Great presentation. I love the depth of tones-deep bass, bright but not chimney highs, and the balanced mids. Lots of “presence”. I bet you could feel the air coming out of the sound hole. The D50 and this D40 are certainly on my “to look at” list. Great job, boys.
Oh Chris, you are such an AMAZING guitar player!,he stays gushingly. (Sony, I had to). Nice guitar. Honestly great to hear Chris again. You too work so well together and know your products!
That Guild ‘burst sure sounds great. Will have to check it out. I still have my Guild D-40 Natural, purchased new in 1978. Good box, no issues minor or major. Thanks for doing the video!
Hi Guys! Thanks for all the great videos and helpful information you share with us. Guild acoustic guitars have always been my favorite. I would go with the D50! Although I had a Martin D41 more recently, years ago I had an incredible Guild HD50 Dreadnought with what I believe may have been a Cedar top. I'm not sure if it was a HD50, but I think it was one of a kind and not common. I bought it used. I am SO sorry I ever let it go. I have never found anything comparable since. I'm wondering though, if you ever have Eastman guitars in your store. Would it be possible for you to demo and review an Eastman E20D-SB Traditional Rosewood Sunburst Dreadnaught Acoustic Guitar? I would love to hear your honest opinion! Thanks again!
I love Guilds! I owned a D4 HG( high gloss). Solid top and arched back. With case it was $650! Fender realized they made no money on it they pulled it! Sounded way better than the satin they offered at the time! Long for a D55!!
Even though they're both made from similar woods, the D-18 and D-40 are a bit different. The D-18 has a huge spike in low mids and a classic, more traditional sound. The D-40 is more balanced (and also has a deeper bass). Both guitars are probably the two best readily available mahogany guitars on the market for the past 50+ years.
And From a physics standpoint, at the size level of braces, the strength to weight ratio is going to be the same between Sitka and Adirondack. It makes a difference top vs top of course… but when it comes to bracing, luthiers seem skeptical whether it does. Just what I’ve read on guitar forums anyway 😂
could you answer the questions .....Is the martin D-18 satin amber burst all satin OR a semi-gloss like the D-40 pacific sunset burst AND both being dreadnoughts are they the same width and depth at the lower bout?
Do a d-40 vs d-40 traditional! That dovetail neck makes more difference than the finish. 😉 that gets it a little closer to a d-18- super unique sound. Would love to see a d-18 vs d-40T vs d-40! In many ways these are better than the original guilds, which lacked scalloping in many cases, as characteristic of that era for Martin too.
I would question the idea that scalloping is automatically 'better'. Wood varies in density and stiffness, and these are factory production guitars. They'll vary. In some cases scalloping may well weaken the top particularly if medium or heavy gauge strings are used. In support of this comment - I've owned eleven Martin dreadnoughts, one of which had scalloped bracing and needed a top replacement because of excessive bellying due to string tension.
@@gam1471 Not automatically better, just different. Alamo Music Center has actually argued that, very generally speaking, scalloped bracing is better. Usually it's a cost-saving measure to not scallop braces, which is why we saw braces no longer getting scalloped once WWII started.
Thanks for your interesting comment, and I can see your point that non-scalloped tops would be cheaper to produce. The story I've heard down the years is that the early scalloped tops weren't strong enough, and Martin had to repair or replace a lot of these. This would fit with the 'X' junction being moved closer to the bridge in I think 1939. I suppose that a dealer who's seen a lot of old Martins would know if this is true. As an aside, the early dreadnoughts didn't have a 'popsicle' or tongue brace, which in some resulted in cracking on either side of the top next to the fingerboard - I've seen this for myself. An official Martin repairman once told me that dreadnoughts are more susceptible to problems like these than OOO or smaller guitars. @@JesseDylanMusic
@@gam1471 Interesting! Yeah, it's hard to sort fact from hypotheses. Greig Hutton's book (Martin Guitars 1833-1969, or something like that) basically casts doubt on the whole "heavy strings were ruining tops" theory, or even disproves it outright by showing people weren't actually using heavy strings. But then, like you said... why move the x brace backwards? In the end, it may have been both; they stopped scalloping to save labor costs, and they perhaps also moved the x-brace to reduce warranty costs. Although they've put the X back where it was and resumed scalloping, they still build heavier guitars than in the pre-war days (of course). On the other hand, the surviving pre-war guitars are pretty darn sturdy.
I think you're right on all counts. I've not read the Hutton book; I'll try and find a copy - thanks for bringing it to my attention. 🙂 @@JesseDylanMusic
If guild would come out with a Mississippi John Hurt model it would sell like hotcakes. Then again I’m a lefty, and guilds rarely carry lefty so I’m SOL regardless.
@@PGrizzy91 yeah, I didn’t mean Oates was a treasure! LOL! I meant the guitar is his treasure…. I have heard him play it, and he definitely channels some MJH… plays some pretty good blues. And he shows great respect for MJH.
