Guild D-50 with lotsa bling.

[Etienne Rambert]

I have been known to buy guitars with bling. But they're hand-made in Vietnam. And they all cost a pittance compared to premium US-made name brands like Guilds.

 

Personally, I would not bling a name brand, especially over the brand name logo itself. But this seller sure blinged his 1975 Guild D-50 up. This bling is very high quality work. It's as good as I've seen in Saigon shops. He must've had it done in Asia.

 

In fact, I've been cutting down on the bling with my newer acquisitions, a cutaway jumbo and a Mahogany archtop.

 

When I restored my 1972 Guild D-25, I had no bling at all, except for the getting the Guild logo re-done in Abalone.

[Hoddy]

While I can appreciate the craftsmanship that went into that, personally I think it's gaudy.

[Etienne Rambert]

I suspect customized bling lowers the resale value of an expensive name brand instrument like a Guild D-50. The seller is betting people will pay a premium for the added bling.

 

I think bling on a hand-made guitar by a small shop luthier can add to the resale value of a guitar. I think bling added at the factory can add to the resale value of a name-brand instrument.

 

But I suspect Martins, Guilds, Gibsons, etc., lose value with post-manufacture bling put on by free-lancers. I've seen a Martin D-18 and this particular Guild sit unsold for a long time. Both have lots of bling that was added by inlay artists - not by the factory.

 

Guitars are sort of like cars. I wouldn't want to buy a rare car, like a 55 T-Bird if it was customized. Stock versions of classic cars are usually more expensive than customized versions.

[Terry Allan Hall]

Guild afficianos share their thoughts:

 

http://letstalkguild.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3991&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

 

http://letstalkguild.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3924&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

 

I, myself, like the fingerboard inlay work, and the butterfly is nicely done by Sheen, but I'd've thought it would look better on the pickguard, rather than over the Guild logo...actually, were I to have the work done, I'd've chosen a celtic dragon, rather than a butterfly, would've had a pair of little bookmarked celtic dragons on each end of the bridge, and the guitar would've been a F-47.

[T.B.]

I suspect customized bling lowers the resale value of an expensive name brand instrument like a Guild D-50. The seller is betting people will pay a premium for the added bling. I think bling on a hand-made guitar by a small shop luthier can add to the resale value of a guitar. I think bling added at the factory can add to the resale value of a name-brand instrument. But I suspect Martins, Guilds, Gibsons, etc., lose value with post-manufacture bling put on by free-lancers. I've seen a Martin D-18 and this particular Guild sit unsold for a long time. Both have lots of bling that was added by inlay artists - not by the factory. Guitars are sort of like cars. I wouldn't want to buy a rare car, like a 55 T-Bird if it was customized. Stock versions of classic cars are usually more expensive than customized versions.

 

Hum ...... interesting inlay for sure. If this Guild had been built at the now defunct Guild Tennessee Custom Shop, his starting bidding price would be fine. But since that's not the case here......... nah I'd pass.

 

Trina

[redhawks2]

One of the lookers in the auction asked a question that the seller side stepped. And that is why are there two different tags shown in the listing with the same serial number?? Something mighty fishy here!?!?!

[fingerpicker]

I don't think I could get used to a butterfly inlay headstock!

[guitarcapo]

I think it suffers from bling imbalance. Too much on the neck, and none on the body. Not even around the front edge like on a D-41. A typical amateur mistake.

[Etienne Rambert]

Some in other forums have questioned the origins of the guitar. I don't. I just question the tastefulness of the bling.

 

Since I live in one of the major locales of brand-name counterfeiting, I have some idea what Asians can successfully counterfeit in their acoustic guitars and what they can't.

 

Counterfeiters here can use more expensive woods than the originals. But the tuners on the counterfeit instruments will truly suck. Most likely the strings will suck too. And you can't really tell those from the internet.

 

Counterfeiters can get the shape, size dimensions of a guitar to perfection. But they might mispell a or get the script wrong in a basic English word or name. Maybe the angle, font or the line-spacing of printed words on the paper label will be suspect. They're more likely to get a stamp-in serial number at the wrong angle or in the wrong font, than they are to get the curvature of a headstock wrong.

 

So I don't challenge that this is actually a Guild. I couldn't do that via internet photos. And if I were an Asian counterfeiter, I would try to make it look as stock as possible. This seller also has a good reputation.

 

The bling BTW, is first-rate. I've seen a lot of bling over here. That headstock butterfly is as good as it gets. A bit large, perhaps, but beautifully done. I just don't think it belongs on the headstock. I agree with GC on the proportions too. Good observation.

 

Butterflies, BTW, are a very common theme for bling over here. I even have a butterfly on an Indian Rosewood I bought for a client last year. (Bottom photo).

 

Now here's a 70's-era D-50 that looks more attractive to this shopper. $800 + shipping.

[denvertrakker]

He's got one bid - so somebody's bought into it.

[GenoD55]

I agree . . . a little heavy on the left; or the right, depending on if you are gonna look at it or actually play it! I've a 72 Guild D55 in pretty damn good condition and would not blitz it out like the one being discussed. Plus a guitar that aged will surely need a refretting at a "sooner-than-later" timeframe.

 

The "stock" originals are the true collectables; sans the over-the-top mods that we see here. By the way, I got the D55 for 1100 clams; Guilds made today are made in China and are relatively "okay" for what you pay for them (although that too depends with whom you speak).

[Etienne Rambert]

I'm getting GAS I think. I want a D-55.

 

$2000+

 

Hold the bling please.

 

I could buy a heck of a nice synth for that kind of money. But I already have nice synths.

[EvilTwin]

I prefer a fairly spartan guitar...but I do appreciate the time and effort that must've gone into those elaborate inalys.

 

The D-55, IMO, is almost too "bling-y." But it pulls a great look off. You may wanna play one first, though, Marcellis. Especially the new ones. The "Bluegrass" Guild USA dreads sound...well, like a Bluegrasser. The D-55's, though, aren't as heavy on the lows. To my ears, anyway.

[Etienne Rambert]

Maybe you saved me $2000 ET. I'll just get the top on my maple dread stained to that tone of sunburst.

[Etienne Rambert]

Maybe you saved me $2000 ET. I'll just get the top on my maple dread stained to that tone of sunburst.

 

What you're describing sounds more like Maple than Rosewood. Although I don't know what kind of Rosewood the D-55 is using.

 

Since I gave the old Guild back to my kid though - I don't own one.

 

We'll see. I have a trip coming up.

[EvilTwin]

Maybe you saved me $2000 ET. I'll just get the top on my maple dread stained to that tone of sunburst. What you're describing sounds more like Maple than Rosewood. Although I don't know what kind of Rosewood the D-55 is using. Since I gave the old Guild back to my kid though - I don't own one. We'll see. I have a trip coming up.

 

The D-55 I played didn't sound like a maple dread to me...but that's JMO. I think the -55 sounds a little less bassy, but it doesn't lose the "reverb-y" tone that makes rosewood dreads sound so fat and gutsy, either. It's an interesting beast. Well worth playing, at least. And if you don't dig it, try the D50.

[JoeyJoJo]

The guild is nice, the first link... not so much