D-35, D-25; what's the dif?

[Metalman]

When looking through the Guild Guitar Book, and reading each other's posts, I am left wondering what is the difference between the D-35 and the D-25. Other than the fact that for a while the D-25 sported an arched back, the D-35 seemed to stay straight and flat.

Other than that, it seems the two are almost identical. I also notice a lot of praise heaped upon the lowly D-25, flat back and arched.

Alright, we must compare apples to apples; I am not referring to the mahogany topped D-25s, nor the dark-stained ones. I know the D-35 always came in a NT top, as did the D-25 most of the time. But both guitars seem to have identical wood toppings: mahogany back and sides, AA spruce top, rosewood fingerboard, etc.

The only D-25 I played that I can remember is one that was played by some grungy, dirty hippie player that never cleaned the guitar, and after I played it a few minutes, my hands stunk really bad!

Not a good testimony to a fine guitar, but I would like to hear from those who know, in particular those of you who own a D-35. If I could compare these guitars to an Oreo cookie, then the D-25 and the D-40 are the outside cookie, and the D-35 is the cream inside.

Well, you get the idea . . .

I would just like to know what is the difference over the years - Westerly, that is.

 

[killdeer43]

Metal,
I have a D-25 and two D-35s (all Westerly), and my comparisons have to be tempered by the fact that even if they're all set up the same, each one seems to have its own "voice." A discerning ear might pick up subtle differences in tone and such, but they all sound sweet to me.
Every guitar I've ever owned carries with it a unique story of how I obtained it, where it's been, who I might have been with at the time, etc., and all that adds something to the mix when I play.
I could go on, but with that said, I must admit that the D-25 with its arched back really seems to 'out boom' the 35s.
I'd like to find a D-40 to complete that "Oreo" cookie test.

Cheers,
Joe

 

[dreadnut]

The only D-25 I played that I can remember is one that was played by some grungy, dirty hippie player that never cleaned the guitar, and after I played it a few minutes, my hands stunk really bad!

:lol: :lol: :lol: sounds like something right out of a Fabulous Furry Freak Bros. comic!

Actually, I bought my D-25M brand new in '76 and my roommate went to the same store and bought a D-35 shortly thereafter. His is a 'burst, real pretty. Both very nice sounding mahogany guitars. Mine is a wine colored top, I believe that was the standard top on the D-25M. Close to that was the D-25C for Cherry. They were all arched laminated mahogany back at that time with spruce tops, and the letter after the 25 designated the color of the top finish. I think they made more with M and C tops than any other during that time frame.

Of course, the D-35 had a flat solid mahogany back with internal bracing where the D-25 had no back bracing due to its formed back. The D-35 also had enclosed tuning machines where the D-25 had open gears.

32 years later, we both still have our Guilds He thinks mine sounds better and so do I, but his is awfully nice. It has a beautiful tone and the two playing together really compliment each other well. The -25 has a lower tone and generally projects a little better than the -35. Of course, these are entirely my own observations, for what it's worth.

 

[JerryR]

The only D-25 I played that I can remember is one that was played by some grungy, dirty hippie player that never cleaned the guitar, and after I played it a few minutes, my hands stunk really bad!

Sure it aint my D35 you're remembering :?:

I've played a friends D25 as well, like my D35 a Westerly but a few years older, and so much depends on what strings and string volume you use - and how old they are at the time. I preferred my D35, but then I would wouldn't I :wink:

 

[Metalman]

Okay, all the personal experiences are good, BUT . .

so far nobody's told me what is the difference between the two guitars.

Putting aside the little things that make a difference even in identical models, like string gauges, colors of tops, arched back vs. staight back, etc.

What is the real difference between the two models? Hmmmm. . . .?

Don't make me wanna go and wake up Hans again . . .

 

[Westerly Wood]

Okay, all the personal experiences are good, BUT . .

so far nobody's told me what is the difference between the two guitars.

Putting aside the little things that make a difference even in identical models, like string gauges, colors of tops, arched back vs. staight back, etc.

What is the real difference between the two models? Hmmmm. . . .?

Don't make me wanna go and wake up Hans again . . .

Hey:

D25 is laminate hog back and sides, D35 is all solid contruction. Biggest difference to me, other than the arched back vs flat back.

 

[c70man]

Owned and played both arched back and flat back D25's. Loved them both, but prefered the arch back,
a little more punch to my ears. The flat back was an all solid mahogany though.

As much as D35 goes, can't say, never played one. But the lam I had was equal to the task of the solid if not nicer.....go figure.

 

[GardMan]

I've got a '72 D-35 that I bought new in '73, and a '74 arched backed D-25M that I picked up on eBay a couple years ago.

In the early days, the flat-backed D-25 was an all solid, all mahogany guitar while the D-35 was an all solid, spruce-topped model. Different top woods gave them different tone (I AB'd an all 'hog D-25 and D-35 35 years ago, and picked the D-35... still have it). Later, the D-25 gained its arched, laminated back... first with a 'hog top, then spruce... while the D-35 stayed more or less the same (definitely some changes in bracing took place... later D-35s are much heavier than my '72). The D-35 is more like a bling-less D-40... same all solid wood construction, flat braced mahogany back and spruce top. Perhaps a bit lower grade spruce. Plain silk-screened headstock logo.

The two guitars I have sound VERY different. D-25 definitely wins for volume and projection, and has a deep, "dark" tone. It really growls. My D-35 is more even treble to bass... quieter...but still has that 'hog brightness with a nice punchy bass.

 

[dreadnut]

Metalman:

The only real differences to my knowledge were

* D-25: Laminated arched back and open gear tuners
* D-35: Solid back and enclosed tuners

Pre about '74, the D-25 had the same flat back as the D-35 but it had a mahogany top.

The D-35 was Guild's equivalent to the Martin D-18 - straightforward hog dread with spruce top, nothing fancy. You didn't get a MOP inlay until the D-40.

 

[plaidseason]

I think the arched vs. flat back is a pretty significant differance as far as defining models goes. I've owned both a DCE1 and DV4 (which I still have) and while they share many tonal similarities, there is a notable difference which I'd sumarize by saying that the arched back provides a little more projection, and a little more "growl." The flat back on the other hand might sound a bit sweeter and a bit more nuanced.

Metalman:

The only real differences to my knowledge were

* D-25: Laminated arched back and open gear tuners
* D-35: Solid back and enclosed tuners

Pre about '74, the D-25 had the same flat back as the D-35 but it had a mahogany top.

The D-35 was Guild's equivalent to the Martin D-18 - straightforward hog dread with spruce top, nothing fancy. You didn't get a MOP inlay until the D-40.

 

[Metalman]

So, Gents,

It seems to boil down to in the beginning (1968), both guitars had similar wood, but the D-35 had a NT spruce top, while the D-25 had a mahogany top.
It is the D-25 that went through all the changes over the years, and when it got around to looking too much like a D-35, Guild gave it an arched back.

So the D-35 stayed pretty much the same, and it was the D-25 that started out with a hog top, then when it got the NT spruce top - and dark brown and cherry finish, it was made with an arched back.

Okay, that is it in a nutshell. Much has been said about the benefits of the arched back.

I had a discussion with my son the other day about early guitars in the '30s and '40s, how they had an arched top and back and they had to compete with a drum kit, a piano, a couple of horns, etc. And there was no amplification back in those days; everything had to project out on its own. The guitars back then were loud, the guitarist used heavy strings, and in most cases, a stiff pick.

So that is why the arched back of the D-25s have a little more volume, less "sweet" sound, and is favored by many on this here LTG forum.

I had a '79 F-30 with the arched back, and it did have a bit more highs, projective mids, and a sound that actually took some time to get used to.

Wish I still had it . . .

 

[Westerly Wood]

So, Gents,

It seems to boil down to in the beginning (1968), both guitars had similar wood, but the D-35 had a NT spruce top, while the D-25 had a mahogany top.
It is the D-25 that went through all the changes over the years, and when it got around to looking too much like a D-35, Guild gave it an arched back.

So the D-35 stayed pretty much the same, and it was the D-25 that started out with a hog top, then when it got the NT spruce top - and dark brown and cherry finish, it was made with an arched back.

Okay, that is it in a nutshell. Much has been said about the benefits of the arched back.

I had a discussion with my son the other day about early guitars in the '30s and '40s, how they had an arched top and back and they had to compete with a drum kit, a piano, a couple of horns, etc. And there was no amplification back in those days; everything had to project out on its own. The guitars back then were loud, the guitarist used heavy strings, and in most cases, a stiff pick.

So that is why the arched back of the D-25s have a little more volume, less "sweet" sound, and is favored by many on this here LTG forum.

I had a '79 F-30 with the arched back, and it did have a bit more highs, projective mids, and a sound that actually took some time to get used to.

Wish I still had it . . .

this is an excellent explanation and i thank you metalman for clearing it up. i played a D25 once in th last year and it was a bit brash, harsh, not sweet at all. but i'd bet i would get used to it....still, my budget is most likely a D25, and i know i could learn to get used to that sound. but a D35 would be better....my D40 i let go was very sweet, and i am an idiot for letting that one out of my hands...alas! :mrgreen:

 

[killdeer43]

Oh, the things I've let slip through my hands! It might be disheartening to make a list, but I feel your pain.

Keep your head up,
Joe

 

[Westerly Wood]

Oh, the things I've let slip through my hands! It might be disheartening to make a list, but I feel your pain.

Keep your head up,
Joe

and yet one more acquisition of a westerly guild would make up for all i lost, and i know that. my guitar happiness is just one old westerly guild away.... :mrgreen:

 

[Metalman]

Oh, the things I've let slip through my hands! It might be disheartening to make a list, but I feel your pain.

Keep your head up,
Joe

and yet one more acquisition of a westerly guild would make up for all i lost, and i know that. my guitar happiness is just one old westerly guild away.... :mrgreen:

Yes, a certain D-40C that has been showing up recently would set my heart right.
That's D-40 with a florentine cutaway. Sweet. Economy has to improve before I bid on one, though.