Darryl Hattenhauer
Venerated Member
Are the Westerlys made after the Fender acquisition considered as good as the ones made previously? West, Danerectal, and I say yes, but what about others?
Fender Westerlys
- Thread starter Darryl Hattenhauer
- Start date
fronobulax
Bassist, GAD and the Hot Mess Mods
- Joined
- May 3, 2007
- Messages
- 24,773
- Reaction score
- 8,903
- Location
- Central Virginia, USA
- Guild Total
- 5
I have a pretty solid recollection that we have discussed this before, but of course I can't find where by searching either. My recollection is that no one was willing to stand up and say quality went downhill at Westerly after Fender and some people were even willing to say that the trend of improvement, that began before Fender, continued afterwards.
I note that seller of your newly acquired Green Goblin alluded to the Fender take over in the same way that people used to describe Fender gear as "pre-CBS": the widely held belief that things were better before the take over.
I note that seller of your newly acquired Green Goblin alluded to the Fender take over in the same way that people used to describe Fender gear as "pre-CBS": the widely held belief that things were better before the take over.
Given the upheaval that has come since the Westerly days (Corona, Tacoma, CT...) I doubt anyone would have negative words for FMIC Westerlys. Just my $0.02. I came on board here only recently though (relatively) so I don't know what people were thinking.
Scratch
Enlightened Member
My 01 F47 is post Fender acquisition. Spec on with the others...
Darryl Hattenhauer
Venerated Member
Because I always thought the increase in Guild problems came after Westerly and not after the Fender acquisition, I always thought that "pre-Fender" meant pre-Corona. But does "pre-Fender" mean pre-1996?
krysh
Guildarist in the mod squad
I think "pre-fender" is until second half of 1995, Hans???
hansmoust
Enlightened Member
krysh said:
That's about right! FMIC bought Guild in November 1995, so for me 'pre-Fender Guild' means everything made before that date. However that doesn't mean there were big changes right after the company changed hands.
Sincerely,
Hans Moust
www.guitarsgalore.nl
P.S. Why is this posted in 'Tech Shop'?
I've never considered Fender's acquisition to have affected Westerly Guilds, because it was still the same crew building them. The pre-Corona era is still the golden age IMHO. Not enough luthiers moved west to assist and mentor the solidbody lekkie makers.
Darryl Hattenhauer
Venerated Member
Hans,
I thought maybe it should go in tech to focus on the technical quality of 90s Guilds.
Do you think Westerlys remained good right up to the time when they closed the factory?
hf
I thought maybe it should go in tech to focus on the technical quality of 90s Guilds.
Do you think Westerlys remained good right up to the time when they closed the factory?
hf
hideglue
Senior Member
Hideglue, thanks for that pointer. A very well-behaved and insightful thread.
cjd-player
Senior Member
Hatted eff:
Your original post question makes me wonder what makes one guitar "better" than another?
(And I'm not trying to be a wise ankle.)
I can pick up two or sometimes more "identical" guitars in a music store and one sounds better to me. That would be the one I would buy, saying it was better than the others.
You might pick and purchase a different one from the same group as sounding better to you.
So I think that particular notion of better (sound quality) is difficult to quantify.
Do we mean simply build quality when we say "better". No sharp fret ends, no finish flaws, clean glue joints at the internal braces, no gaps in the binding. Those things can be quantified and are related to the quality standards and the quality control measures in place by a particular manufacturer or owner.
Then we have the quality of the woods, which can be interpreted as mainly visual - straight quarter-sawn grain - no knots - no grain runout in the top, or as material properties such as density, stiffness, hardness, etc. I'm sure folks could argue all day about how the visual aspects of the woods do or do not effect the tonal quality, and the same for the wood material properties.
If a guitar really astounded me with great tone, but the frets ends were sharp, would I say it was not a great guitar, or would I say it was a great guitar that needed some work?
I just wonder if it ever makes sense to generalize and say that such and such guitars from a certain time frame or certain corporate owner were better, without defining what better means. Maybe the design was changed to use less wood, a different bracing pattern, a thinner finish, or otherewise take costs out of manufacturing. If we don't know the specifics of construction, I just think it is difficult to generalize about better guitars from certain eras.
I have a Tacoma D-55 from 2007. Someone else has a Westerly D-55. Mine looks better because it is new. His sounds better but has finish checks and a chunk missing from the headstock. Which is the better guitar? If they both sound the same, which is the better guitar?
I think we lump all or many of these things together when we speak of a "better" guitar, and that can make things very subjective, and discussions about better building eras cloudy.
Your original post question makes me wonder what makes one guitar "better" than another?
(And I'm not trying to be a wise ankle.)
I can pick up two or sometimes more "identical" guitars in a music store and one sounds better to me. That would be the one I would buy, saying it was better than the others.
You might pick and purchase a different one from the same group as sounding better to you.
So I think that particular notion of better (sound quality) is difficult to quantify.
Do we mean simply build quality when we say "better". No sharp fret ends, no finish flaws, clean glue joints at the internal braces, no gaps in the binding. Those things can be quantified and are related to the quality standards and the quality control measures in place by a particular manufacturer or owner.
Then we have the quality of the woods, which can be interpreted as mainly visual - straight quarter-sawn grain - no knots - no grain runout in the top, or as material properties such as density, stiffness, hardness, etc. I'm sure folks could argue all day about how the visual aspects of the woods do or do not effect the tonal quality, and the same for the wood material properties.
If a guitar really astounded me with great tone, but the frets ends were sharp, would I say it was not a great guitar, or would I say it was a great guitar that needed some work?
I just wonder if it ever makes sense to generalize and say that such and such guitars from a certain time frame or certain corporate owner were better, without defining what better means. Maybe the design was changed to use less wood, a different bracing pattern, a thinner finish, or otherewise take costs out of manufacturing. If we don't know the specifics of construction, I just think it is difficult to generalize about better guitars from certain eras.
I have a Tacoma D-55 from 2007. Someone else has a Westerly D-55. Mine looks better because it is new. His sounds better but has finish checks and a chunk missing from the headstock. Which is the better guitar? If they both sound the same, which is the better guitar?
I think we lump all or many of these things together when we speak of a "better" guitar, and that can make things very subjective, and discussions about better building eras cloudy.
hansmoust
Enlightened Member
Darryl Hattenhauer said:
Hello Darryl,
Well, just like hideglue I'm a repairman which definitely has an influence on how I look at Guilds, or any other guitar brand for that matter! I believe there were quite a few things at Guild that could be improved but for all kinds of reasons that didn't happen. I love Guilds for what they are, which includes the 'quirky'ness. The fact they were bought by Fender didn't really change the 'soul' of the product they were making in Westerly but unfortunately it couldn't last!
Sincerely,
Hans Moust
http://www.guitarsgalore.nl
Darryl Hattenhauer
Venerated Member
Hans,
Yes, all of the exceptions make Guild more interesting.
cjd
The structural things you mention comprise most of what I mean by a good guitar. Those items would probably find a consensus amongst experts.
But sound, as you say, is very subjective. I'm only joking when I say that Gibson acoustics don't sound good. I can only say that I don't like the way they sound, but hearing varies just like vision.
hf
Yes, all of the exceptions make Guild more interesting.
cjd
The structural things you mention comprise most of what I mean by a good guitar. Those items would probably find a consensus amongst experts.
But sound, as you say, is very subjective. I'm only joking when I say that Gibson acoustics don't sound good. I can only say that I don't like the way they sound, but hearing varies just like vision.
hf
krysh
Guildarist in the mod squad
hansmoust said:
hans, could you please go more into details?
this seems to become interesting, i.e. "what makes a guild a guild"?
what in your opinion had to be improved in the construction of guild guitars?