F 40

[Br1ck]

My first decent guitar was an F 40 from the late 80s. Better than what I had for sure, but a bright and brittle guitar nonetheless. Last week at an open mic, someone brought one. It didn't bring back good memories. How a guitar that big could have so little low end is perplexing. It would make a decent rhythm instrument in a country band, that's about all. Anyway, my thirty year old memories are correct, and those memories include D 55s, 12 strings and many a fine D 25, D 35, and D 40. All is of course subjective, and there must be something to them to get built at all, just nothing that appeals to me. Since I'm opining on lesser liked Guilds, I've played about three F 30s, a model many like. Not me. They were good, not great sounding. Sample size with both the F 30 and the F 40 is small. Ironically, the F 30 shape makes the dandy F 112, my favorite Guild 12 string.

 

[Bill Ashton]

At maybe the last LMG, I had the good fortune to play a GSR F40, that had been returned! I could not put the guitar down, though
I had to as others wanted a try. Kim did not know what was wrong with it, think he bought it. Does @Default have it now maybe? NO NOT contact him right now, he is working on a very sensitive issue.

The GSR F40 was shown to us, perhaps before being available to dealers, at the first LMG. Carpathian Spruce top, Cocobolo back and sides I think, made sounds from heaven...

https://www.letstalkguild.com/ltg/index.php?threads/ngd-gsr-f40-cocobolo.226391/ Scroll down, you'll see one

 

[chazmo]

At maybe the last LMG, I had the good fortune to play a GSR F40, that had been returned! I could not put the guitar down, though
I had to as others wanted a try. Kim did not know what was wrong with it, think he bought it. Does @Default have it now maybe? NO NOT contact him right now, he is working on a very sensitive issue.

The GSR F40 was shown to us, perhaps before being available to dealers, at the first LMG. Carpathian Spruce top, Cocobolo back and sides I think, made sounds from heaven...

https://www.letstalkguild.com/ltg/index.php?threads/ngd-gsr-f40-cocobolo.226391/ Scroll down, you'll see one

The one I owned (“Diana”) is super nice. Other than a perfectly repaired and barely noticeable crack in the soundboard it is perfect. Diana now is under coop's stewardship along with two other cocobolo GSR masterpieces. Lucky guy!

I think default has a GSR D-50 if I remember correctly. I’m pretty fuzzy on that.

 

[Bernie]

My first decent guitar was an F 40 from the late 80s. Better than what I had for sure, but a bright and brittle guitar nonetheless. Last week at an open mic, someone brought one. It didn't bring back good memories. How a guitar that big could have so little low end is perplexing. It would make a decent rhythm instrument in a country band, that's about all. (...)

Did they ever make any of these with maple back and sides (that's what the way you describe the tone, makes me think of) ? You surprise me and others have described F-40s as great instruments : one guitar is not the guitar, but 2 make it more difficult to believe that maybe you've stumbled on some kind of dud(s)...What do others that played one think ?

 

[adorshki]

Did they ever make any of these with maple back and sides (that's what the way you describe the tone, makes me think of) ? You surprise me and others have described F-40s as great instruments : one guitar is not the guitar, but 2 make it more difficult to believe that maybe you've stumbled on some kind of dud(s)...What do others that played one think ?

The original 1953 and 1974 reissue F40's were 16" maple archback bodies. Maple tends to reflect all freqs at equal volume. Great for recording, but the human ear perceives treble freqs as being louder than bass freqs at equal volume, thus the perception of "no low end" or "too jangly".

Nope, it's your ears, and why sub-woofers are so popular.

The current F40 has absolutely nothing to do with the REAL F40.

 

[Br1ck]

Yes, both mine and the one I just heard were maple back and sides. I was just guessing on the year. It was way before I paid attention. Maple J 200s I've played sounded great.

 

[davenumber2]

Yes, both mine and the one I just heard were maple back and sides. I was just guessing on the year. It was way before I paid attention. Maple J 200s I've played sounded great.

Try a maple F50. It’ll have the big booming bass.

 

[Cougar]

....All is of course subjective....

Apparently so!

 

[bobouz]

My first decent guitar was an F 40 from the late 80s. Better than what I had for sure, but a bright and brittle guitar nonetheless. Last week at an open mic, someone brought one. It didn't bring back good memories. How a guitar that big could have so little low end is perplexing. It would make a decent rhythm instrument in a country band, that's about all.

Some folks say the exact same thing about Gibson’s J-185 (on which the original F-40 was patterned - per George Gruhn). I listen to the balanced richness of mine & think they’re nuts, but the reality is probably the same with both of these 16” maple models. Some are stellar & some are not. You simply haven’t played enough of them to run into one that exemplifies the best of the breed.

 

[Br1ck]

I simply have not played many of any model Guild. No dealers in my area. Any Guild has to be hanging in a shop, maybe one or two a year. Of my small guitar playing circle, there is my D 35 and one friend's F 112. Another bought that turquoise inlayed dread, but it came and went before I saw it.

 

[Rich Cohen]

The original 1953 and 1974 reissue F40's were 16" maple archback bodies. Maple tends to reflect all freqs at equal volume. Great for recording, but the human ear perceives treble freqs as being louder than bass freqs at equal volume, thus the perception of "no low end" or "too jangly".

Nope, it's your ears, and why sub-woofers are so popular.

The current F40 has absolutely nothing to do with the REAL F40.

I recently owned, now sold, a 1972 F-40 maple. Hans certified that mine was build in 1972, though his book says the F-40 was introduced in 1973.

 

[D30Man]

Some folks say the exact same thing about Gibson’s J-185 (on which the original F-40 was patterned - per George Gruhn). I listen to the balanced richness of mine & think they’re nuts, but the reality is probably the same with both of these 16” maple models. Some are stellar & some are not. You simply haven’t played enough of them to run into one that exemplifies the best of the breed.

BB I played a Gibson J-185 CE in GC the other day that sounded actually really good - and I'm not one to praise Gibson. I really enjoyed it. Great balance and projection. Super comfy.

Br1ck, I have to say I hear you. The F47M I sold had an excellent dry tone, but my ears never could pick up much low end. It was fun and comfy but couldn't get near matching my old D30 or my JF65 in warmth / depth / projection. Body size differences accounted for.

 

[adorshki]

I recently owned, now sold, a 1972 F-40 maple. Hans certified that mine was build in 1972, though his book says the F-40 was introduced in 1973.

The '73 would have been the "reissue", or 2nd release of the F40. It was originally the 2nd flattop in the line after the F50, '53-64, then replaced by F47 for about ten years. The dating anomalies are noted, but that line in Hans' book reads:
"The F40 was revived in 1973 as the Bluegrass F40".

 

[D30Man]

The '73 would have been the "reissue", or 2nd release of the F40. It was originally the 2nd flattop in the line after the F50, '53-64, then replaced by F47 for about ten years. The dating anomalies are noted, but that line in Hans' book reads:
"The F40 was revived in 1973 as the Bluegrass F40".

Your fierce passion for authenticity matched with your historical knowledge of the F-40 model is impressive, Al. I envision one day you will have a proper F-40 and it will be the most comfortable fit at a true 16" at the lower bout. Also, it shall sound like Andre the Giant playing a harp.

 

[adorshki]

Your fierce passion for authenticity matched with your historical knowledge of the F-40 model is impressive, Al. I envision one day you will have a proper F-40 and it will be the most comfortable fit at a true 16" at the lower bout. Also, it shall sound like Andre the Giant playing a harp.

Remember, my unicorn requires a 24-3/4 scale with a 1-11/16 nut. In rosewood.
Because my F65ce is a longscale with a 1-5/8 nut and I tolerate it for the sake of the marriage.

But Guild doesn't even offer the box anymore, so..........

(PS: I did have to look up the quote in Hans' book. Memory ain't what it used to be. )

 

[plaidseason]

I think so much of this is "personal." Like I've said before, lots of folks like long-scale mahogany dreadnoughts and long-scale rosewood dreadnoughts, it turns out I like the Guild archback D25/D4/DCE1 better than either.

I do really like short-scale slope shoulder mahogany dreads, and just picked up a Guild DS-240 and really dig it.

I've liked lots of Gibson J185s and a friend bought a J185 based on his love of my (F40 family tree) F44.

I think done right a maple mini jumbo covers lot of ground . . . maybe similar to how many folks perceive a long-scale mahogany dread.

 

[Boomstick]

I've never played an original F-40, but maple generally isn't the bassiest wood but other than almost every Gibson Dove I rarely have an issue with a lack of bass as well. I played a couple smaller bodied Boucher maple guitars and the bass on those surprised me.

My maple F-50 has very rich, deep lows. I would say not as much bass as my D-55, but it sounds deeper. However if I put brighter string like D'Addarios on it, the highs can be a bit overpowering until the strings start to age a little bit and then it's perfection, so I use less bright strings, DR Veritas are the best I've found.

My G-37 doesn't have a lot of lows or highs, but a ton of midrange. Using mid-heavy strings like Veritas can sound really good picked lightly, but the mids can be a little too much picked harder or played with my finders, so I use D'Addario XTs which are the brightest strings I can find and hold up well) and that balances out extremely nicely.

My dad has a GF-30, which isn't the most bass heavy guitar either, but it's adequate with Veritas strings.

So I'm not entirely sure, is it possibly a matter of perhaps using D'Addarios on a guitar with clear highs, or maybe a different expectation, or are the F-40 the bad seed in the Guild maple family? Because maple Guilds have been some of my favorite guitars.

 

[adorshki]

I've never played an original F-40, but maple generally isn't the bassiest wood but other than almost every Gibson Dove I rarely have an issue with a lack of bass as well. I played a couple smaller bodied Boucher maple guitars and the bass on those surprised me.

My maple F-50 has very rich, deep lows. I would say not as much bass as my D-55, but it sounds deeper. However if I put brighter string like D'Addarios on it, the highs can be a bit overpowering until the strings start to age a little bit and then it's perfection, so I use less bright strings, DR Veritas are the best I've found.

My G-37 doesn't have a lot of lows or highs, but a ton of midrange. Using mid-heavy strings like Veritas can sound really good picked lightly, but the mids can be a little too much picked harder or played with my finders, so I use D'Addario XTs which are the brightest strings I can find and hold up well) and that balances out extremely nicely.

My dad has a GF-30, which isn't the most bass heavy guitar either, but it's adequate with Veritas strings.

So I'm not entirely sure, is it possibly a matter of perhaps using D'Addarios on a guitar with clear highs, or maybe a different expectation, or are the F-40 the bad seed in the Guild maple family? Because maple Guilds have been some of my favorite guitars.

The 16" lower-bout F-body platform has yielded more combinations of body wood, back configuration, scale length, and nut width than any other Guild platform. Hardly a bad seed, more like supreme versatility.

Thus my ire for CMG having abandoned the platform.

 

[adorshki]

I think so much of this is "personal." Like I've said before, lots of folks like long-scale mahogany dreadnoughts and long-scale rosewood dreadnoughts, it turns out I like the Guild archback D25/D4/DCE1 better than either.

i'm confused. In Guild's system, all you faves ARE longscale (25-5/8 as opposed to 24-3/4) 'hog body dreads.
Most "normal size" folks would have a bit of trouble attempting to handle longer scales.

 

[Boomstick]

The 16" lower-bout F-body platform has yielded more combinations of body wood, back configuration, scale length, and nut width than nay other Guild platform. Hardly a bad seed, more like supreme versatility.

Thus my ire for CMG having abandoned the platform.

Well I am talking about the maple version because that's what they would have made in the late 80s, but like I said I never actually played or seen one in person but I've also never played a maple Guild that didn't speak to me