1969 M85 Hollow Body

[ric murphy]

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2 ... badda2f1f9[/img]
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1547015959838&set=a.1547012679756.2071629.1368227878
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1547020799959&set=a.1547012679756.2071629.1368227878
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1547019439925&set=a.1547012679756.2071629.1368227878
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1547014599804&set=a.1547012679756.2071629.1368227878
First post so I hope the pictures are attached correctly!!!
After owning this bass for near 25 years, I think I've finally been able to identify the model and year (thanks in large part to this forum!!). The bass was purchased from an uncle who was leaving the country. It was “well” used at that time and has been my only bass since I purchased it. Although in embarrassingly poorly maintained condition, it's playability is a 10+. The neck is straight and action is set fairly low with no string buzzing. Except for the PUP's, it's all original including the case. Since I had no idea of what model it was, the Guild serial number listing was of little help. Once I found a picture of a similar bass, I was then able to find the rest of the missing info. Serial number is BB212. I have the original pickup and controls. The is the nicest playing bass I have ever tried due mainly to the light weight and excellent neck. It took 3 different PUP's to finally get a sound I was happy with. I think the 2 PUP model would be the ultimate!!!
Ric

 

[fronobulax]

Welcome.

The pic links aren't as well behaved as as one would like but the last link does lead to the Facebook album which can be viewed even if you don't have a Facebook account. (That was for the other folks who read this thread).

I've got some sad news for you. The TRC (truss rod cover) is upside down. That is a fatal flaw that has been known to reduce the value of Guilds significantly. :wink:

Your identification seems correct. Everything in your pictures is consistent with a 1969 M-85 I that has had the original PU replaced. I note that the "bass boost" switch is still in place. Does it have any function in the new wiring?

Condition is a concern but a hollow body M-85 is pretty sweet regardless.

 

[ric murphy]

Thanks for the welcome!!
Sorry about the problems with the photos. I changed the way they are linked but I still can't seem to figure out how to make them appear in the post like most others do.

The bass boost switch is no longer installed....just the hole remaining now. It was functional until the last PUP change, although only one of the 2 positions actually sounded decent enough to use.
Ric
P.S. I corrected that fatal TRC flaw so hopefully have increased the value accordingly!!!

 

[fronobulax]

Like that?

I opened the page with the image in my browser (Firefox), right clicked on Copy Image Location and that is what I pasted on between the IMG tags.

The tone switch was advertised as a "bass boost". A lot of folks call it the "suck switch" in that it either "makes the sound suck" or "sucks all of the tone out of the sound". I've never actually heard one with a Hagstrom PU. My JS has it but it has the Guild humbuckers. I tend to use it when I want a rhythmic thump and don't really want people to know what note I am playing.

BTW keep the original PU even though it might fetch $500 on eBay. Originals are scarce and most folks want an original or will downgrade they price they are willing to pay for a bass by several hundred which is the cost of Dark Stars and the labor to install them.

 

[ric murphy]

My browser (IE) does not give me that option for some reason. If you wanted to paste the other 3 pix into your post, I'm sure it would be more convenient for other readers.

I'm surprised the old original PUP could be worth that much considering it sounded like crap!! I've kept it all these years for the very reason you stated, but since I have no plans to sell the bass it sure is tempting to part with it!!

 

[fronobulax]

considering it sounded like crap!!

That strongly suggests to me that either your PU is defective or your taste in bass sounds is at odds with most of the people who seek out and own Guilds.

:wink:

 

[hieronymous]

Love the bass! That thing has been PLAYED! It's cool too that you have finally found the information about it - it's one thing to be investigating a bass you are thinking about purchasing, another thing entirely when it's been your bass for so many years! Do you play in a band?

 

[ric murphy]

Yes she's been well played thats for sure. Not sure how much of the wear is from me or how much was before my time. It's been so long but it seems like it was in this condition since I bought it. Since I've owned it over 2/3's of it's life, it's hard to believe that most of the wear was there before I bought it. I guess it's like looking in the mirror everyday and not noticing you're getting older and then you see some pictures from 20 years ago!!! The cigarette burns in the headstock are compliments of my son. He used it for a few years until he could afford his own. I've played pretty steady over the years, often in multiple bands at the same time. Working on a couple of new projects right now. Actually one is a "rebirth" of an old project so I guess that really doesn't count as "new" does it!!

 

[mellowgerman]

considering it sounded like crap!!

That strongly suggests to me that either your PU is defective or your taste in bass sounds is at odds with most of the people who seek out and own Guilds.

:wink:

+1

 

[krysh]

welcome and congrats to your great taste in basses.

 

[bklynbass]

Hey Ric

If the hagstrom pickup sounded bad it was very possibly caused by the coil ("suck") switch. On my M-85 the Hagstrom pickup in the neck position sounded horrible when I first got it...almost no gain, distorted, just wrong. Then, with Fred Hammon's guidance I took out the coil and it sounded great, Iike I knew it was supposed to sound. For some reason, the coil can screw up the tone even when it's not engaged. I don't know if this phenomenon occurs with all 60s/70s guild basses or if it's just the luck of the draw, but since you said the coil was taken out when you put the replacement pickup in there I'm guessing it was the case with your bass as well.

If it were my bass, I'd be curious to hear it with the original pickup in there now that the coil's been removed. The consensus on the Hagstrom Bi-Sonics is that they were some of the finest sounding pickups ever made.

Since I've already nerded out this much, here's before and after sound clips of my bass so you can hear the difference...they were recorded direct, into logic.

Before: http://www.chrislightcap.com/m85/choke.mp3

After: http://www.chrislightcap.com/m85/sanschoke.mp3

Anyway, thought I'd throw that in there. Take it or leave it...

 

[ric murphy]

I should likely revise my statement in an earlier post about the original pick up sounding like "crap". The bass boost switch and pickup seemed to function as intended. In what I would call the "normal" position the tone was very middy......almost like a bass cut. In the bass boost setting it was a very warm bassy tone and this was the position I always used. I replaced the original pickup for 2 reasons. First the old electronics were a bit noisy at times. It had been that way since I bought it and I just got tired of it. The problem was worse at some gigs more than others. The 2nd reason was I was after a different sound for the music I usually play but wasn't willing to use any other bass. I'm very happy with the current pickup. It's everything I want in a bass sound. I'm likely going to part with the old pickup. I can't ever see selling the bass or re-installing the original so why hang on to it any longer.
Ric

 

[ric murphy]

Was wondering if anyone had any additional info on this bass. Specifically years produced and qtys built. I'm familiar with the serial numbering changes Guild made over the years which prevent one from finding this info by model & serial number.
From the serial number listing I know the following:
1967 BB101-BB109 - 9 units produced
1968 BB110-BB194 - 85 units produced
1969 BB195-BB241 - 47 units produced
- was 1967 the first year for the M85 model? If not how many were produced?
- was the hollowbody M85 produced after 1969? If so how many? What was the last year?
- do the qtys built include both the single and double PUP model?

Also wondered why Guild used Hagstrom PUP's on the early models. Did they lack the technology at that time? When did they stop using the Hagstroms?

Thanks in advance for any info!!!
Ric

 

[fronobulax]

Was wondering if anyone had any additional info on this bass. Specifically years produced and qtys built. I'm familiar with the serial numbering changes Guild made over the years which prevent one from finding this info by model & serial number.
From the serial number listing I know the following:
1967 BB101-BB109 - 9 units produced
1968 BB110-BB194 - 85 units produced
1969 BB195-BB241 - 47 units produced
- was 1967 the first year for the M85 model? If not how many were produced?
- was the hollowbody M85 produced after 1969? If so how many? What was the last year?
- do the qtys built include both the single and double PUP model?

Also wondered why Guild used Hagstrom PUP's on the early models. Did they lack the technology at that time? When did they stop using the Hagstroms?

Thanks in advance for any info!!!
Ric

Some of the answers may be in Moust's The Guild Guitar Book. I don't have my copy at hand but maybe Hans will drop in and comment. (Don't pay attention to the prices. The book went out of print, is in the process of being reprinted and copies are expected to be for sale new, at retail, in March 2011 for about $20).

I think 1967 was the first year of production. That said, 1965 is generally thought to be the first year of Starfire bass production but there are documented Starfire basses in 1964.

Hollow bodies were produced until 1971 and perhaps into 1972 in quantities unknown to me. Grot has a 1970. The Guild humbucker was introduced circa 1971 and there are examples of hollow bodied M-85's with the humbucker.

I am not aware of any production numbers that break out numbbers for M-85 I's and M-85 II's separately.

Not sure what you mean by "lack the technology". There are certainly those who would say that Guild used the Hagstrom because it was the best d*mn pickup available which is a judgment we know you don't agree with :wink: That said, and I am out on a limb here, I can't recall any Guild designed and manufactured bass pickup before the humbucker appeared circa 1971. (I admit to being fuzzy on the pre-Hagstrom PUs used in the JetStar and early Starfire but they were out of the lineup by 1965 so perhaps irrelevant to a M-85). It is safe to say they stopped using it by 1971 and perhaps in 1970. I can't recall hearing of any humbuckers in 1970 production but if the PU had been developed and manufactured in 1970 then there are probably some basses I have missed. Anyway, I don't think anyone is going to be able to answer your "why" question.

I should note that I am aware of three different PU configurations for an M-85 II (2x Traditional Hagstrom, 1x Traditional Hagstrom + 1x "narrow" hagstrom, 2x Guild humbucker) and that if you have patience with LTG's search function you can find most of the places this has been discussed.

 

[bklynbass]

The bass boost switch and pickup seemed to function as intended. In what I would call the "normal" position the tone was very middy......almost like a bass cut. In the bass boost setting it was a very warm bassy tone and this was the position I always used.

There's one thing I'd like to clear up here...the switch was not really a bass "boost"; it was a bass "cut". (Also known as a "bariotne" switch) When the coil is not engaged, you're hearing the "normal position" sound, and when it's engaged, you're hearing the coil in the circuit, which cuts bottom end, and makes it sound mid-rangey. This is different from some other tone switches on 60s basses which have a capacitor that rolls off high end when it's engaged and are "high cut" switches. The problem with the coil, at least on my bass till I took i out, seems to be that it messes up the sound even when it's not engaged. The pickup's natural sound should be wide and balanced with lots of lows, mids and highs, even in the neck position.

I should note that I am aware of three different PU configurations for an M-85 II (2x Traditional Hagstrom, 1x Traditional Hagstrom + 1x "narrow" hagstrom, 2x Guild humbucker) and that if you have patience with LTG's search function you can find most of the places this has been discussed.

Also 1x Traditional Hagstrom + 1x Guild Humbucker.

 

[fronobulax]

There's one thing I'd like to clear up here...the switch was not really a bass "boost"; it was a bass "cut".

The Guild product literature of the time explicitly called the switch a "Bass Boost". The EE who helped me draw this schematic of my JS II said that electrically it was a treble cut. Did you misspeak above or have I been wrong for 30+ years?

Also 1x Traditional Hagstrom + 1x Guild Humbucker.

Logic suggests such a combination may have come from the factory. I presume you have seen one and are confident of it's originality?

Thanks.

 

[bklynbass]

There's one thing I'd like to clear up here...the switch was not really a bass "boost"; it was a bass "cut".

The Guild product literature of the time explicitly called the switch a "Bass Boost". The EE who helped me draw this schematic of my JS II said that electrically it was a treble cut. Did you misspeak above or have I been wrong for 30+ years?

I've always been told that it was a coil and therefore by definition a bass cut. I also seem to remember reading that at some point in the 70s they switched to a high cut switch from a low cut switch, so maybe we're both right. But I've been wrong before...

The one thing I found to back me up was a quote from the exhaustive description of a starfire bass for sale here in brooklyn at retrofret.

"There is a pushbutton "choke" switch which cuts low end for a very bright baritone response; this feature was added to the line not long after the pickup was moved to the position just under the fingerboard."

from http://www.retrofret.com/products.asp?ProductID=4813&CartID=5660501312011

bklynbass wrote:
Also 1x Traditional Hagstrom + 1x Guild Humbucker.

Logic suggests such a combination may have come from the factory. I presume you have seen one and are confident of it's originality?

Sorry, I thought we already talked about this in another thread. It's been a while, I should have put it in my message.

http://letstalkguild.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=9931&p=206037#p206037

 

[fronobulax]

The one thing I found to back me up was a quote from the exhaustive description of a starfire bass for sale here in brooklyn at retrofret.

I could quibble with several things in Retrofret's discussion. In particular, the movement of the PU on a SF I to the neck position occurred in 1966. Every SF I serial number that I have observed from BA-544 on up has had the PU in that position. The tone switch was added in 1967 along with the change of the bridge shape. I have never seen the switch without the curved bridge and every Starfire I have seen from BA-1472 on up has had both. Since Retrofret got the chronology wrong I would not consider their use of the work "choke" as definitive.

Guild marketing literature and case candy described the switch as a "Bass Boost". I've got the case candy from 1971 :wink: Just listening to what it does, there are two sounds, one of which has more bass than the other. However, my ear is not good enough to determine whether the difference was created by cutting bass or cutting treble and I have yet to figure out which sound corresponds to the resistor and which to the capacitor. It may very well be that, compared to the raw output of the PU, one position does cut some bass and the other does cut some treble.

I am also making the presumption that statements about Guild bass electronics pretty much apply to all models in production during the same time for 1966-1977. In other words the electronics will be the same for a 1971 JS II, 1971 SF II and 1971 M-85 II. Furthermore, although I have had success in doing so, there is no real reason to assume that the wiring is the same for a 1970 SF II with Hagstroms and a 1971 SF II with humbuckers. So plenty of opportunity for me to learn something new.

That said: In general, if I take the output from a PU and run it through a resistor, does that cut any frequencies? If I take the output from a PU and run it through a capacitor, does that cut any frequencies? I would say the answers are No and Treble. If someone else has different answers then we have found a fundamental source of my confusion.

Sorry, I thought we already talked about this in another thread. It's been a while, I should have put it in my message.

http://letstalkguild.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=9931&p=206037#p206037

Thanks. I remember the discussion but couldn't easily find it. Did not recall it was with you. Not sure I want to believe the blond but the black, pre-Dark Star is definitive. One of the tricks I use to tell whether a SF I was converted to a SF II is the thumb and finger rests. I have never seen a SF II that left the factory with rests, but I have seen several conversions where the rests were reused. I need to remember that trick should not work on M-85s because of the seriously lower production numbers.

Thank you very much. This is much more fun that discussing whether a GAD is, or should be, considered a Guild. :lol:

 

[ric murphy]

Thanks much for all the info guys...very interesting. In regards the switch function/effect, here's the way I recall mine sounding (keep in mind it's been a long time). The bassier of the 2 positions sounded to me like what I would expect to hear from an unaltered pickup located so far from the bridge. The other position certainly sounded like a bass cut, if not a mid boost as well. It was a tone unlike any sound I've heard on any other bass. Not trying to stir up the pot on the issue, just trying to convey how this particular bass sounded with original PUP's.
Thanks again,
Ric

 

[mgod]

The one thing I found to back me up was a quote from the exhaustive description of a starfire bass for sale here in brooklyn at retrofret.

I could quibble with several things in Retrofret's discussion. In particular, the movement of the PU on a SF I to the neck position occurred in 1966. Every SF I serial number that I have observed from BA-544 on up has had the PU in that position. The tone switch was added in 1967 along with the change of the bridge shape. I have never seen the switch without the curved bridge and every Starfire I have seen from BA-1472 on up has had both. Since Retrofret got the chronology wrong I would not consider their use of the work "choke" as definitive.:

I have a 67, BA-1133, that I've owned since 1973. Started life as a I, has a straight bridge and had a suck switch.