Does D4 = D25, or Vice Versa

[TonyT]

After all that, I will say that a $400 D4 in good condition is well worth the money.

 

[ladytexan]

After all that, I will say that a $400 D4 in good condition is well worth the money.

I agree, Tony. Even though the D4 & D25 were/are considered entry-level models, they sure have remained favorites for a reason. They're great guitars. Some LTGer has as his motto: Twice the guitar for half the price. Who is that? :wink: 8)

 

[fronobulax]

Some LTGer has as his motto: Twice the guitar for half the price. Who is that? :wink: 8)

Several folks have used that. However I don't think anyone is ready to say it is true of new, New Hartford Guids, yet :mrgreen:

 

[markus]

In fact the DV4 and DV6 are still listed on Guild's website, I didn't realize they were actually both still current.

After closing the Tacoma plant DV4 and DV6 are made in Mexico now. I haven't read much about those Mexican Guilds here on the forum.
But I love my Tacoma DV4: plays better than my Westerly guitars, sounds nice and has lots of punch.
It's fun to introduce the guitar as "… the cheapest American made Guild, costs 30% of the ordinary dreads …" and then to watch them while strumming the first chords … :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Unfortunately I've never played D25/35/40 …
Markus

 

[ladytexan]

Unfortunately I've never played D25/35/40 …
Markus

Markus, I bet that will be remedied when you come to visit twocorgis and meet the gang at LMG II. :wink:

Gosh, I just learned something new (again) ....I didn't know that Guild built guitars in Mexico. Wow...... :shock:

 

[adorshki]

It's safe to say that, at some period of time, a guitar that started-out as a D25 might have become a D4?

I think it's a semantic issue, but I guess that's possible since all the bodies started out the same, and I'd guess most of 'em were slated to become D25's, but some of 'em were "earmarked" for D4 production. Since necks were constructed separately and added to the bodies later, and finishing was the final step, the real construction differentiation between the two models occurred at that stage of assembly, although I'm sure certain production quantities of each model were planned in advance. There might have been some selection going at that point, but given the volume of D25 production, I'd be surprised.
I think probably the most likely reason for selection would have been ones that got or had cosmetic flaws. Member Hideglue, who worked in Westerly, has pointed out that's how black guitars "happened". In his exact words, "Black guitars weren't made, they happened", get it? :lol:
And that would actually make it more likely to be a D25, which offered a black finish.
It also occurred to me that it's possible that each model was made in its own batch run, and therefore each one started out being intended to be what it was finished as, but Hans has described some Westerly methods as allowing for things like bodies to be produced in batches and then wait around for final assembly like adding tops and necks. So I think that scenario is more likely, that they all started the same and became D4's or D25's as "needed".

 

[Ross]

Biggest differences are the ..... absence of headstock overlay on D4, which had silkscreen logo as opposed to MOP on D25.

I didn't know that D25s had MOP on the headstock - mine is 'screened (1983).

 

[adorshki]

Biggest differences are the ..... absence of headstock overlay on D4, which had silkscreen logo as opposed to MOP on D25.

I didn't know that D25s had MOP on the headstock - mine is 'screened (1983).

Right, but again, that's a slightly different animal than the post-Gruhn refinements. MOP and narrow headstock were introduced about '87. And the heel-block redesign with accompanying change of bracing by the neck somewhere in there too. There's a thread on it in the archives, focused on the bracing differences. That heelblock change might have actually preceded Gruhn's changes now that I think about it.

 

[dapmdave]

I think, and I may be wrong, that the D25's that we all love so much are mostly from the 70's and 80's. I don't remember many, if any, post about D4'S from that era. I know my earlier statement is based on comparing a 70's D25 to a late 90's D4. Still Westerly, but clearly not apples to apples.

Looking at the s/n listings... it looks like the D4 came into production in 1991, hence none from 70s & 80s.

Dave

 

[Ross]

MOP and narrow headstock were introduced about '87. And the heel-block redesign with accompanying change of bracing by the neck somewhere in there too. There's a thread on it in the archives, focused on the bracing differences. That heelblock change might have actually preceded Gruhn's changes now that I think about it.

Aha! [light-bulb moment]

 

[adorshki]

I think, and I may be wrong, that the D25's that we all love so much are mostly from the 70's and 80's. I don't remember many, if any, post about D4'S from that era. I know my earlier statement is based on comparing a 70's D25 to a late 90's D4. Still Westerly, but clearly not apples to apples.

Looking at the s/n listings... it looks like the D4 came into production in 1991, hence none rom 70s & 80s.
Dave

Yep, and as I mentioned, to me the most concrete answer to the original question is also found there, when the s/n's became the same group of numbers for both models in '94. :wink:

 

[TonyT]

I don't look at trivial stuff like serial numbers. I have people for that. I'm only interested in spouting my opinion. I'm often wrong but never in doubt.

 

[adorshki]

I don't look at trivial stuff like serial numbers. I have people for that. I'm only interested in spouting my opinion. I'm often wrong but never in doubt.

What do you think this is, Facebook?
:lol:
I'll have my people get in touch with your people.

 

[Scratch]

I don't look at trivial stuff like serial numbers. I have people for that. I'm only interested in spouting my opinion. I'm often wrong but never in doubt.

Ain't but one Tony... I understand what he says... Refreshing... :wink:

 

[killdeer43]

I don't look at trivial stuff like serial numbers. I have people for that. I'm only interested in spouting my opinion. I'm often wrong but never in doubt.

Ain't but one Tony... I understand what he says... Refreshing... :wink:

He is, if nothing else, concise! And yes, refreshing, too! :wink:

Joe

 

[dapmdave]

I don't look at trivial stuff like serial numbers. I have people for that. I'm only interested in spouting my opinion. I'm often wrong but never in doubt.

What do you think this is, Facebook?
:lol:
I'll have my people get in touch with your people.

+1