Pre-Oxnard F40 Dimensions?

[plaidseason]

As a result of a Guild Facebook group discussion, I'm now curious about the dimension of F40s though the years. I'd long assumed (with confirmation from catalogs and Han's book) that the F40 (and various relatives) always hovered around 16" at the lower bout. But . . . in the aforementioned discussion someone stated (and then measured to confirm) that his 1980 F40 was 16 7/8" at the the lower - making it essentially a full jumbo like the F48.

I'm incredulous. But as my wife will tell you, I'm incredulous about a lot of things.

 

[richardp69]

The new Oxnard F 40 is indeed a Jumbo. I have one and it is exceptional. I love it actually.

 

[chazmo]

Chris,

My New Hartford-era F-40 has a 16" lower bout. Body length is 20" and upper bout is about 11.5", and body depth is 4.5" at the endpin. I don't think any F-40 (pre-Oxnard) was over 16".

 

[Norrissey]

The new Oxnard F 40 is indeed a Jumbo. I have one and it is exceptional. I love it actually.

Hi Richard, how do the '70s F40s compare to the Oxnard F40 in terms of sound and playability? Obviously they are a little smaller and have laminated arched maple back and maple sides, I believe the Oxnard F40s are solid mahogany back and sides right?

 

[chazmo]

Hi Richard, how do the '70s F40s compare to the Oxnard F40 in terms of sound and playability? Obviously they are a little smaller and have laminated arched maple back and maple sides, I believe the Oxnard F40s are solid mahogany back and sides right?

Norrissey, that's correct. I should mention that as of the Tacoma-era (maybe earlier), the F-40 model was solid mahogany back and sides. Mine is unusual because it's a GSR (rosewood b/s, red spruce top).

 

[plaidseason]

The new Oxnard F 40 is indeed a Jumbo. I have one and it is exceptional. I love it actually

Chris,

My Tacoma-era F-40 has a 16" lower bout. Body length is 20" and upper bout is about 11.5", and body depth is 4.5" at the endpin. I don't think any F-40 (pre-Oxnard) was over 16".

That's been my (fairly confident) assumption as well.

 

[richardp69]

Hi Richard, how do the '70s F40s compare to the Oxnard F40 in terms of sound and playability? Obviously they are a little smaller and have laminated arched maple back and maple sides, I believe the Oxnard F40s are solid mahogany back and sides right?

Well, my vintage F 40 (Maple)n has that great crisp, bright tone you get with a quality built Maple guitar. My F 40 (Oxnard Mahigany) has a hude, deep and resonant tone you typically get with a nice Jumbo. personally, I prefer the Oxnard F 40 but my Westerly F 40 is no slouch either. In fact, I have two of the Maple F 40's and one will be heading to Reverb within a couple of weeks. Both fine Guild models..

 

[hansmoust]

Chris,

My Tacoma-era F-40 has a 16" lower bout. Body length is 20" and upper bout is about 11.5", and body depth is 4.5" at the endpin. I don't think any F-40 (pre-Oxnard) was over 16".

You probably meant to say New Hartford - era F-40; that is if you're talking about the guitar in the photo!

Sincerely,

Hans Moust
www.guitarsgalore.nl

 

[chazmo]

You probably meant to say New Hartford - era F-40; that is if you're talking about the guitar in the photo!

Sincerely,

Hans Moust
www.guitarsgalore.nl

Hehe... Not enough coffee, Hans!!! Good catch!

Indeed, my (pictured) GSR F-40 is from New Hartford in 2010. (How can that be 12 years ago now????) The dimensions I posted are from that guitar (New Hartford). I presume (not sure) that the same measurements were true in Tacoma-era F-40s as well.

 

[bobouz]

I'd long assumed (with confirmation from catalogs and Han's book) that the F40 (and various relatives) always hovered around 16" at the lower bout. But . . . in the aforementioned discussion someone stated (and then measured to confirm) that his 1980 F40 was 16 7/8" at the the lower -

A 1980 F-40 should not be 16-7/8" wide at the lower bout. Something is amiss here, and it might prove interesting if you asked this individual to post some photos of the instrument in question.

 

[plaidseason]

A 1980 F-40 should not be 16-7/8" wide at the lower bout. Something is amiss here, and it might prove interesting if you asked this individual to post some photos of the instrument in question.

Agreed.

I have a friend who swears he inherited a D50 from a family member - but it has a mahogany top and an arched back. Maybe the sticker is missing? But I don't have the heart to debate it with him.

This is similar.

 

[geoguy]

Perhaps 16 7/8 inch was a typo, & 15 7/8 inch (slightly less than 16 inches) was intended?

 

[plaidseason]

Perhaps 16 7/8 inch was a typo, & 15 7/8 inch (slightly less than 16 inches) was intended?

Definitely not. Said owner was actually correcting my comment that the current F40 and previous F40s are not the same guitar.

And I'm a long-time F40 (and similar) fan, which is why I was surprised by his argument(s).

 

[chazmo]

Definitely not. Said owner was actually correcting my comment that the current F40 and previous F40s are not the same guitar.

And I'm a long-time F40 (and similar) fan, which is why I was surprised by his argument(s).

Don't confuse me with the facts, ma'am!