NH F-50 vs RI JF30 size difference pics

[The Retro Rocker]

Wow...a pretty substantial difference in the depth between my newer New Hartford F-50 and my Westerly 90's vintage JF30!
I had posted the difference in dimensions in a previous post, but not with pics. The pics drive the point even more dramatically!

I THINK the 90's vintage F-50s were the same size as the JF30?

Not complaining, they're both amazing guitars, but curiosity has me wondering why they downsized the F-50 by the time it got to NH. Or just when the size change came in (Corona? Tacoma?) Did they ever change the size on the JF 30?

[/URL][/IMG]

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[dapmdave]

I took a quick look at the specs on the Westerly Guild Guitars website. There they show the F-50 a bit less deep than the JF-30. (4.8 inches. for the F-50 vs. 5 for the JF-30.)

 

[Christopher Cozad]

That is interesting. I would love to hear the reasoning behind the dimensional differences.

Thinking about those differences, here are some general points regarding contrasting guitar dimensions.

All other things being equal (which they rarely are):

Flatter top = louder guitar (also potentially more prone to "bellying")

Larger soundboard = potential for increased bass frequencies (no guarantee, depends on build)

Deeper box = more resonant (or more boomy - can be a delicate balance)

 

[chazmo]

I don't remember when it happened exactly, but I *think* it was during the Tacoma era when Guild was trying to build both lighter and thinner dimensions to be more similar to the very early Westerly or Hoboken builds. It certainly carried over into New Hartford, where they definitely took that "lighter build" mandate to heart. New Hartford builds are significant lighter than late-Westerly builds.

So, I think my Tacoma-era F-512 is significantly thinner than my '90s (Westerly) JF-30-12. When I first joined the board I published all the dimensions of my 2006 F-512. I'll have to pull the two axes out later and do measurements, so please take this with a lot of grains of salt.

 

[adorshki]

I took a quick look at the specs on the Westerly Guild Guitars website. There they show the F-50 a bit less deep than the JF-30. (4.8 inches. for the F-50 vs. 5 for the JF-30.)

At first I suspected the well-known Westerly "depth variation between guitars produced in the same run" which Hans has explained before, and that the F50 spec was measured from a sample.
Things get interesting if you compare the spec sheets for the JF30 and the F50 and their 12-string counterparts.
The JF30's catalog extract implies it's supposed to be the same maple body as the F50 and shows 5" deep on its undated spec sheet.
Now go to the F412's (the original "F50 12-string") and its catalog extract mentions "these new versions feature the same body dimensions as the originals..... 4.8 deep" .
And yet the spec sheet cited from the 1975 catalog shows a 5" depth for that guitar.

I THINK the 90's vintage F-50s were the same size as the JF30?

That's how I always understood it and the specs mentioned above seem to verify it.

Did they ever change the size on the JF 30?

Never heard of it, and the model made it through the first couple of years of Corona's builds before being replaced with the GAD version.
I think Chaz is going to turn out to be correct, that if any formal spec changes occurred, Tacoma would be the most likely suspect because they did a lot of "new design implementation" there:
Introduced Adi tops/bracing, introduced bone nuts and compensated saddles, introduced single trusses on 12's and dual action truss rods, and of course the whole "Contemporary series" with the radical bolt-on neck/spider top brace" and unique logos.

 

[bobouz]

Just checked, and my '94 JF-30 measures 5-3/16" deep at the endpin.

Deeper than my jumbo Gibson, not even counting the arched back!

 

[davismanLV]

Wow, RR!! Thanks for the photos. I had no idea! That's a fairly significant difference in depth. :encouragement:

 

[adorshki]

Just checked, and my '94 JF-30 measures 5-3/16" deep at the endpin.
Deeper than my jumbo Gibson, not even counting the arched back!

For those who may be unaware of the cause of the depth variation at Westerly:
Hans has explained that the body bucks for the sides were not all exactly the same depth and by the time they sanded and prepped them for gluing tops and bottoms the accumulated difference between 2 pieces,each at the outside edges of tolerances, theoretically could be as much as 1/2".
I might be off on the spec but it's the explanation that's important..
Sounds like your JF30 came from a "deep" buck, it's almost 1/4" over.
Put it next one from a shallow buck at 1/4" under and there's your almost 1/2" of variation.
But I believe this only applies to Westerlys, I don't think those bucks ever made it to Corona.

 

[hansmoust]

For those who may be unaware of the cause of the depth variation at Westerly:
Hans has explained that the body bucks for the sides were not all exactly the same depth and by the time they sanded and prepped them for gluing tops and bottoms the accumulated difference between 2 pieces,each at the outside edges of tolerances, theoretically could be as much as 1/2".
I might be off on the spec but it's the explanation that's important..
Sounds like your JF30 came from a "deep" buck, it's almost 1/4" over.
Put it next one from a shallow buck at 1/4" under and there's your almost 1/2" of variation.
But I believe this only applies to Westerlys, I don't think those bucks ever made it to Corona.

Maybe you should try to find that original posting from me, but I never talked about 'body bucks' of different depth. I usually call them 'collars' in which the sides were clamped during the 'back fitting' procedure. During the sanding procedure, the worker could sand more (or less) material from the sides until the back would fit properly, which caused the difference in the final depth between bodies of the same model.

Sincerely,

Hans Moust
www.guitarsgalore.nl

 

[adorshki]

Maybe you should try to find that original posting from me, but I never talked about 'body bucks' of different depth. I usually call them 'collars' in which the sides were clamped during the 'back fitting' procedure. During the sanding procedure, the worker could sand more (or less) material from the sides until the back would fit properly, which caused the difference in the final depth between bodies of the same model.
www.guitarsgalore.nl

I stand humbly corrected and thank you. Couldn't remember that term, "collars", just that it
was result of that process.
Added in EDIT:
I did remember your explanation about Westerly when refreshed, but it caused me to try to find where I'd got the idea about "body bucks" and I found the old post that got me started on that concept, it wasn't you, it was a member recounting something he was told in New Hartford, about Tacoma:
"In addition, during our tour of New Hartford, our guide, Frank, mentioned that the guitars from Tacoma were not dimensionally consistent because of variations in the tooling and a lot of hand sanding. For example, he pointed out that the body molds were not all the same height even for the same guitar model. So the body of one Tacoma D-50 could actually be slightly deeper than the body of another Tacoma D-50. Also, the back and sides were not necessarily sanded to the same thickness from guitar to guitar in the same model."
From post #8 in this thread:
http://www.letstalkguild.com/ltg/showthread.php?160963-Why-Is-the-Modern-D50-So-Heavy/page6
Anyway, posted mainly for additional insight it gives about Tacoma production methods, assuming it's accurate.
Edit #2: AhA!, I just re-read the whole thing, you're in there at post #46 confirming height of body molds as being one factor, but your link in that post to the "original" explanation is broken now.

 

[Christopher Cozad]

Hmm...I don't know any luthiers who sand their sides to arbitrary heights in order to fit anything. I certainly don't, nor did I ever. That equates to altering a significant dimension of the body of the guitar - the depth of the sound chamber - a factor that contributes to the overall tonal characteristic of the instrument. Increasing or decreasing the body depth of an acoustic guitar is not a trivial matter.

I have to chuckle at the onset of my own sudden insight. Subjectively, this factoid of "body depth inconsistency" could be an explanation for the variances in Guild user experiences I have witnesses through the decades. Conversing with individuals remotely, not seeing or holding their guitars, I am sure I never paid attention to the body depth when discussing someone's negative auditory reception of a Guild acoustic model (and there were plenty of those conversations over the years). I am recalling descriptors such as nasal, congested or throaty on the one side, along with boomy, echo-ey or no articulation on the other. Naturally I determined these notions to be ludicrous at the time. I mean, how could their guitar not sound exquisite like mine, when it's the same model. I simply never gave a thought to measuring body depth. We measured near everything else, including bracing. Wow! That's humbling.

Excuse me as I extract a black feather from my teeth. I may have to make a few phone calls. ;~}

 

[JohnW63]

Does that mean the Tacoma built ones could have MORE variance than other factory versions, or was this sort of a standard thing to have happen in any or all Guild builds ? Does that mean there will be Deep Body vs Shallow Body threads cropping up ?

 

[adorshki]

Does that mean the Tacoma built ones could have MORE variance than other factory versions, or was this sort of a standard thing to have happen in any or all Guild builds ?

The latter, up until New Hartford.
My memory was faulty in that I thought it ended in Westerly.
What I don't know is whether Tacoma's body molds were still the Westerly molds having made it through Corona, like the archback press.

Does that mean there will be Deep Body vs Shallow Body threads cropping up ?

Let us hope the debate doesn't become as acrimonious as the string or bridge pin threads.
:biggrin-new:

 

[bobouz]

I have to chuckle at the onset of my own sudden insight. Subjectively, this factoid of "body depth inconsistency" could be an explanation for the variances in Guild user experiences I have witnesses through the decades. Conversing with individuals remotely, not seeing or holding their guitars, I am sure I never paid attention to the body depth when discussing someone's negative auditory reception of a Guild acoustic model (and there were plenty of those conversations over the years). I am recalling descriptors such as nasal, congested or throaty on the one side, along with boomy, echo-ey or no articulation on the other. Naturally I determined these notions to be ludicrous at the time. I mean, how could their guitar not sound exquisite like mine, when it's the same model. I simply never gave a thought to measuring body depth. We measured near everything else, including bracing. Wow! That's humbling.

My initial experience with Guilds in the '70s was very positive, and I ended up purchasing four brand new Westerlys during those years. Then it seemed like every one I picked up in the late '80s & beyond was a tubby dud. This just about had me convinced that Guild had lost it's way.

Fortunately I gave Guild another try, and ended up finding some great Westerly examples from the '90s as well as the '70s. So essentially, my guess is that the people who complained to you about a lack of tone were not far off the mark, as there's plenty of variation to be found under that peaked logo.

 

[idealassets]

Its a good point that the sound characteristic is key. But of course the answer to "why did you measure your guitar(s)?" is no doubt a manifold one. Its good to know that factory tolerances come into play or we could come up with all kinds of conclusions. Another factor to tonal quality is the action of the guitar.

I am glad that someone at Guitar Center had the forethought to give me a primer on build type, guitar geometry, sound quality/characteristic, and action all in one lesson. It came at a cost though when I was picking out my first "nice" guitar a Martin HD28 during the Labor Day weekend super savings about 10 years ago.

When we are discussing all those cool older guitars with mojo, we can't just go out and pick one from a store rack full of them. I'm glad to know that all the measurements I took are not the end of the story.

 

[The Retro Rocker]

True, measurements aren't the deciding factor of tone, function or playability.

I simply found it curious, and wondered if Guild, or anyone associated with Guild, had ever explained the variations in size of a particular model.
For instance, did Guild Corona, Tacoma, or New Hartford ever come out with a press release announcing the "new, improved, re-sized F-50"?
I know they decided to change the bracing and a few other components for strength and less weight, and maybe that's true for the overall size too, but I never saw it stated as such anywhere.

I'm guessing Gibson has probably changed some of he dimensions on the J-200 throughout the years too?

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE my F-50 and JF 30 and wouldn't change a thing on either one! Makes me wonder what is going to come out of Oxnard. Will the New Hartford refinements remain the "standard"? Or will Cordoba put their own spin on it?

See, I always kind of thought that "Guild was Guild" regardless of who actually OWNED it at any particular time, be it Avnet or Fender or whoever, so that any changes would be made by Guild for the purpose of making their product the best it could be. Sort of autonomous.
(Is that the word I'm looking for?)

 

[chazmo]

Retro,

There was advertising material at some point, whether it was printed or on the web site I don't recall... They said something like they were attempting to build the guitars as they had in earlier years of the company. I think some of that came during the Tacoma era, but I really don't remember if it started earlier or later.

I agree with your last paragraph... Guild was Guild regardless of the business. During the many years of Westerly production, Guilds got built heavier, arguably over-built. Perhaps the heavier builds made them less likely to be subject to a warrantee claim ... Honestly, I don't know. But, the reputation of Westerly-built guitars over the years remains strong.