Acoustic guilds

[mclkar54]

Being pretty new to guild line of acoustic guitars, from what ive purchased and seen, am i correct in assuming that all Guild acoustics prefaced with F ,
are jumbo body guitars?F 412, F55 ,F 150 ,etc.

 

[fronobulax]

Being pretty new to guild line of acoustic guitars, from what ive purchased and seen, am i correct in assuming that all Guild acoustics prefaced with F ,
are jumbo body guitars?F 412, F55 ,F 150 ,etc.

Lucky you. I almost answered the wrong question. I think JF was also a prefix. I think the time period of manufacture is important since I think the dimensions of what was called a jumbo varied. Perhaps explaining why you want to know will help in refining the question.

 

[donnylang]

No, at least not historically. I believe it original refers to “Folk”, but I don’t know where I got that (saw it somewhere). It’s the body shape associated with “Folk” guitars (or maybe “Flat Top”? Not sure), as small as the F20 model.

Not sure on their current lineup. But originally, the acoustics lineups were pretty straightforward- “F” for folk or flat-top (sizes ranging from parlor to concert to jumbo etc), “D” for dreadnought. “M” for mahogany top.

 

[mclkar54]

was just curious as to jumbo body designations. As mentioned above jumbo body dimensions vary, i have a couple that are 17 at lower bout ,and one at 16 1/4 at lower bout.Thanks for your interest in giving me info. ive collected / played gibson guitars for years. And just in the last 6 months have discovered that these guild guitars are 100% up there with other high quality guitars. Im honestly most impressed with the quality of work and sound coming from my one china built jumbo 2512. Pretty amazing guitar considering where its built. My USA built guilds are simply every bit as well built as any martin, taylor, or gibson. Maybe even better .

 

[SFIV1967]

Only the new lineup since 2015 is using "F" specifically for "Jumbo". CMG as owner of Guild since 2014 changed the traditional naming structure to this new structure and it was based on the Made in China "Westerly Collection" models, so they got in trouble applying it to the Made in USA models.
Below is the Acoustic Guitar naming structure since 2015:




This is all very confusing for people knowing vintage Guilds, and with vintage I have to say all up to 2014.... The "vintage" naming structure however was also changed multiple times in the last 60 years, so CMG just continues with the tradition of confusing the buyer... Actually the above structure is not bad, and they put some thought into it to make it a system, it's just that with that system they had to rename well known guitars like the F-40 (the current F-40 is the vintage F-48) and the F-412 (the current F-512 Maple) and the F-50 (the current F-55 Maple) as a few examples.

Ralf

 

[RBSinTo]

............ Im honestly most impressed with the quality of work and sound coming from my one china built jumbo 2512. Pretty amazing guitar considering where its built.........

mclkar54,
An instrument's quality based on its country of origin is irrelevant. What matters is the manufacterer's philosophy regarding that quality.
Dreck will be dreck wherever it comes from. And similarly quality.
The Chinese are no less capable of producing quality guitars as anyone else, including American manufacterers, if that is their goal.
Here in Toronto we have a high-end string music store, The 12th Fret that carries the Chinese Eastman line of guitars. They are beautifully built, and sound every bit as good as their American counterparts, and cost considerably less.
I too was just newly introduced to Guild, having recently purchased a Chinese-built 2003 Guild GAD jf 30 Maple jumbo. It is big, beautifully constructed and finished with a loud bright sound.
And a Luthier who did some repairs for me preferred its sound to a Gibson J200 Jumbo he also had in the shop.
So please, don't sell the Chinese (or anyone else overseas, for that matter) short. They can and will produce quality when company philosophy requires it.
RBSinTo

 

[mclkar54]

i agree with you on those points. i too purchased an f 150 over the j 200, simply because the more expensive gibson sounded thin as compared to my guild f 150. same for my 2512 , and my 1512.i own several gibsons that i wont part with, but now i also own some guilds i put in the same class of , wont part with. im glad i pursued guild,s line of guitars.

 

[dreadnut]

"The Chinese are no less capable of producing quality guitars as anyone else, including American manufacturers, if that is their goal."

I agree they are making some fine guitars, but from a purely economic standpoint, if they could build comparable acoustics, they would be able to price them right up there with American-made ones.

 

[Westerly Wood]

Great picture Ralf shared above. I notice how the top bracing is exactly the same across all body types. Just either smaller or larger braces needed depending on F20 vs say Dread. Tge Jumbo appears to have the largest space where there is no bracing. That lower left hand corner. I wonder if that impacts tone at all. The largest free area of the top without a brace is what I mean.

 

[RBSinTo]

i agree with you on those points. i too purchased an f 150 over the j 200, simply because the more expensive gibson sounded thin as compared to my guild f 150. same for my 2512 , and my 1512.i own several gibsons that i wont part with, but now i also own some guilds i put in the same class of , wont part with. im glad i pursued guild,s line of guitars.

Mclkar54,
You described the J200 sound as "thin". The Luthier who worked on my Guild, when comparing its sound to that of a J-200, described the Gibson's sound as "muddy".
RBSinTo

 

[RBSinTo]

"The Chinese are no less capable of producing quality guitars as anyone else, including American manufacturers, if that is their goal."

I agree they are making some fine guitars, but from a purely economic standpoint, if they could build comparable acoustics, they would be able to price them right up there with American-made ones.

dreadnut,
Not being privy to their marketing strategy, I can't comment on why Eastman charges what they do for their instruments.
But to my mind, because they are trying to build a reputation as a maker of quality stringed instruments, and at the same time dispel any thoughts that their products are just more cheap stuff from China, they are willing to forego the extra profit to get their guitars into the market place, where they will speak for themselves.
I was seriously considering an E10ss, which is their slope-shoulder Spruce/Mahogony equivalent to the Gibdon j-45, and to me sounded as good or better than the Gibson for about half the price.
The only reason I didn't buy the Eastman was because I got an incredibly good deal on a j45 which was inexpensive enough that it wasn't necessary to factor in Alimony payments.
Who knows, as they become better known and appreciated as quality instruments, Eastman prices will climb.
RBSinTo

 

[chazmo]

I'm not sure if it was answered, but no... Not all F(olk) designated Guilds are jumbos. "Jumbo" in Guild parlance refers to a 17" or greater lower bout. All F instruments are pinched-waist guitars, but they come in all sizes. And, yes, there are other Guild designations than just "F" that describe that pinched-waist style. FYI, I *do* think all the JF guitars from the Gruhn era are indeed jumbos.

I hope that helps.

 

[mclkar54]

yeah

Mclkar54,
You described the J200 sound as "thin". The Luthier who worked on my Guild, when comparing its sound to that of a J-200, described the Gibson's sound as "muddy".
RBSinTo

yeah , either way, the higher dollar gibson just doesnt have that big jumbo body tone.When i said thin sounding i was referring to the lack of a bass response
in the 6, j 200,s i was shopping for. i played one less costing guild jumbo and made up my mind right then lol.

 

[chazmo]

RBSinTo and dreadnut, please refrain from any further discussion about quality and country of origin. Thank you.

 

[Russell Letson]

On the matter of Asian guitars: Years ago at Chetfest (that is the annual CAAS convention), I had dinner with the Gibson manager who was in charge of setting up the company's China operation for a new Epiphone flat-top acoustic line. He told me that the Chinese were capable of producing whatever level of quality was asked for, and that it could all be specified in the contract with the participating factory--you contract for X, you get X. And the samples he had at the convention were very decent guitars for their price points. One might have doubts about Chinese labor practices or environmental policies, but there's nothing wrong with their industrial abilities.

As for Eastman, it was originally a violin-family factory, with a very experienced workforce of traditional craftsmen. Their entry into the guitar market was with acoustic archtops, which use a similar skill-set, and their models seem to have been classic Epiphones. I discovered them more than a decade ago and was quite impressed, despite their unconventional appearance--they finished them the way they did violins, so they lacked the shiny-smooth look of American guitars. Nevertheless, they sounded like old Epis (and better than most of the old Gibsons I'd played). They realized the marketing/aesthetic error of the fiddle-finish (which didn't hurt the sound at all) and the line took off. I bought the first one that my wallet, hands, and ears agreed was a match for my '46 Broadway, and it has alternated with the Epi as a main play-out archtop ever since.

 

[chazmo]

Russel, now I have to close this post. Please refrain from this type of discussion and bandwagoning in the future.