Arched back Guilds

[chazmo]

The strangest part of the design is that with all the layers (3) being Mahogany, instead of cheap plywood fillers, then considering the time and effort needed to cut, glue, and form into shape, I can see no cost savings.
Consider the cello or bass fiddle, the arch form is for increased forward projection.
Just my theory.
Dale.

By the way, Dale, I think it's unlikely that you will find mahogany in the the middle layer of these guitars.

[edit: looks like GardMan beat me to it!]

 

[KenL]

I've got a Guild with an arched back. It's a '95 Guild DCE5. It's a tremendous guitar, but I don't see them get mentioned much on LTG.

 

[Treem]

This one is one of them arched back Guilds! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 8) 8) 8)

So is the D30 and the JF6512

G'ya! :shock: :lol: 8)

 

[GardMan]

I've got a Guild with an arched back. It's a '95 Guild DCE5. It's a tremendous guitar, but I don't see them get mentioned much on LTG.

Tell us more! Pics! O... and welcome, if I didn't say that somewhere already... Dave

 

[plaidseason]

Here's a link to a Gibson Gospel: http://www.elderly.com/items/20U-7856.htm


With regard to Guild - It should be no suprise that a company so entrenched in the archtop/jazz guitar business would come up with the idea of an arched back acoustic.

 

[J45dale]

Great feedback on the center ply guys...I stand corrected on the center ply material, but still see the Guild design as a sound enhancer vs. a cost lowering issue.
There is currently another good laminated (sides) discussion taking place today on the AG forum which is drawing the attention of a few great builders.
Dale.

 

[adorshki]

I've got a Guild with an arched back. It's a '95 Guild DCE5. It's a tremendous guitar, but I don't see them get mentioned much on LTG.

I don't think there were a whole lot of them made, compared to the ones that get the most comments around here. They're directly related to D25's so it's no surprise it's a great guitar! Welcome aboard!

 

[workedinwesterly]

the arched back was much cheaper to produce.

we ran the middle layers ( called 'cross-banding' because the grain ran perpendicular to the outer veneers) thru the glue spreader then placed it in a hot press...done.

the solid backs had to be resawn from quarter-sawn stock ( in the case of mahogany) then stacked in the hot room for a while, then jointed, then glued together, then sanded to thickness, then the braces were glued on.
Also, we had to fabricate the braces and center strip out of spruce, and the center strip had the name burned into it.
When the back was glued to the rim, the reinforcement that ran around the rim had to be notched by hand to allow the braces to tuck underneath it.
Quite a bit more labor.

the only manufacturing advantage to the solid back was the fact that it could be sanded without the risk of sanding thru the veneer.

we had a saying in the factory:
we don't make black guitars, black guitars happen.

 

[chazmo]

the arched back was much cheaper to produce.

we ran the middle layers ( called 'cross-banding' because the grain ran perpendicular to the outer veneers) thru the glue spreader then placed it in a hot press...done.

the solid backs had to be resawn from quarter-sawn stock ( in the case of mahogany) then stacked in the hot room for a while, then jointed, then glued together, then sanded to thickness, then the braces were glued on.
Also, we had to fabricate the braces and center strip out of spruce, and the center strip had the name burned into it.
When the back was glued to the rim, the reinforcement that ran around the rim had to be notched by hand to allow the braces to tuck underneath it.
Quite a bit more labor.

the only manufacturing advantage to the solid back was the fact that it could be sanded without the risk of sanding thru the veneer.

we had a saying in the factory:
we don't make black guitars, black guitars happen.

Thanks for 'splainin' the process, WiW. So how do you make the veneers themselves get the arched shape? Were they just pressed into shape in a hot press? Were they pressed onto the already-built middle layer(s)? I'm thinking that they were thin, but maybe not thin enough to be easily shaped that way... Just curious!

 

[workedinwesterly]

we just put the veneers together like a big gluey sandwich and the press did the rest.

 

[bluesypicky]

the arched back was much cheaper to produce.

Very interesting, thanks WIW!
So would you say the transition to arched backs was "economically" motivated? And not a pursuit of a better sound? Or a bit of both?

 

[workedinwesterly]

both backs have their own pros and cons. but mostly i guess it was based on price point....the higher priced models would have solid backs and the lower priced ones were laminated.
there was the advantage of never getting a guitar returned for a crack in the laminated back.
they probably got into doing it because they already had the presses for the archtops and starfires they were building.

 

[adorshki]

the only manufacturing advantage to the solid back was the fact that it could be sanded without the risk of sanding thru the veneer.
we had a saying in the factory:
we don't make black guitars, black guitars happen.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[adorshki]

both backs have their own pros and cons. but mostly i guess it was based on price point....the higher priced models would have solid backs and the lower priced ones were laminated.
there was the advantage of never getting a guitar returned for a crack in the laminated back.
they probably got into doing it because they already had the presses for the archtops and starfires they were building.

Do you remember what the first model to get an arched back was? Was it the D25? It's interesting the technique found its way onto some pretty high-end pieces like the F65 and JF6512. Thanks in advance for your eyewitness contributions!

 

[chazmo]

both backs have their own pros and cons. but mostly i guess it was based on price point....the higher priced models would have solid backs and the lower priced ones were laminated.
there was the advantage of never getting a guitar returned for a crack in the laminated back.
they probably got into doing it because they already had the presses for the archtops and starfires they were building.

Do you remember what the first model to get an arched back was? Was it the D25? It's interesting the technique found its way onto some pretty high-end pieces like the F65 and JF6512. Thanks in advance for your eyewitness contributions!

Al, I'm not certain, but I think the F-50 (maple) was the first Guild acoustic with the arched maple back. It's been that way since the '50s. Not sure which Westerly model was first to be a laminate... probably the same (F-50).

 

[adorshki]

Thanks Chaz! I'll have to pull Hans' book out tonite for a refresher...but I think I would have remembered it if I'd seen it... I'll let you know.. meanwhile maybe Mr. Moust himself might chime in if he sees this? 8)

 

[GardMan]

According to the "Good book," the F-30, F-40, and F-50 were all introduced with arched (thus laminated) backs in '54. I believe even the F-20 began with a laminated maple back, but I don't know if it was arched or not (someone here has one... and I have only seen one other sell on eBay in the last 3 years). I don't know about the M-20/30... but I don't see any back braces in the pics in Hans' book.

Also from Hans, the first guitars built in Westerly were M-20s... so if they had arched backs, there you go.

By my reading, arched backs weren't introduced into the dreads until ~'73, with the first arched back maple G-37s (according to Hans, some '72 G-37s exist... don't know if there are any arched-back D-25s from that year) and D-25s.
Dave

 

[Jeff]

....... I believe even the F-20 began with a laminated maple back, but I don't know if it was arched or not (someone here has one...

The back on my 57 F20 is flat, laminated maple & it's braced.

 

[adorshki]

Thanks Gard, knew about the D25's starting off as flatbacks but didn't remember any of that other stuff. (Then again, I wasn't really trying.... :lol: ) When I first got mine I figured it out pretty quick 'cause the grain inside is going opposite direction from grain outside, but the grain pattern itself is virtually identical. It didn't bother me, it made sense for all the reasons covered here and in a couple of other threads... and anyway I was already in love! :lol:

 

[workedinwesterly]

adorshki

that's an odd one...the inside and outside grain should run the same direction...it's only the middle layers that were perpendicular.