Archtops/Hollowbodies and Solid/Chambered Forum Names

[GAD]

There is (and has been) some confusion regarding what guitars belong in what forum. This mostly often occurs with Aristocrats, which have arched tops, but to me they don't really fit with the other archtops, which is why I added example lists to the forums some time ago:



Thinking about it more, I may be trying to force my view of things, so I figured I'd open up the discussion to see if there might be better names for these forums. Note that these forums have been named this forever, and those descriptions were added by me and don't show up on the main page on mobile, so it's an easy thing for everyone to get confused about, especially if I've made it all worse.

For me, the confusion in the names comes down to this. This guitar is a Newark St. M75 Aristocrat:

In my mind should not be in the same category as this:

But if we call the category "archtops", then it is, but to me an Artist Award is an "archtop" while an Aristocrat (no matter the time period) is not. However, Guild advertised that Aristocratt as a Hollowbody, so...

I think the issue comes down to how we classify guitars.

• Structural type (ex: archtop)
• Commonly used (and maybe not correct) terms (ex: Jazz-box)
• Common use (ex: Jazz, Rock, etc.)
• Probably pointless features (f-hole, harp tailpiece)

The industry doesn't help much, at least in my mind. First there were archtops and flattops. And then there were solidbodies. Well... My S300AD has a flat top, but my Nightbirds have arched tops. But they're not "flattops" or "archtops"

Hell, some models changed their internal construction over the model's lifetime. Like the Aristocrat. Is the Aristocrat the only problem guitar? I don't think so, but it's the one that always seems to cause categorization issues.

Is this even a problem that needs to be solved? I'm also fine with "leave it alone: you're over-thinking things again." I'm used to that feedback in life.

 

[walrus]

Leave it alone you're over thinking it.

Caveat - I've been around a while and know where to look.

walrus

 

[fronobulax]

Perhaps overthinking.

I note the M-85 bass was a true hollow body with no internal block or f holes until about 1971 after which it was a solid body. We can avoid the problem by sending it to Bass but otherwise the poster needs to understand the change in the model specs circa 1971 to put it in the right place. Is that something we really want to impose on users, especially when even famous players like Sheryl Crow aren't sensitive to the difference?

 

[GGJaguar]

I understand using the categorization scheme based on what the guitar looks like. The M-75 looks like solid body or chambered body. So does the NS Aristocrat HH and it really is chambered. Most folks coming here aren't the nerds that we are (nor are they taxonomists) and would likely seek info about the Aristocrat-types in the solid body forum. But then, maybe I'm overthinking it, too.

 

[shihan]

Doesn’t seem like a major problem. I say leave it as is.

 

[guitarlover]

I'm fine with either solution but most logical for me is to just follow how Guild advertises a guitar on the website : Aristocrat M 75 = hollow body
Aristicrat P 90/ HH = chambered.

But, like I said, not a matter of life and death ;-)

 

[The Guilds of Grot]

If it don't have "F" holes, it ain't an archtop!

(Except a George Barnes)

 

[guitarlover]

What if the f-holes are painted only ?

 

[GAD]

Are Aristocrats the only problem guitar? Maybe I need to just relax and let Aristocrats in both forums.

 

[GGJaguar]

Maybe I need to just relax and let Aristocrats in both forums.

It's good to be flexible.

 

[spoox]

As they are aristocrats, that makes them nobility, and thus should not be placed with the commoners:


They of course must have their own category.

 

[The Guilds of Grot]

What if the f-holes are painted only ?

Then it ain't a Guild!

 

[jp]

To me, the main issue seems to be access of information and usability, rather than proper classification, which is obviously somewhat subjective and based on historical background knowledge.

If a member wants to find information about a specific model or wants to post a thread, then I feel a listing of models below the subforum head perfectly addresses this issue. It also allows mods to have definitive rules to enforce.

I think it will be perfectly fine to leave it as it is with the added listing of the models with each subforum category.

 

[fronobulax]

It also allows mods to have definitive rules to enforce.

Historically that has not been a benefit.

I'm fine with the status quo.

Two concerns I have with using model numbers are 1) the model specs need to be consistent enough that changes would not move something to a different category and 2) the poster has to get the model correct.

 

[jp]

Historically that has not been a benefit.

I'm fine with the status quo.

Two concerns I have with using model numbers are 1) the model specs need to be consistent enough that changes would not move something to a different category and 2) the poster has to get the model correct.

Sorry, frono. I'm a little confused. So do you think it's better without the listing of models . . . so that the subforum categories only show Archtops/Hollowbodies and Solid/Chambered?

Or maybe I was being unclear? If so, apologies. I'm endorsing keeping things as they are. I don't mean an extensive, all encompassing list of numbers--just the basics as GAD has done works fine.

 

[fronobulax]

Sorry, frono. I'm a little confused. So do you think it's better without the listing of models . . . so that the subforum categories only show Archtops/Hollowbodies and Solid/Chambered?

Or maybe I was being unclear? If so, apologies. I'm endorsing keeping things as they are. I don't mean an extensive, all encompassing list of numbers--just the basics as GAD has done works fine.

The not a benefit comment applied to rules in general and not this specific topic. You'd be surprised at the number of people who see a rule as an invitation to try and break it without actually doing so.

For the topic at hand, the more precise the "what belongs where" guidance is, the more the poster has to know before they post. That is not newbie friendly.

 

[jp]

Ah. I can see that.

 

[krysh]

To me and Guild the M-75 „Aristocrat“ is and has always been an archtop full hollowbody guitar. It only changed in 1972 when the solidbody M-75 was introduced but then it wasn‘t called Aristocrat anymore but Bluesbird. In 1970-72 the M-75 was available in both versions. Chambered guitars came later in the late 80’s/90‘s as Blusbird/Nightbird/Nightingale, but they have nothing to to with the earlier Bluesbirds. So moving threads about Aristocrats in the chambered category to me is absolutely wrong.