to notice it was actually thicker (deeper) than the other two, which I'm sure you'd categorize as "skinny", what Fender called a modern flat oval at the time, while the '40 was definitely more of a "D" or even "C" cross section.

Finally realized that was what must be making it feel "tight", but as I've aged it's actually pretty comfortable now, like the hand wants a little more beef for "support".

Aha, "bingo"! Website shows "C" profile and 12" radius, a long-standing Guild spec:

D-40 TRADITIONAL Natural | Guild Guitars

The Guild D-40 Traditional embodies the features that have made the D-40 one of Guild’s most beloved and revered models. Using a high-grade solid Sitka spruce..

guildguitars.com

Click to expand...

Thanks! I'm skeptical I will like the torrified top on this D18, but I can always just return it!

This just doesn't look as big and round as a jumbo. Like the two posted above.

JohnW63 said:

This just doesn't look as big and round as a jumbo. Like the two posted above.

Click to expand...

Agreed, that’s more of a Martinish 16” 0000 shape. The F-47, like the F-40, has gone through evolutionary periods where it did, or did not, carry the figure-8 jumbo shape. Similarly, the F-30 has at different times appeared in the 15” 000 shape, and also in a small-jumbo shape.

Need a scorecard to keep track!

Ghastly said:

Thanks! I'm skeptical I will like the torrified top on this D18, but I can always just return it!

Click to expand...

FWIW, I liked the VTS enough to get it on my custom jumbo. I’ve played four 000-17m's side by side; everyone in the room agreed the two with VTS sounded the best.

I recently had a D 18 with VTS top as well. It sounded wonderful..

For what it's worth, I had a Martin M36 for twenty five years that did just about everything right, but as my flatpicking skills improved and I got into Bluegrass, it didn't have the horsepower. It found a good home, and I bought my Martin D 35 Custom . Whenever I see someone playing a maple SJ, usually a 200, in a country band, the guitar cuts through.

JohnW63 said:

This just doesn't look as big and round as a jumbo. Like the two posted above.

Click to expand...

OK, now I get where you're coming from, and yeah, the outline did go back and forth between different factories.

bobouz said:

Agreed, that’s more of a Martinish 16” 0000 shape. The F-47, like the F-40, has gone through evolutionary periods where it did, or did not, carry the figure-8 jumbo shape.

Click to expand...

Never woulda known if you hadn't mentioned it. Not being at all familiar with Martin, I had no clue, never knew where else to "categorize" that version (the flat-bottomed "Valencia" outline) of the F40/F47.

And @JohnW63 : note F47's did also get the "figure 8" outline from '98 until Tacoma (which, yeah, technically, is an F47ce, but the "F-series" was Guild's only offering in the 16" bout jumbo category for many years):

The above reviewer called it a " mini jumbo ".

After all this lernin', I am definitely getting rid of the Nickle Bronze strings I put on it. It sounds more tin-y than mini jumbo-y.

JohnW63 said:

The above reviewer called it a " mini jumbo "

Click to expand...

Yep. And in fact they also specifically called out the original "Valencia" outline for the Nashville Custom Shop 45th Anniversary and the "Valencia", implying ( ) they themselves made a distinction:


I just realized after all these years that I was misled by a statement about the F65ce: "The classic Guild Valencia body shape continues in these modern guitars":


In fact the F-series followed the second (ca '73) version like Bobouz's "mini-jumbo"and the Gruhn "Traditional" GF series outline more closely. Even though I noted that outline difference years ago, it's why I've lumped all the 16" lower bout F bodies into the "jumbo" outline category for all these years.

JohnW63 said:

After all this lernin', I am definitely getting rid of the Nickle Bronze strings I put on it. It sounds more tin-y than mini jumbo-y.

Click to expand...

@Westerly Wood ? @davismanLV ? @bluesypicky ?

You know my motto: "EJ-16's on Everything !!"

I think 'hog loves pb. Maple or rosewood now, maybe a different story. If you want to get as far away from "tin-y" as possible, I might even suggest a set of silk and steel or even silk and bronze, and you could probably even string it with the heaviest set I've seen, as the overall set tension is significantly lower than the PB lights your F47 was designed for.

Fretting tension not a problem with silk, either. I tried 'em when I was experimenting with re-voicing the F65ce a few years back, guitar loves 'em.

adorshki said:

You know my motto: "EJ-16's on Everything !!"

I think 'hog loves pb. Maple or rosewood now, maybe a different story. If you want to get as far away from "tin-y" as possible, I might even suggest a set of silk and steel ore even silk and bronze, and you could probably even string it with the heaviest set I've seen, as the overall set tension is significantly lower than the PB lights your F47 was designed for.

Fretting tension not a problem with silk, either. I tried 'em when I was experimenting with re-voicing the F65ce a few years back, guitar loves 'em.

Click to expand...

EJ16s like the ranch dressing of acoustic guitar strings. I am usually surprised when I throw a set of them on any of my Guilds after having not used them for a while, at how good they sound and how nice they feel to the fingers. They never disappoint. I been playing Martin lights recently, as they have a .54 E and .25 G, and I find that gives a bit more projection, though Martin strings are not as crisp as EJ16s. But mediums I just cannot adopt, no matter how hard I try, so I tend to seek out light/medium strings now. And I know of EJ19s, but it really is the B/E light gauge I mostly dislike, not the thicker strings of light gauge. It's the .12 and .16 I cannot stand, too damn thin.

If I could one day finally adopt mediums, I would be playing EJ17s on everything. Just like Glenn does. His Guild dreads sound fantastic and I know he uses EJ17s. Of course, a lot of that is his virtuosity, but still, if you listen to his videos, great examples of what the basic D'Addario EJ17 string can do.

Thanks kindly WW, but ya gotta keep in mind that I tune my EJ17s way down -- I doubt I could do much with Mediums tuned to Standard.

And I'm with Tom on the pleasures of occasionally switching to Silk & Steels for variey's sake. I just put a set on my F44 -- it sounds terrific.

wileypickett said:

Thanks kindly WW, but ya gotta keep in mind that I tune my EJ17s way down -- I doubt I could do much with Mediums tuned to Standard.

And I'm with Tom on the pleasures of occasionally switching to Silk & Steels for variey's sake. I just put a set on my F44 -- it sounds terrific.

Click to expand...

Tom who?