Deep Starfire?

[Los Angeles]

First of all, this is listed as a "1972 Starfire IV-XD"

The "XD" is the first thing I'm curious about. the only reference to the letter "D" in association with starfires in Hans's book is on the page with the Starfire VII. The "D" meaning "Deep Body" from the look of this photo, the body does look a little deep to me.

It's obvious that this has a set of seymores on it, and either the bridge is not original OR a bigsby was taken off and a harp put on. EDIT - or maybe that's a hagstrom adjustable from the 60s?

Anyone spot anything else going on?

 

[GAD]

There are a few of these in circulation. I think we've accounted for seven of them? I think they are the sexiest damn things ever.

 

[Los Angeles]

So it's rare, it looks like it's the laminated cedar in the "amber" finish that's mentioned in Hans' book, I'm staring at a set of HB1's with no home that would bring it back to *mostly" original, and it's within my price range.

MUST RESIST.

 

[AlohaJoe]

Resistance is futile... you will be assimilated. It's very cool and you deserve it.

 

[hansmoust]

First of all, this is listed as a "1972 Starfire IV-XD"

The "XD" is the first thing I'm curious about. the only reference to the letter "D" in association with starfires in Hans's book is on the page with the Starfire VII. The "D" meaning "Deep Body" from the look of this photo, the body does look a little deep to me.

Hi LA,

That should probably read: Starfire 4D or at least that's what I would expect having seen a couple of others with that same designation.

It's obvious that this has a set of seymores on it, and either the bridge is not original OR a bigsby was taken off and a harp put on. EDIT - or maybe that's a hagstrom adjustable from the 60s?

That looks like a Bigsby bridge to me. By the way, the lighter spot on the top indicates that the bridge should move at least half an inch 'north'.

So it's rare, it looks like it's the laminated cedar in the "amber" finish that's mentioned in Hans' book.

That looks like a regular blonde finish on a maple body to me. During the early '70s the 'Amber' finish was almost orange.

Sincerely,

Hans Moust
http://www.guitarsgalore.nl

 

[fronobulax]

By the way, the lighter spot on the top indicates that the bridge should move at least half an inch 'north'

Is that because you believe the "lighter spot" exists because the bridge was in a different position and the finish darkened around it? I wondered if it was just a reflection of some kind since on this computer there is also a bit of a similar "halo" around the tailpiece as well.

 

[SFIV1967]

There are a few of these in circulation. I think we've accounted for seven of them? I think they are the sexiest damn things ever.

GAD, I believe you are thinking about the Starfire Custom 7 (viewtopic.php?f=3&p=246302#p246302), not this one.
What LA shows might be a "Deep Starfire V" (?) as Hans had written in his book on page 165.
Because at least I thought on the Starfire IV blockinlays were only introduced in 1973?
Would be interesting to see the label or more pictures of it!
Ralf

 

[Los Angeles]

I put a notice about this guitar in the ebay/cl/gbase section. I never would have bought my two ST-302's if I had known this would pop up. Just can't swing it, though.

 

[Treem]

Treem don't look!!! :shock: :mrgreen: :lol:

 

[Los Angeles]

Well, I sent a note asking about playability and finish and they just emailed me a response: "Sorry but we have already sold the Starfire."

hopefully an LTG'er got ahold of it.

 

[GAD]

There are a few of these in circulation. I think we've accounted for seven of them? I think they are the sexiest damn things ever.

GAD, I believe you are thinking about the Starfire Custom 7 (http://www.letstalkguild.com/phpBB2/vie ... 02#p246302), not this one.
What LA shows might be a "Deep Starfire V" (?) as Hans had written in his book on page 165.
Because at least I thought on the Starfire IV blockinlays were only introduced in 1973?
Would be interesting to see the label or more pictures of it!
Ralf

You are right - good call.

 

[hansmoust]

By the way, the lighter spot on the top indicates that the bridge should move at least half an inch 'north'

Is that because you believe the "lighter spot" exists because the bridge was in a different position and the finish darkened around it? I wondered if it was just a reflection of some kind since on this computer there is also a bit of a similar "halo" around the tailpiece as well.

Hello Frono,

Time for another history lesson:

A lot of the things you see in musical instrument construction are based on old traditional ways of doing things; some make sense and some did make sense at some point in time.
Take for instance the violin. Since the violin has no frets, there should be a point where the bridge should be located and so the points halfway the soundhole, where the F-shaped holes are at their widest, mark the position where the bridge should be placed. The arched top guitar inherited this particular feature of the violin, even though the archtop guitar works entirely different than a violin. A guitar has frets and therefore there is a fixed position for the bridge. However, traditionally, archtop guitar makers have choosen to place the f-holes in the same way as the violin, so that the middle points of the f-holes are in the same position as the bridge. If you look at older (not necessarely Guild) archtops, acoustics as well as electrics, you will see that the bridge is approximately at that same position.
When guitar players demanded better access to the higher positions of the fretboard, even after the introduction of the cutaway, one of the solutions was to change the way the neck was set into the body. This moved the fretboard in relation to the body and therefore a new position of the bridge became necessary.
Since the soundholes did stay in the same place, the bridge was no longer in the same position as the ‘points’ of the f-holes. So, if you look at a more modern electric archtop guitar with the neck joint at the 18th fret, you will notice that the bridge does not line up with the ‘points’ of the f-holes.

That’s the reason why I expected the bridge to be in another position than where it was in this photo.

Take another good look at the various archtop guitars, acoustics as well as electrics, that are pictured in The Guild Guitar Book.

Sincerely,

Hans Moust
http://www.guitarsgalore.nl

 

[fronobulax]

Time for another history lesson:l

Thank you. That's why I ask.

 

[SFIV1967]

@Frono: Look at this left picture of the exact same guitar, it has the bridge in a "more correct" position (left picture) vs the other original listing picture (right)! (Both pictures are from Guitar Center).

Ralf