35 versus 40: What's the difference

[Charlie Bernstein]

I'm on my second D-35. It's favorite guitar model ever. But I've never played a D-40. What are some differences in build and sound?

 

[Guildedagain]

Not a whole lotta difference, the D40 is upscale, Chesterfield, better tuners, double bound in white binding, possibly has better top wood.

Big price difference.

 

[chazmo]

Hi Charlie,

I think there are a lot more D-40s around than D-35s, or maybe its just that they haven’t built any since Westerly. But, there might be some bracing differences. Don’t know. I’m in the opposite situation as I’ve played several D-40s but never a D-35 (well, not that I remember anyway). As Martin has proven time and again, the top bracing makes a huge sound difference among models of similar construction and maybe that’s what’s going on here..

I don’t have Hans’ book handy to look up any intentional construction differences between the D-35 and the D-40 except appointments.

I think it’s an interesting question because if you compare the D-50 with the D-55 (which I’ve done many times), they really don’t sound much alike even though the materials are similar...

@GardMan do you have any Henkograms of the D-35 vs. D-40? Anyone else have any analysis on the possible bracing differences?

 

[Br1ck]

All the D 40s I've played were post 73s which were heavier builds. They were a little thinner, a little brighter and a tad more forceful than my 70 D 35. I've never fond the D 35 tuners to be a bad thing. The weight difference is noticeable. The D 40s do have a more upscale look , and the wood is cosmetically better. I'd love to try a 70 D 40 someday.

 

[Boomstick]

Tuners and bling really. Construction and tone should be identical

 

[GardMan]

@GardMan do you have any Henkograms of the D-35 vs. D-40? Anyone else have any analysis on the possible bracing differences?

No... I've never owned a D-40, and have only played one once. Back in in Jan '73, when I was shopping for my first "nice" acoustic, I found a small shop on upper Burnside in Portland with a flat-backed D-25, a D-35, and a D-40. I played them all, and preferred the spruce-topped D-35 and D-40 over the all-mahogany D-25. I couldn't afford the D-40, but rode the bus back the next day and bought the D-35, which I still own.

OTOH, I would EXPECT that the bracing patterns of the D-35 and D-40 MADE IN THE SAME YEAR to be very similar, but that subtle changes to the bracing of both models occurred sometime between 1972 and 1976.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

All good. Thanks, gang!

 

[adorshki]

Tuners and bling really. Construction and tone should be identical

All good. Thanks, gang!

Hi Charlie,

I don’t have Hans’ book handy to look up any intentional construction differences between the D-35 and the D-40 except appointments.

I can't recall a single model in there where Hans specs bracing. It first occurred to me years ago when bracing started coming up frequently here. Indeed Guild themsleves only rarely mentioned bracing in any of the lit on GAD's site until the mid-Fender era.

And finally given their proclivity to change specs on the fly, it occurs to me that may be why Hans seems to skirt the subject. He may not have concrete info from Guild, only field observations.

Anyone else have any analysis on the possible bracing differences?

Actually have a sneaking suspicion they never shaved the braces on D35's, just like with the sister model D25's.

D40's have been cited with shaved braces in several eras over the years. Also early D40's had 3-pc necks which D35's never had.

 

[Boomstick]

Actually have a sneaking suspicion they never shaved the braces on D35's, just like with the sister model D25's.

D40's have been cited with shaved braces in several eras over the years. Also early D40's had 3-pc necks which D35's never had.

I haven't tried looking at my dad's '68, but I did see a thread somewhere on the Internet where someone did show the bracing on a D-35 and D-40 and it was near identical, shaved on both.

It could be specific to an era.

 

[Br1ck]

I very much prefer pre 73 D 35s for their lighter builds. New Hartford on are fine lighter built instruments too. Considering cost, you can't beat an old D 35 IMHO. The spruce used is just part of the charm.

 

[adorshki]

I haven't tried looking at my dad's '68, but I did see a thread somewhere on the Internet where someone did show the bracing on a D-35 and D-40 and it was near identical, shaved on both.

It could be specific to an era.

Given the extra labor needed to shave braces, I'd be surprised if the shaved brace D35 was a factory job. It was a pretty popular "thing" In the mid-to-late '70's, after Crosby talked about shaving the braces of his D18.
Source:
https://www.fretboardjournal.com/features/david-crosby-history-and-harmonies/

"FJ: What was that first 12-string you heard?

DC: Bob Gibson’s. Freddy had one, too.

FJ: You just knew you wanted one, immediately?

DC: Yeah. I mean, listen to the damn thing. It’s like a piano. This one [holding his original D-18 that he had converted to a 12-string] in particular. I think this is probably the best acoustic one I’ve ever heard. I tried to copy it a number of times. Santa Cruz made me a copy of it. Martin made me a David Crosby model 12-string that’s a 12-fret like this.

I sent Martin this guitar, and they said, “Somebody very amateurishly shaved the braces in here. That wouldn’t have been you, would it?” And I said, “Uh, yeah.”

FJ: You did?

DC: Yeah. I shaved the braces a little bit with a Coke bottle and some sandpaper.

FJ: When was that?

DC: That was when I first got it. When I bought it, I was in Chicago. I rode a bus out to the only store in Chicago that had a D-18, which was all I could afford from Martin. I got it and I wanted it to be loud. And even though this was late ’50s or early ’60s, you can make ’em louder. They were building ’em lighter then than they do now.

Now they’re building them to try and last 50 years. Which is admirable on their part, on the one hand, and yet, on the other hand, those guitars don’t ring anywhere near. When they made the David Crosby D-18, I said, “Build it light.” I said, “Do not build it to the kind of specs you have been building, where you expect a guitar to last 50 years.” And so those David Crosby D-18s ring like a bell, because they’re built lighter and braced lighter."

I first heard that story around '72, from one of our local high school "flattop heroes".

 

[Boomstick]

Given the extra labor needed to shave braces, I'd be surprised if the shaved brace D35 was a factory job. It was a pretty popular "thing" In the mid-to-late '70's, after Crosby talked about shaving the braces of his D18.

Good point.

I'll try to look at my dad's. Those braces are factory for sure

 

[RBSinTo]

From the title of the thread, I'm pretty sure the difference is 5.

 

[bobouz]

No... I've never owned a D-40, and have only played one once. Back in in Jan '73, when I was shopping for my first "nice" acoustic, I found a small shop on upper Burnside in Portland with a flat-backed D-25, a D-35, and a D-40. I played them all, and preferred the spruce-topped D-35 and D-40 over the all-mahogany D-25. I couldn't afford the D-40, but rode the bus back the next day and bought the D-35, which I still own.

As so well illustrated here by GardMan, the difference was most likely more about creating a variety of price points than anything else. My first choice was the D-40 (the seductive powers of the Chesterfield). And btw, living in Eugene back then, I used to frequently come up to Portland to check out all the music stores & pawn shops downtown on 3rd Ave - like feasting on candy from one store to the next! Edit - Guilds were very well represented in a number of these shops back then. I’d always grab any new catalogs that came in & found this on one I still have:

 

[Br1ck]

When I bought my 70 D 35, probably 25 years ago, I did not have a clue as to what it was. It needed a bridge, a neck reset, nut and frets. But I thought even unplayable it had a decent tone with next to no break angle. Sat in my shed for 15 or so years .But a US built guitar for $250 was too good to pass up. I remember Richard at Gryphon telling me straight up not to think I was saving money. Ten years ago I put $1100 into it. I've had no regrets. Had I been looking, I probably would have bought a guitar with the Chesterfield, but I'd had an F 40 I thought was pretty bad, so no regrets whatsoever. My silkscreened logo is very faded now. It's the story of guitars finding me, and probably the biggest shot in the dark purchase I've made.

 

[adorshki]

When I bought my 70 D 35, probably 25 years ago, I did not have a clue as to what it was. It needed a bridge, a neck reset, nut and frets. But I thought even unplayable it had a decent tone with next to no break angle. Sat in my shed for 15 or so years .But a US built guitar for $250 was too good to pass up. I remember Richard at Gryphon telling me straight up not to think I was saving money. Ten years ago I put $1100 into it. I've had no regrets. Had I been looking, I probably would have bought a guitar with the Chesterfield, but I'd had an F 40 I thought was pretty bad, so no regrets whatsoever. My silkscreened logo is very faded now. It's the story of guitars finding me, and probably the biggest shot in the dark purchase I've made.

As I often like to point out to folks, you got a basically new guitar with the advantage of being well-played-in and opened up, for about $1350, still well below market for a new piece at the time, and the pleasure of playing for all the years since you re-furbed it.

I think part of the reason Guild backs off from domestic-built F30's is that they were so popular, so there's probably a ton of opportunities out there for guys like you, and they may simply feel the market's too saturated especially when you bring toss all the Martins into the accounting.

 

[Boneman]

Interesting that he shaved down his braces with a bottle and sandpaper. Has anyone here done that with their Guilds?

 

[Uke]

From the title of the thread, I'm pretty sure the difference is 5.

I had the same smart ass reply in mind. And, when your 70, there doesn't even seem to be a difference of 5.

 

[RBSinTo]

I had the same smart ass reply in mind. And, when your 70, there doesn't even seem to be a difference of 5.

Uke,
Smart-ass?
Unless mathematicians invented some new numbers after I graduated university, as I recall, the difference between those two numbers is indeed, five.
RBSinTo

 

[Uke]

Uke,
Smart-ass?
Unless mathematicians invented some new numbers after I graduated university, as I recall, the difference between those two numbers is indeed, five.
RBSinTo

Yes, it is "smart-ass." But that's ok in my book RBS -- smart-ass can be fun -- it's one of the spices of life. Yes, the difference between 35 and 40 is indeed 5. But that's just no fun at all -- that's just math. Relatedly, is it "smart-ass" or "smart-assed?" I'm not sure on that.