Anyone removed the soundpost[s] in a late 80's X500?

I'm wondering if anybody has tried removing the posts inside the body[under the bridge to the back]
Would the guitar still be strong enough to avoid the sinking of the top? Although it cuts feedback it also dampens the acoustic sound a bit and I'd be curious to see how it would respond soundwise without said posts.
Greg

I believe that you may possess a less common X500 by having one with the soundpost. I remember seeing a discussion a while back where Hans noted that SOME X500's had a sound post. That being the case I would you suggest you pick up a standard X500 and sell your sound post model to somone with that interest. You may find you can get more for the sound post model.

Does anyone else remember the earlier discussion on Guild guitars with soundposts?

M

I have! Removing the soundpost ( or rather sound-slab, 'cos it's a hefty 1" thick piece of hard maple) has two dramatic effects:
-the acoustic sound immediately opens up, and becomes more a conventional ''jazz guitar'' sound, and less electric-sounding
-the guitar starts to feed back like any other 17" guitar - as you'd expect.

I think I agree with the advice to trade in, rather than attempt removal - and I say this having done it! These slabs of maple are just not designed for easy removal, and I was lucky to have been able to do it at all.

How I came to remove the soundpost is pretty simple - I have had a 50's x500 for some time, and love it. I have been looking around for a westerly x500 recently, and by luck a couple came up in the London shops. I missed one by a couple of hours, and went to see the second one, ready to look hard and bargain. This blonde guitar was overpriced, I got the price down substantially, looked hard at the neck angle, frets, action, and pots, played it through the obligatory shop fender amp set to ''chainsaw'', and bought it. What I didn't do was look inside the f holes!!! It was only when I got it home and was setting it up that - yes, I know!! - I noticed that inch-thick maple slab inside.

With the slab, the feedback resistance is excellent, and the tone is very good indeed through an amp - so it would suit everyone except a jazz player who needs to practice acoustically, and who needs that particular jazz hollow-body sound.
Anyway, having just bought it, x500's being pretty rare around here, and not being able to face the thought of a long wait and a hefty trade-in loss to fix the problem, I decided to cut through the soundpost. I think I have a reasonably balanced, not purist, view about guitar modification, this was a 90s model not a 60s model, and after all guitars are instruments made to be played, not antiques to be put in a glass case. Anyway, cutting through involves tying back the pickup wires up through the f-holes to avoid cutting through them , removing the back pickup, and VERY carefully sawing through the post in two places, near the back and under the bridge, through the back pickup hole while protecting the finish. This involves sawing at a very tricky angle, and particularly avoiding digging into the back while making the lower cut. It was one of those jobs that makes you sweat while you're doing it and that, when you have finished it, you KNOW you are never going to voluntarily do again. I still have to removed the remnants of the block on the guitar back, which I'll do by steaming it.

Just thought I'd share this, in case anyone's interested. To repeat, I only did it because I didn't expect a soundpost on an x500 and simply didn't look out for it when buying, and I bought it for jazz playing only. And, with the soundpost in, it's certainly a more versatile and still fine-sounding guitar; those laminated spruce tops are superior to any maple-ply tops, as on 175s, or carved-tops for amplified playing. But, without a soundpost, the sound just improves enough to make it worthwhile, at least for me. If I need to sell it, it will be a lot easier to re-instate the post than it was to take it out.
Am I glad I did it? yes....would I recommend it to others? well, I think anyone reading this will guess the answer to that...

Oh, and about the point about the top being strong enough - even without the ''post'', the braces are quite substantial, and the bridge break angle is fairly shallow, so no risk of the top sinking that I can see. The top on mine hasn't shifted since the 'surgery' at all, and that's with heavy strings.
Chris

It just goes to show that this forum is outstanding at sharing even the most esoteric info about Guild gear.

Thanks for the input CM.

M

Welcome to the Zoo Chris!

Great first post!

Thanks for the welcoming remarks...and Kurt, what a great museum!!! fantastic. If only we could read those early catalogues....I have never seen what seems to be a thin-body x500 before.

Guild is a fairly rare brand over here, although they do crop up on ebay every so often. In the 60s the starfires and hollow bodies did gain something of a foothold with the beat group boom of that time, but because they were slightly cheaper than competing gibsons and epiphones, they unfairly gained a reputation as a inferior brand. Later on, for many periods they were without an importer, so were seen patchily if at all. I think there were a couple of years in the 90s where some bluesbirds were imported and were selling at around £1500 ( $3000) but after that there was silence! I don't think any corona guilds made it here, although I could be wrong.

What also did the brand a lot of damage in the UK was the Bert Weedon model. Let me explain... Bert was one of the first UK 50s session men, wrote a best-selling 'tutor' from which we all learned our dim chords etc, and appeared on many if not most UK covers of US songs, which were NOT good covers, as a rule!!. However by the mid 60's Bert's name was the opposite of cool; his shiny suits, greased quiff and earnest showbiz grin was the complete antithesis of the attitude the typical long-haired brit band member was trying to strike, so the 'artist endorsement' could only work against the brand, as no-one would have wanted 'Bert Weedon' branded on any guitar. Unfair, because he was responsible for getting most name UK players started as well as the rest of us, but that's the fickleness of youth. Timing is all....

Plus, I have a feeling that the Bert Weedon model, with its strange matt brown mahogany finish and hollow body, was not one of Guild's greatest creations ( artist models often aren't) and certainly not a match for a 335, in the eyes of the aspiring rocker. Consequently the brand suffered a bit of a body blow in the 60s from which it has never really recovered.

My own feeling is that, whilst I know other members will debate the merits of the starfires/ CE100s etc, I think it was with the X series - which were marketed as jazz as well as rock guitars - that they really got it right. Gibson struck lucky when they marketed the laminated maple top ES175 in the late 40's ( I think) because many players of the time discovered that a laminated top, not carved, was best for amplified playing - but they never really followed up on the concept, as they never produced a laminated spruce model and only 1 or 2 other laminated maple models. But, for whatever reason, guild hit on a consistent laminated spruce approach for the x series, and absolutely got it right, as that's now acknowledged as the best wood for amplified jazz playing. Finally in the 90s and in this decade, that approach has been vindicated by the flood of laminated spruce jazz models from D'Angelico, peerless, aria, etc etc....and some US boutique makers - not that I notice them acknowledging the debt to the pioneering guild x models!

Sorry, I may have gone on a bit here...must have forgotten the medication today....
chris

Thanks for the post. For the record, mine doesn't really a sound "post" but rather sound posts! There is a small slab glued to the back but the piece between it and the top can best be visualized as looking like a bridge on an upright bass. There are two "posts". [Beautiful woodwork with purfling etc]
Anyway, your description re the sound is great. The guitar is killing through an amp but a bit dead on it's own. I will sell it rather than modify as someone who loves archtop boxes but needs to crank a little[or a lot!] will just love this axe .
thanks
Greg

just to finish off my description of removing the soundpost in my x500, today I steamed off the remains of the block which were still attached to the back, after I had sawn through the block ( see above post). I thought this was going to be a hard job, but actually, once I had figured out how to get a good flow of steam from the cappucino machine ( that's how you do it!!) and down the hose and steam needle, it came off easily in 5 minutes.

Strictly it's wasn't necessary to take it out, but looking through the f holes and seeing this strange sawn-off thing inside was putting me off a bit - also it would have been an issue if I ever want to sell. It's strange - if you know it's there, you can't help looking at it!! Anyway, now it looks as if it never had a soundpost installed. The acoustic sound has definitely improved.

Probably almost everyone reading this must think it's a very esoteric piece of info., but maybe someone, someday may need to know. If anyone's interested, I can supply more detail if you email me.. although I won't hold my breath....
Chris

Not at all, thanks for educating us!