Older SF I II III and Newer SF cutaways

[prairietelecaster]

I looked at a couple of pics of an Old SF III compared to the "Newer" ones. The cutaways are different, do I have that right or am I seeing things. (No I don't want to search here, I want to post the question, thanks)

 

[hansmoust]

I looked at a couple of pics of an Old SF III compared to the "Newer" ones. The cutaways are different, do I have that right or am I seeing things.

No, you're not seeing things!

Sincerely,

Hans Moust
www.guitarsgalore.nl

 

[prairietelecaster]

Thanks Hans. I think that just put me off the idea of searching for a newer model.

 

[prairietelecaster]

Further to, do we know why they did this? Lack of original body forms? Oversight? Inadequate research to re-issue?

 

[Walter Broes]

The old mold must have worn out? Who knows what reasons they had to go to a new one? Change seems to have occurred somewhere around the move to Westerly.

Funny detail, the late 90's "DeArmond" Starfire, that was really a different guitar (center block, post mounted bridge, etc...), had the 60's Starfire silhouette! (the case I have for my '61 SFIII is a DeArmond case, and it's a perfect fit!)

 

[mad dog]

That's an interesting observation Walter. I had the DA Starfire Special, and the best part of it was indeed the shape. Loved how it felt in my hands. Alas, too heavily built for livelier tones at lower volumes (sure could wail up loud), so it moved along. But one I remember fondly.
MD

 

[Default]

Comparing cj's late Westerly SFlll and my Hoboken SFlll, the Westerly is deeper too. Comparatively, it feels much bigger to me, probably not to anyone else. I'm planning to drag my Starfires up to the hotel as well as a couple of practice amps, particularly if I can get the venue thing straightened out.