How inferior was the Cordoba model?

[cyberprimate]

"A low-priced acoustic Guild, designed for the advanced student or for the professional who requires an extra instrument for practice or doubling. Has the "feel" of the more expensive Guild models because it's perfectly proportioned to give the player more enjoyment with less effort."

This extract from a 1960's Guild brochure makes clear it's an inferior model in comparison to other Guild acoustic archtops. But how inferior was it ?

 

[walrus]

There are many on this forum who know more than I about archtops. I have owned a 1999 Starfire IV, a 1967 T100D, and I currently own a 1965 X-50 Cordoba. The only place of "inferiority" (IMHO) is the laminate body.

The X-50 had the same pup as the T100D (mickey mouse), the fretboard is the same, the neck shape felt the same, etc.

It depends what you looking for - if you want a very lightweight guitar, the X-50 is superior, if you want an archtop that can be played acoustically and sound pretty good, the X-50 is again superior.

I have played other brand's archtops and the X-50 holds it's own with them - Guild's "low end" is quite a nice guitar.

And, of course, it depends on what sound you want - the X-50 plugged in sounds more "acoustic" than the other two. Great for swinging jazz, CSN&Y-type jamming, etc.

But again, I'm only comparing three Guild archtops I have owned, which is a pretty small sample size. I'm not sure I would say Guild thought the X-50 was "inferior" based on their marketing strategy. They were just letting people know they had a reasonably priced "beginner's" guitar in their product offerings.

walrus

 

[Default]

Not inferior, just cheaper. Less binding, no cutaway, one pickup, dot inlays. It was just the cheapest way out of the Guild dealership.

 

[john_kidder]

I just plain LOVE my X50. I just put it down, in fact. It's so clean and simple - sort of pure guitar. No fancy nothing - one pickup (a Franz in mine), tone and volume - no binding, fret inlays, fancy headstock. Love it.

Sure, it was the "economy" model (not like the M20, which was actually called "The Economy M20") - the value in the guitar is that it's just the way guitars should be. A simple straightforward instrument that works. Hell of a deal, seems to me.

Come to think of it, I just plain LOVE my M20 as well.

 

[hansmoust]

"A low-priced acoustic Guild, designed for the advanced student or for the professional who requires an extra instrument for practice or doubling. Has the "feel" of the more expensive Guild models because it's perfectly proportioned to give the player more enjoyment with less effort."

This extract from a 1960's Guild brochure makes clear it's an inferior model in comparison to other Guild acoustic archtops. But how inferior was it ?

Hello folks,

You're mixing up the acoustic A-series and the electric X-series.
The model that cyberprimate was referring to ( or at least the catalog caption he was referring to) was the Cordoba A-50. It was the only acoustic archtop in the Guild line that had a laminated top, a construction that was common on all electric archtops. Basically, the A-50 was the same instrument as the X-50 without the pickup and the controls and the difference in price was only $ 20.00. That was the only way that Guild could offer an acoustic archtop in the student price range. Obviously it also meant a acoustically less responsive instrument than the more expensive ones that had a solid spruce top.

Sincerely,

Hans Moust
http://www.guitarsgalore.nl

 

[legato72]

if yer goin for a pup-less archtop, yer gonna want a solid top, eh. unless of course your an advanced student