Post Number: 463
|Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2008 - 8:07 am: |
I'm beginning to excercise some restraint.This is definitely testing the waters.
Post Number: 325
|Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2008 - 9:16 am: |
Looks really nice! There's a discrepancy in the listing though - he calls it a '66 in the title, but in the description it's a '68. I have a feeling he read the serial number wrong - the bridge changed from the style seen here to more diagonal somewhere around 1460 or 1470. (I'm not totally obsessed about this kind of thing, but know someone who is) I'd be willing to bet it's a '66.
Post Number: 3165
|Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2008 - 12:52 pm: |
Original strings! Now that's unusual!
Post Number: 331
|Posted on Wednesday, July 09, 2008 - 6:47 pm: |
The '68 mentioned is in "a review of a similar Guild Starfire a couple of years newer...." Not a discrepancy, but rather unclear writing. This one is a '66 (and yummy - except maybe for the 48-year-old strings).
Post Number: 28
|Posted on Monday, July 14, 2008 - 12:15 pm: |
Why does the description say the finish is black, when in the picture it's cherry red?
Post Number: 334
|Posted on Monday, July 14, 2008 - 12:49 pm: |
Again, from the point in the listing where the font changes, the seller is quoting a review of different instrument - presumably for the benifit of those not familiar with the Starfire.