Is it true that a 1968 F-30 NT has laminated back and sides ?

Is it true that a 1968 F-30 NT has laminated (mahogany) back and sides ?

I'm looking at a 1968 F-30 NT. But read a 1968 F-30 NT is described as laminated (mahogany) back and sides, as below:
http://www.retrofret.com/products.asp?ProductID=6473
But I see there're center bar and braces on back (mahogany) on almost all 1968 F-30 NT.

Is it true that a 1968 F-30 NT has laminated (mahogany) back and sides ?
Any input would be much appreciated.

And a bit more questions:
The dimensions the seller provides are as below:
Overall length is 40 3/4 in. (103.5 cm.), 15 1/4 in. (38.7 cm.) wide at lower bout, and 4 1/4 in. (10.8 cm.) in depth at side, taken at the end block. Scale length is 24 1/2 in. (622 mm.). Width of nut is 1 11/16 in. (43 mm.).

Question:
1, nut width
============
The following two sellers say it has 1 5/8'' nut width.
https://www.gbase.com/gear/guild-aragon-f30nt-1968-spruce-mahogany
https://www.gregsguitars.net/guild-f30nt-aragon-for-sale.html
But that on retrofret.com is claimed it's 1 11/16''.

2, scale length
============
Gruhn's Guide to vintage guitars(p376) says F-30, 24 3/4'', 1959. But this on retrofret.com is claimed 24 1/2''. SO SHORT ? I'VE NEVER SEEN. GUILD REALLY ?

Short answer? No.

Always solid top and solid sides. If it has an arched back then the back only is laminated, but if flat then it is solid.

Come to think of it, I’m not sure I’ve seen an arched back F-30, but I’m probably wrong on that account. Maybe during the “small jumbo” period?

Highly doubtful. Aside from the later archback acoustics, which have no back bracing, the only laminated backs were when they were conserving their remaining Brazilian RW stock, and in some highly figured maple back archtops.
There would be no reason to laminate a mahogany back and sides in this period. The wood was plentiful, and they were, as you said, using standard back bracing.

marius said:

I’m not sure I’ve seen an arched back F-30, but I’m probably wrong on that account. Maybe during the “small jumbo” period?

Click to expand...

I have a Guild catalog from 1981 (catalog #9000). In this particular catalog, the F-30 is listed as having an arched back.

The pictured guitar is the small-jumbo version, but the back is not shown. In the front shot, the back cannot be seen through the soundhole.

Edit: To be clear, we know flat-back F-30s in the small-jumbo shape are plentiful, and have solid back & sides - whether in the mahogany or rosewood versions.

Tangentially and anecdotally, the F-30 is the poster child for a model number that does not change but specs that do. It is possible to derive the correct specs knowing some combination of the serial number, factory, time period and anything appended to the model number, but many sellers do not know or care. Thus they will search for F-30 specs and grab the first response and include it in the description of the guitar they are selling. That is often not the correct answer for the guitar being sold.

fronobulax said:

Tangentially and anecdotally, the F-30 is the poster child for a model number that does not change but specs that do. It is possible to derive the correct specs knowing some combination of the serial number, factory, time period and anything appended to the model number, but many sellers do not know or care. Thus they will search for F-30 specs and grab the first response and include it in the description of the guitar they are selling. That is often not the correct answer for the guitar being sold.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it was what I thought. But it's interesting that there's a 1965 F-30 sold on retrofret.com with a wholly different dimensions description than a 1968 F-30 they have.

Scale length:
==============
1968 F-30: 24 1/2''(inconsistency)
1965 F-30: 24 3/4''(consistency)

As below:
1965 F-30
http://www.retrofret.com/products.asp?ProductID=7034
Overall length is 40 in. (101.6 cm.), 15 1/4 in. (38.7 cm.) wide at lower bout, and 4 in. (10.2 cm.) in depth at side. Scale length is 24 3/4 in. (629 mm.). Width of nut is 1 11/16 in. (43 mm.).

It seems to be that retrofret.com measures every piece of guitar they acquire.

But there's another abnormal data for 1965 F-30: "4 in. (10.2 cm.) in depth at side". Usual data for Guild F-30 at this period is 4 1/4''(4 1/8'' for Martin 000). That's 1/4'' diff, considerable.

Just to be clear, guys, I had a 1967 F-50R which had laminated rosewood arched back *and* laminated sides. I'm not saying that was ever the case normally, but they did do some experimentation in the mid-late '60s that could've resulted in some odd ducks... I don't know if any of that happened in the F-30, but I just wanted to be a little bit circumspect in concluding that everything was solid.

gotomsdos said:

Yeah, it was what I thought. But it's interesting that there's a 1965 F-30 sold on retrofret.com with a wholly different dimensions description than a 1968 F-30 they have.

Scale length:
==============
1968 F-30: 24 1/2''(inconsistency)
1965 F-30: 24 3/4''(consistency)

Click to expand...

F30's actually went through 2 size changes between their inception and the "mini-jumbo" shape of ca. '71, and '65 was a spec change year IIRC.
Boom of folk music: let's add a touch of width and depth.
But 24-1/2" scale?
NEVER.
And while 1-11/16 was by far Guild's most common nut width for flattops overall, yes there were periods when F30's got 1-5/8 nuts, and Guild was very loose about introducing such changes "on the fly".
Like the depth/width change: they didn't do things on the first day of a calendar year, they just started doing it whenever it was expedient in the production process, that's why 2 pieces from the same year could have different specs.

Besides '65 being a transition year***, one other factor with body depth is that Guild's body bucks were not all exactly equal depth, they could be 'off-spec' by as much as +/-1/4".
After making a rim they'd sand the sides down level with the sides of the buck, and that was the body depth for that piece. So 2 guitars built right next to each other could potentially have as much as a 1/2" difference in depth between 'em!
I've described this before and might have some details of the construction process incorrect, but the end result was still that variation in depth from piece to piece.
Hans Moust first explained it many years ago.
I also just remembered that was about Westerly specifically, don't know if it was true in Hoboken in '65, but seems like it would still be the same issue of tolerances on body bucks.
In any case it might come in handy to know if you're looking at anything built from about '68 forward.
Westerly's first guitars were M20's in '67, and D25's and D35's were introduced and built there in '68, not sure when other models were carried over, but all the flattops were being built there by '69.
Even though labels still said "Hoboken" into '70.
Welcome to the wonderful world of Guild:

"Rules? We don't gotta show you no stinkin' rules!"

***Actually '65 saw a change in 'guards and volute on neck, but not apparently in depth or width, at least not noted in the Guild Guitar Book

chazmo said:

Just to be clear, guys, I had a 1967 F-50R which had laminated rosewood arched back *and* laminated sides. I'm not saying that was ever the case normally, but they did do some experimentation in the mid-late '60s that could've resulted in some odd ducks... I don't know if any of that happened in the F-30, but I just wanted to be a little bit circumspect in concluding that everything was solid.

Click to expand...

Now that is something that would have never crossed my mind looking at any American made 60s acoustic.

Br1ck said:

Now that is something that would have never crossed my mind looking at any American made 60s acoustic.

Click to expand...

As Chaz said, "Experimentation": Hans mentions one of the Westerly honchos describing arched rosewood backs specifically, as an example of the leeway they had for experimentation.
And that might have even been a different "batch" than Chaz's, because a there were also a limited number of arched-back rosewood F50's (like 6 finished ?) built to Bob Weir's special request with an oversize headstock, ca '69.
It occurs to me that perhaps the lamination was attempt to control "boominess" that could result from the combination of rosewood and arched back?
That combo is so rare for 'em that I think there must have been a reason, and I can only think of one other model that featured it: the DCE-5, and it too had laminated rosewood b/s.
And a high rate of owner "underwhelm-ment" with the unplugged sound.
Otherwise seems like no reason to use lamination, and even a materials cost reason against it, for sides at least.

Br1ck said:

Now that is something that would have never crossed my mind looking at any American made 60s acoustic.

Click to expand...

Exactly, Br1ck! Yeah, the guys in the Hoboken shop were pretty creative. I think those '67 arched rosewood F-50R and F-412SPEC were attempts to make some Brazilian wood stash that they had last a little bit longer, particularly one that was wide enough for a jumbo, 2-piece back. I imagine that was pretty rare even back then.

While we're at it, I recall seeing a flat-backed *maple* F-50 which I suspect was solid wood from the early '60s (again, Hoboken). So, this one went in the opposite direction.

Message: get a close look at an item from the '60s before you confirm whatever specs are important to you.

What about my '71 F-30 "Aragorn", solid or lam back and sides?

It's a really nice grade of Mahogany, with quasi tiger stripe grain in the places where it counts.

Guildedagain said:

What about my '71 F-30 "Aragorn", solid or lam back and sides?

It's a really nice grade of Mahogany, with quasi tiger stripe grain in the places where it counts.

Click to expand...

Never heard of F30's having lam sides OR backs (unless it was an arched-back version).
Could be wrong, but lam sides definitely would have been an exception with them, and done for a reason.
Standard build formula for Guild flatback acoustics was all solid woods.
As Frono mentioned, suspect the seller simply copied the first set of specs they could find and those may have been incorrect too, especially if from another seller.

adorshki said:

So 2 guitars built right next to each other could potentially have as much as a 1/2"

Click to expand...

WoW, God !

gotomsdos said:

WoW, God !

Click to expand...

:glee:
When it first came up I believe it was about Westerly D50's.
The only reason I suspect it would have been the same in Hoboken is based on a comment from member Acornhouse a couple of months back that when it came to tooling, 1/4" is about as tight as they could make tolerances back in the days before such things as NC-controlled machining, so don't see a reason that Hoboken could have had any tighter specs on the depth of their bucks, regardless of body shape, than Westerly.
Just to clarify that regarding F30's specifically this is deduction not confirmed fact.
Also pretty sure Hoboken's bucks must have gone to Westerly (Al Dronge was known for never throwing anything away that still had useful life, especially parts) and that in the case of F30's specifically, suspect additional bucks were made to accommodate the increased demand for 'em, as well as to accommodate the introduction of the F-112 in '68, which used F30 bodies.

adorshki said:

:glee:
When it first came up I believe it was about Westerly D50's.
The only reason I suspect it would have been the same in Hoboken is based on a comment from member Acornhouse a couple of months back that when it came to tooling, 1/4" is about as tight as they could make tolerances back in the days before such things as NC-controlled machining, so don't see a reason that Hoboken could have had any tighter specs on the depth of their bucks, regardless of body shape, than Westerly.
Just to clarify that regarding F30's specifically this is deduction not confirmed fact.
Also pretty sure Hoboken's bucks must have gone to Westerly (Al Dronge was known for never throwing anything away that still had useful life, especially parts) and that in the case of F30's specifically, suspect additional bucks were made to accommodate the increased demand for 'em, as well as to accommodate the introduction of the F-112 in '68, which used F30 bodies.

Click to expand...

Thanks OIC !