New Guild Starfire with Split P

[Chris P.]

https://guildguitars.com/g/starfire-i-bass-cherry-red/

[Highlander]

Not an enhancement, imho...

[Alanko]

I'm wondering if Guild are trying to break into the corner of the market the Jack Casady basses occupy? Double cutaway hollow-type bass with single pickup in the 'sweet spot'?

The regrettable thing is that they could have used a standard P pickup, which would make these a potentially versatile modding platform. A Dimarzio Model P is going to sound nothing like a Bartolini in the same position on that bass, which would draw a wider audience to this model. As it stands you're hamstrung with those proprietary pickups unless you can get Curtis Novak to wind a drop-in replacement. The harp tailpiece and separate bridge remind me of those Hagstrom Viking basses, and the binding on the neck isn't true to the original Starfires either.

[Chris P.]

I was shocked first, but I like it. It reminds me a bit of the Eccleshall basses of Peter Hook.

I think such a bass with a middle pickup is a good thing. The succes of the JCS - I think - is partly because every player of a Fender/Yamaha/Ibanez or whatever 'normal' bass, doesn't have to adjust. Put down your P, grab a JCS and it's an easy change. Different if you pick up an SG Bass.
Same with the LP Jr Tribute and its middle pickup. And it will sound good.

About changing pickups: My two reissue comp Mustangs have Nordstrands. All my other basses have stock pickups. Not everybody has the urge to change pickups.

[Basvarken]

I like it!
The chrome casing round the split pickup works great for this bass.
The Tune-o-matic bass bridge looks a bit cheap(ish), but it wouldn't be a deal breaker for me (provided that it's placed correctly)

[Pilgrim]

I like it!
The chrome casing round the split pickup works great for this bass.
The Tune-o-matic bass bridge looks a bit cheap(ish), but it wouldn't be a deal breaker for me (provided that it's placed correctly)

This is my response as well. I have no problem with a single pickup variation on this very attractive bass, and the chrome accent appeals to me.

The bridge puts me in mind of the Gretsch basses, and I'm a fan of them - So I would expect it to work very well.

[Granny Gremlin]

I'm wondering if Guild are trying to break into the corner of the market the Jack Casady basses occupy? Double cutaway hollow-type bass with single pickup in the 'sweet spot'?

The regrettable thing is that they could have used a standard P pickup, which would make these a potentially versatile modding platform. A Dimarzio Model P is going to sound nothing like a Bartolini in the same position on that bass, which would draw a wider audience to this model. As it stands you're hamstrung with those proprietary pickups unless you can get Curtis Novak to wind a drop-in replacement. The harp tailpiece and separate bridge remind me of those Hagstrom Viking basses, and the binding on the neck isn't true to the original Starfires either.

Is it not standard size - are we sure; I don't see any dimensions/specs for it?  I admit that the metal frame makes the pup look really skinny/long, but it probably is standard (it would be sooooo stupid if not, totally agree).

They are obviously not trying to be a true to the original reissue with this (P pup) so the binding doesn't bother me.  Its an attempt to bling it up a little.  What's a turn off to me is that scarf joined headstock (money badly spent - give me no scarf joint and hold the binding is a better choice IMHO).  We've debated those before and though most people aren't bothered, that is literally the worst place to put it in terms of robustness/stability.  At least when it's down the neck at the 2nd-4th fret it is stronger.  I had to fix one like that on a friend's acoustic.

[D.M.N.]

Is it not standard size - are we sure; I don't see any dimensions/specs for it?  I admit that the metal frame makes the pup look really skinny/long, but it probably is standard (it would be sooooo stupid if not, totally agree).

They are obviously not trying to be a true to the original reissue with this (P pup) so the binding doesn't bother me.  Its an attempt to bling it up a little.  What's a turn off to me is that scarf joined headstock (money badly spent - give me no scarf joint and hold the binding is a better choice IMHO).  We've debated those before and though most people aren't bothered, that is literally the worst place to put it in terms of robustness/stability.  At least when it's down the neck at the 2nd-4th fret it is stronger.  I had to fix one like that on a friend's acoustic.

I was just about to say I don't like the look of that scarf joint on the back. The headstock also appears to be a different shape, the 12th fret markers are also more tightly spaced, you can see another seam at the base of the neck where it joins the body, and also seems like that connection is now flush instead of slightly stair-stepped. Weird to have so many changes in the basic build for what should just equate to a pickup swap. Can't make a comment about them being good or bad either way, but seems odd.

[Dave W]

[BTL]

I really like it.

[Rob]

Like it with binding. . . not so much without.

[morrow]

Works for me , always loved shortscale hollowbodies .

[Pilgrim]

Works for me , always loved shortscale hollowbodies .

True!  That's a generally true statement for me as well.

[Dave W]

It's that P pickup that spoils it for me. Looks completely out of place.

But hey. there just aren't enough basses with split P pickups, we need more, more, more...

[Basvarken]

It's that P pickup that spoils it for me. Looks completely out of place.

Looks perfect to me. Thanks to the chrome ring/casing.
Simple, classic.

Bass sounds the part too: