date impressed on the back of the headstock ????

kydog

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
178
Reaction score
2
Location
WVC UTAH
guild D-50 NT that I found at the pawn shop the other day(put on layaway) serial number D500198 has a month 11-87 and year impressed on the back of the headstock under the serial number. I looked on the net and found it mentioned on this site in a thred. Is this the 198 D-50-NT made of 1987? I am looking for any info that you can give me. thanks in advance.
about the guitar...
first thing that I noticed was that the guitar was in need of some moisture, binding was seperating from the bout, the next thing was that the guitar was strung with big fat nylon strings. the neck looked strait. had a few scuffs on the front. they were asking 750 so I worked them down to 400. hoping that after a trip to the luther I might only be into it under 700. I hope that this guild will sound good ............
 

GardMan

Enlightened Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
5,367
Reaction score
975
Location
Utah
Guild Total
5
Kydog,
As I recall Hans has mentioned that there was a period of time when the date of manufacture (M/Y) was stamped on the back of the headstock. Under the numbering scheme used at the time, this guitar might logocally be assumed to be the 198th D-50 made that year. But, Guild SNs weren't always logical... (added) in this case, the SN scheme changed from 87 to 88, from the DD prefix in 87 to the D50 prefix in 88.

Hans may come along and give the definitive answer...
 

evenkeel

Senior Member
Silver Supporting
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
1,539
Reaction score
11
Assuming the neck is straight for $400 I snap it up in blink even if it needs some luthier work. However w/o the tension of steel strings it's going to be a bit hard to tell if the neck geometry is correct. I'd also want to check and see if the truss rod works and has room to tighten it up a smidge. If the neck is straight with nylon strings you'll likely need to tighten the truss rod up our you'll have an excessive amount of relief when strung with steel.

All in all, from what you describe I'd be inclined to gamble and buy it.
 

dapmdave

Enlightened Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
7,612
Reaction score
24
As I understand it, the practice of stamping the date on the back of the headstock was largely confined to 1987. I think I have seen a few from 1988, though. They stopped doing it fairly quickly in response to complaints from dealers, who did not want customers to know how long the guitars may have been in stock.

Dave :D
 

SFIV1967

Venerated Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
18,500
Reaction score
9,024
Location
Bavaria / Germany
Guild Total
8
@kydog: All serial numbers until 1977 are in Hans' book. Since he has not issued Volume II yet, your best source for serial numbers after 1977 is the Guild webpage so far. Here you can find that list. (the serial numbers before 1977 have errors in that list, so for that always use Hans book). The serial numbers after 1977 also have errors, but we have no better list yet. (still waiting for Hans new book).
Now you have D500198. Looking on page 6 you see for 1987 the last produced number as DD101210 and for 1988 the last produced number as D500447.
Now that would not help you a lot, you could guess that D500198 would be a 1988 guitar according the list (see the issues with that S/N list?). As others mentioned, during 1987 the serial number system was changed. So it is not correct that your guitar was the 198th D50 made in 1987.
Since the 11-87 date was actually stamped on the headstock, you have at least an idea that your guitar is from November 1987. Sometimes there is also a date stamp visible inside through the sound hole on the neck mounting block. But it always depends how much time there was between when the guitar was assembled and finished and actually left the factory.
Ralf
 

HeyMikey

Enlightened Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2018
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
4,882
Location
MA
Guild Total
9
Holy mummified thread Batman! Did that thing just wake up?

488A8213-EA8B-46D3-A5EB-61992F865CF8.jpeg


It did… old chum. I’m afraid … it… did.


Oh and welcome BerlinST!
 
Top