D35 vs D40

[donnylang]

I know this has been discussed in the past, but the time seems ripe for a new angle:

I’m interested in hearing from folks on their thoughts between the differences in these two models- mostly from the angle of the original designs.

Other threads have pointed out the 1968 (year of D35 introduction) distinctions:

D40- white binding, 3-piece neck, chesterfield logo
D35- tortoiseshell binding, 1-piece neck, plain Guild logo

I believe the very earliest D35s had the same pickguard as the D40, but this was quickly changed to the unique odd-shaped, smaller one by the time of the printing of the 1968 catalog.

So I think this smaller pickguard might offer some insight into what Guild were thinking- I wonder if the D35 was an effort to create a less “Guild”-like dreadnought, and something more along the lines of a D18 or J45.

My ‘68 D35 is noticeably lighter and more resonant than both the ‘68 D40 and ‘67 D44 I had. It also has less of a thumpy/bass heavy sound, and more of a balanced or bright quality. I had a ‘69 D35 as well that also seemed less Guild-like.

I guess what I’m meaning to say here is: for two guitars that mostly seem “the same” on paper, the D35 and D40 seem to me to be two models that have distinctly different voicings. What could be going on underneath the hood?

Curious to hear any thoughts, particularly from folks who have owned early versions of both models. I assume that by 1973 or so, things were changing to the point that the original design or vision likely began to vary.

 

[adorshki]

I know this has been discussed in the past, but the time seems ripe for a new angle:

I’m interested in hearing from folks on their thoughts between the differences in these two models- mostly from the angle of the original designs.

Other threads have pointed out the 1968 (year of D35 introduction) distinctions:

D40- white binding, 3-piece neck, chesterfield logo
D35- tortoiseshell binding, 1-piece neck, plain Guild logo

I believe the very earliest D35s had the same pickguard as the D40, but this was quickly changed to the unique odd-shaped, smaller one by the time of the printing of the 1968 catalog.

So I think this smaller pickguard might offer some insight into what Guild were thinking- I wonder if the D35 was an effort to create a less “Guild”-like dreadnought, and something more along the lines of a D18 or J45.

My ‘68 D35 is noticeably lighter and more resonant than both the ‘68 D40 and ‘67 D44 I had. It also has less of a thumpy/bass heavy sound, and more of a balanced or bright quality. I had a ‘69 D35 as well that also seemed less Guild-like.

I guess what I’m meaning to say here is: for two guitars that mostly seem “the same” on paper, the D35 and D40 seem to me to be two models that have distinctly different voicings. What could be going on underneath the hood?

Curious to hear any thoughts, particularly from folks who have owned early versions of both models. I assume that by 1973 or so, things were changing to the point that the original design or vision likely began to vary.

Ok, have only ever heard my own D40 live, but "under the hood?" Bracing, my man, matched to the top's characteristics.

Don't know if same period/earliest D40's got scalloped bracing, but I suspect they did, and I'm pretty darn sure D35's wouldn't have qualified for that detail at their price point.

By the same token, pretty sure D35's would've received "standard" tops while I suspect D40's got "AA" although I haven't seen Guild use that terminology in their lit until just after Fender takeover. They did use "standard" and "select" sometimes in '80's/90's lit IIRC, so one senses they defined at least 2 grades of topwood and wanted to make the distinction for the appropriate models at times.

Only saw specific confirmation of scalloped bracing/AA tops on D40 in very late lit, ca '98 IIRC. But it makes me suspect it was probably always part of the "formula".

Hans has also mentioned a short run of "fan braced" early instruments, although I can't recall if it was D50's, D40's, or both.

 

[donnylang]

Hadn’t thought about bracing differences ... I assumed ‘60s era D40s would be straight braces but no idea.

They had the fan bracing in ‘63-64 on the D40 ... I’m sure those sound very different.

I do know the D35 has regular braces because the ‘69 I had had been re-braced with scalloped and forwarded shifted. I know the luthier than did it was complaining about how big the original braces were. That guitar sounded nothing like a D40 however, but did have a similar root sound to my other D35. But it seemed a bit “Martinized” for lack of a better term.

 

[Heath]

My ‘66 D40 has x bracing

 

[GardMan]

According to Beesely, the D-40s did not get scalloped bracing until 1987.

 

[Br1ck]

What I have supposed from my 70 D 35: There was a spruce cosmetic reject pile for D 35s. I believe the D 25 of the time was all hog. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. Tuners were a cheaper three on a plate type to save money. My original Guild script case is of the flat variety and I don't know if a D 40 got an arched ply case or not. My Guild headstock logo looks like a decal and has faded such that it's not visible across the room. My guitar has four ply binding, very thin w/ b/w/ outer, thicker black on top, plain black on the back. It has a very balanced tone and only resembles a D 18 in the most basic sense. If I recall, there was not much more than a $75 difference between a D 35 and a D 40 back then. From a D 40 to a D 18 was maybe $100. Or less. I took a mirror to the inside for the first time in 15 years. Straight braced, but it doesn't seem too big. The guitar records well, better than any of my others. If what you want is a D 18, buy a D 18. A D 35 or D 40 will never make you happy, as it is a different animal.

If I were shopping for that late 60s/ early 70s vintage, I'd buy on condition rather than model. I'd rather have the original tuners than replacements, mainly for the weight. Just like any other guitar, the older the guitar, the more likely the need for neck resets and fretwork. Worth it if old tone is your thing.

 

[donnylang]

I forgot the tuner difference- worth noting.

One odd anecdote is that the ‘72 D25 I had sounded more like the ‘68 D40 than either of my D35s! Could be a case of the particular guitars I’ve owned vs model differences.

 

[F312]

Those old Martin D 18s sure bring in a lot of cash, for no flash.

 

[Westerly Wood]

I’ve never played a D35 that sounded better than a D40. I’ve always played D40s that sound better than D35s. There is a sonic difference but I don’t know why.

 

[adorshki]

What I have supposed from my 70 D 35: There was a spruce cosmetic reject pile for D 35s. I believe the D 25 of the time was all hog. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Yes, '70 D25 was still all-hog, but there were plenty of other places to use spruce like F20's and F30's.

I don't think there was actually a "spruce cosmetic reject pile", primarily because of the way they bought wood.

There's an article about Willie Fritscher's role in wood selection:

Granted he didn't start buying the wood until the early '70's but I have a strong suspicion he simply continued their usual way of doing business: article says they had a tradition of going right to producers and inspecting on the spot before buying, thus no reason for "surprises" in the incoming wood.

So sure I suppose one might run into some "bearclaw" in the middle of a flitch and reject it for D40's but I suspect more likely they would already have selected that flitch for entry-level tops anyway.

Also occurs to me one can't just rely on a "reject pile" to provide all the tops needed for low-enders consistently, one needs to be sure there's enough raw material on hand to keep feeding production.

That bearclaw was used at all in a time when it was considered a flaw only says to me that somebody (like Willie) "knew better" at the time and used it anyway.

According to Beesely, the D-40s did not get scalloped bracing until 1987.

No snark intended, but is that based on first-hand knowledge or simply because they didn't start mentioning that stuff in their lit until then? We know Beesley's repeated other factory info which itself was erroneous, not to fault him for it. Just explaining why I ask the question.

Sincerely interested in owner feedback, just to get a handle on it.

 

[adorshki]

Hadn’t thought about bracing differences ... I assumed ‘60s era D40s would be straight braces but no idea...
They had the fan bracing in ‘63-64 on the D40 ... I’m sure those sound very different.

Right those fan braced guitars were very early, and actually thought it was only a few of 'em, not the "standard build formula", but memory could be wrong on that one.

Also just realized I said I suspected "scalloped" bracing was standard on D40's when I meant "shaved", which I corrected above.

My ‘66 D40 has x bracing

Right, as it should, but is it shaved or straight? (def's here):

 

[GardMan]

No first hand knowledge from me, but I don't recall seeing any mention of scalloped braces (at least on dreads) until you get to the early '80s: the D-70 (my '82 D-70 is scalloped, D-80, and D-52 being the earliest I have seen mentioned. The D-50 got scalloped bracing in '87 (I can verify that my '76 D-50 did NOT have scalloped bracing), and the D-55 didn't even get scalloped until the early 90s.

 

[adorshki]

No first hand knowledge from me, but I don't recall seeing any mention of scalloped braces (at least on dreads) until you get to the early '80s: the D-70 (my '82 D-70 is scalloped, D-80, and D-52 being the earliest I have seen mentioned. The D-50 got scalloped bracing in '87 (I can verify that my '76 D-50 did NOT have scalloped bracing), and the D-55 didn't even get scalloped until the early 90s.

Thanks, and note I had to correct myself, when I first mentioned scalloped bracing on early D40's I meant "shaved".

 

[GardMan]

Also just realized I said I suspected "scalloped" bracing was standard on D40's when I meant "shaved", which I corrected above.

The braces on my '76 D-50 were shaved AFTER it left the factory (confirmed by Hans), indicating that the D-50 did not have shaved or scalloped braces at that time. I would be surprised if the D-40 did when the D-50 did not, but I have been wrong before!

 

[adorshki]

The braces on my '76 D-50 were shaved AFTER it left the factory (confirmed by Hans), indicating that the D-50 did not have shaved or scalloped braces at that time. I would be surprised if the D-40 did when the D-50 did not, but I have been wrong before!

Actually that reasoning makes sense to me, and I'd suspect the same myself, thanks!

 

[donnylang]

I can’t say my ‘68 D35 sounds better than the D40, but I can’t say the opposite either. They are in the same ballpark and sound pretty different. The D40 was more punchy and refined, but the D35 is more balanced and strings don’t wear out as fast. The D35 is more versatile and all my songs work well, whereas the D40 I could not say the same. The D40 was maybe more inspiring though.

The D35 is definitely better than my ‘67 D44 to me- I compared them side by side. And ultimately, I chose the D44 over the D40 so I think I can safely say this particular D35 beat out the D40 and D44 for me. But again, could just be the individual guitars- and also, where my head was at during the periods I was playing them (writing songs vs recording vs performing etc).

 

[Br1ck]

One must realize top grading is cosmetics only. Virtually everything I've read on the subject indicates no sonic correlation between looks and sound. Still, it was common misconception in the early 70s at least, that straight, close grained spruce was best, and companies acted accordingly. This was not always the case judging from the number of wide grain used in the pre war era.

 

[F312]

One must realize top grading is cosmetics only. Virtually everything I've read on the subject indicates no sonic correlation between looks and sound. Still, it was common misconception in the early 70s at least, that straight, close grained spruce was best, and companies acted accordingly. This was not always the case judging from the number of wide grain used in the pre war era.

I don't think people were "nit pickers" in pre-war times as they are today. "Now", the planets have to line up to fell a tree.

I have seen some very fine-looking tops on guitars costing 100 dollars, however, I haven't heard any nice guitars costing 100 dollars.

 

[adorshki]

One must realize top grading is cosmetics only. Virtually everything I've read on the subject indicates no sonic correlation between looks and sound. Still, it was common misconception in the early 70s at least, that straight, close grained spruce was best, and companies acted accordingly. This was not always the case judging from the number of wide grain used in the pre war era.

Yes the grading system itself is based on cosmetic assessment and there are no actual common "standards". BUT straight close grain is widely considered to be cosmetically superior to irregular/widely spaced grain and in fact Guild considered that cosmetic trait to be an indicator of stronger topwood which could be braced more lightly, in the second paragraph under the header "Bracing Shapes Acoustic Tone", here:

RE wide grain in pre-war era, that was also an era when Adi was much more commonly used, which has a rep for having wider grain than Sitka in general. Which is somewhat ironic since it's also stronger than sitka by weight, which is why it's so desirable for tops and bracing, both can be made lighter for better top resonance.

I don't think people were "nit pickers" in pre-war times as they are today. "Now", the planets have to line up to fell a tree.
I have seen some very fine-looking tops on guitars costing 100 dollars, however, I haven't heard any nice guitars costing 100 dollars.

Lousy bracing can ruin a top of any grade, and good bracing can make an A top sound like AAA, (which is what I think actually explains Br1ck's observation of no correllation between looks and sound).

 

[Bonneville88]

Donny, your D35 might also be an especially good one. I had another,
same design, same early-style pickguard, but a little later - think it was an early '70 model.
It did not compare favorably to the remarkable playing and tonal characteristics of
yours, and I spent a fair amount of time comparing the two side by side before selling it.