Epiphone JC vs. Guild Starfire

[CosmicRay]

Hey Now -
Looks like GAS has once again set in....I never had or played either of the aforementioned basses. But I like both.
If anyone out there can enlighten me as to the characteristics of each, much appreciated.

 

[Jeff K]

Not sure which Starfire you're talking about. I had a Starfire II for awhile, and owned a Casady many years ago.

They're both very nice basses. I prefer the Casady because it's a 34" scale. The Casady has a single pickup in what I consider the "sweet spot". The Starfire II has two pickups and a 30 3/4" scale. It's probably more versatile than the Casady, but I like the tone of the Casady better. But that's totally subjective.

What I DON'T like about either is the placement of the neck-side strap button. I prefer it on the top horn. But you can have it moved if you know a competent tech or happen to be one yourself.

 

[T-34]

I tested JC before and I now own a Starfire 1.
I liked Casady's tone slightly better but the Starfire is much more comfortable both seated and standing: Casady has a very significant head dive problem that Starfire doesn't have...

 

[CosmicRay]

Not sure which Starfire you're talking about. I had a Starfire II for awhile, and owned a Casady many years ago.

They're both very nice basses. I prefer the Casady because it's a 34" scale. The Casady has a single pickup in what I consider the "sweet spot". The Starfire II has two pickups and a 30 3/4" scale. It's probably more versatile than the Casady, but I like the tone of the Casady better. But that's totally subjective.

What I DON'T like about either is the placement of the neck-side strap button. I prefer it on the top horn. But you can have it moved if you know a competent tech or happen to be one yourself.

Thank you, I would consider the Starfire II, if I went with Guild. But for either one, I'd move the strap button.
Another thing I noticed was the price. It looks like the Starfire II is almost twice the price as the JC. At least on Reverb.

 

[T-34]

Well, it has twice the pickup count, and what pickups these are!

 

[Mustang Surly]

You might find my post (about 1/3 of the way down the page) in this recent thread informative:

Cheap Hollowbody Basses?

As you might guess from my avatar, I love these basses.

One thing to consider (depending on how adaptable you are to varying specs) is that the Starfires have pretty narrow string spacing (1-1/2" nut, 17mm spacing at the bridge saddles). I find that comfortable but, if your frame of reference is, say, a P-bass (1-5/8", 19mm) you might find it cramped.

Country of origin of each of these bases (current production) if that matters to you:

JC: China (earlier ones were MIK, but those are getting harder to come by)
SFI (up til recently): Korea
SFI (current): Indonesia
SFII: Korea

Older-production SFI was made in Korea and had a single BiSonic pup at the bridge. The newer ones have a P-Bass type pup midway between the bridge and neck positions (see review in my post linked above).

Other changes on the Indo SFIs:
•scarf joint at the peghead
•no "Chesterfield" peghead inlay
•bound neck
•neck joins body @ 17th vs. 19th fret
•frets may be narrower (not sure about that)
•TOM-type bridge & "harp" tailpiece replacing Guild "harp" bridge
•HSC not included
•Less expensive

 

[T-34]

The new Starfire I is 19 mm spacing at bridge, and whatever Jazz Bass has as nut width in inches (38 mm in metric)

 

[Mustang Surly]

The new Starfire I is 19 mm spacing at bridge, and whatever Jazz Bass has as nut width in inches (38 mm in metric)

Thanks for pointing that out. I haven't played the new Indo one, so wasn't aware of that.

String spacing on the DeArmond Starfire basses made during the 1990s (to early 2000s?) were in between (about 18mm) and had metal, Fender-type "barrel" bridge saddles instead of the rosewood ones used on the MIK and most, early MIA Starfires. Many parts for the earliest Guild Starfire and Jetstar basses were inherited from Hagstrom.

(Note pups and bridge)

The MIA "re-issues" made at the Westerly, Rhode Island facility also used barrels on a harp-style bridge. Both the DeArmonds and the Westerlys were loaded with with humbucker pups instead of BiSonics, though there are exceptions since, during the MIA days, at times Guild seemed to occasionally use whatever parts were on had. But now I'm kinda getting into the weeds and beyond the scope of the OP's questions.

 

[ad9000]

I can offer my 2 cents on how those two compare, since I owned a Casady bass briefly and have spent time with a friend's Korean made Starfire II with BiSonics. The Casady being 34" scale might be easier to adapt to if you're not used to short scale basses. To my ears it sounded closer to a solid body bass (and it's also heavier than your average hollowbody), where the Starfire had much more of a classic hollow body character. Of the two I really preferred the Starfire, in fact I am jonesing for one as well. I never quite bonded with the Casady, though I know lots of people love them.

Other hollowbodies you might look at if you haven't already are the circa mid-2000's Lakland Skyline Hollowbody (they come up used occasionally) and the Hofner Verythin. I played the short scale version of the Verythin and thought it sounded great and played very easily. It comes in a 34" scale version also.

 

[CosmicRay]

You might find my post (about 1/3 of the way down the page) in this recent thread informative:

Cheap Hollowbody Basses?

As you might guess from my avatar, I love these basses.

One thing to consider (depending on how adaptable you are to varying specs) is that the Starfires have pretty narrow string spacing (1-1/2" nut, 17mm spacing at the bridge saddles). I find that comfortable but, if your frame of reference is, say, a P-bass (1-5/8", 19mm) you might find it cramped.

Country of origin of each of these bases (current production) if that matters to you:

JC: China (earlier ones were MIK, but those are getting harder to come by)
SFI (up til recently): Korea
SFI (current): Indonesia
SFII: Korea

Older-production SFI was made in Korea and had a single BiSonic pup at the bridge. The newer ones have a P-Bass type pup midway between the bridge and neck positions (see review in my post linked above).

Other changes on the Indo SFIs:
•scarf joint at the peghead
•no "Chesterfield" peghead inlay
•bound neck
•neck joins body @ 17th vs. 19th fret
•frets may be narrower (not sure about that)
•TOM-type bridge & "harp" tailpiece replacing Guild "harp" bridge
•HSC not included
•Less expensive

Thank you Mr Surly. I'm a J bass player, so the spacing should be ok. I do appreciate all the info that you provided. Very useful.

Thanks for pointing that out. I haven't played the new Indo one, so wasn't aware of that.

String spacing on the DeArmond Starfire basses made during the 1990s (to early 2000s?) were in between (about 18mm) and had metal, Fender-type "barrel" bridge saddles instead of the rosewood ones used on the MIK and most, early MIA Starfires. Many parts for the earliest Guild Starfire and Jetstar basses were inherited from Hagstrom.

View attachment 4536915
(Note pups and bridge)

The MIA "re-issues" made at the Westerly, Rhode Island facility also used barrels on a harp-style bridge. Both the DeArmonds and the Westerlys were loaded with with humbucker pups instead of BiSonics, though there are exceptions since, during the MIA days, at times Guild seemed to occasionally use whatever parts were on had. But now I'm kinda getting into the weeds and beyond the scope of the OP's questions.

Thanks for pointing that out. I haven't played the new Indo one, so wasn't aware of that.

String spacing on the DeArmond Starfire basses made during the 1990s (to early 2000s?) were in between (about 18mm) and had metal, Fender-type "barrel" bridge saddles instead of the rosewood ones used on the MIK and most, early MIA Starfires. Many parts for the earliest Guild Starfire and Jetstar basses were inherited from Hagstrom.

View attachment 4536915
(Note pups and bridge)

The MIA "re-issues" made at the Westerly, Rhode Island facility also used barrels on a harp-style bridge. Both the DeArmonds and the Westerlys were loaded with with humbucker pups instead of BiSonics, though there are exceptions since, during the MIA days, at times Guild seemed to occasionally use whatever parts were on had. But now I'm kinda getting into the weeds and beyond the scope of the OP's questions.

I remember in the late '60's the guitarist in my band played a Hagstrom. The switches are a giveaway.

 

[T-34]

I can offer my 2 cents on how those two compare, since I owned a Casady bass briefly and have spent time with a friend's Korean made Starfire II with BiSonics. The Casady being 34" scale might be easier to adapt to if you're not used to short scale basses. To my ears it sounded closer to a solid body bass (and it's also heavier than your average hollowbody), where the Starfire had much more of a classic hollow body character. Of the two I really preferred the Starfire, in fact I am jonesing for one as well. I never quite bonded with the Casady, though I know lots of people love them.

Other hollowbodies you might look at if you haven't already are the circa mid-2000's Lakland Skyline Hollowbody (they come up used occasionally) and the Hofner Verythin. I played the short scale version of the Verythin and thought it sounded great and played very easily. It comes in a 34" scale version also.

The 34" Hofner Verythin is a very different bass compared to the 30", it has a very substantial center block that makes this bass sound much closer to a solid body than to a hollow Hofner...

 

[ad9000]

The 34" Hofner Verythin is a very different bass compared to the 30", it has a very substantial center block that makes this bass sound much closer to a solid body than to a hollow Hofner...

That's very good to know, thank you for posting.

 

[Doug4321]

I have a Starfire II and played a JC in the store. Big difference is the pickups and scale length. Single coil on the Starfire II vs. humbucker on the JC. I like the brightness and natural clarity of single coils. The neck pickup has a great tone especially. I think the JC tends darker. The tones the Starfire puts out, you can also hear on old Dead and Airplane records.

The JC is nice to play, kinda between a P and a J. Starfire more compact of course.

I think the Starfire is put together a little better. Quality. I like the paint choices better on the Starfire.

 

[PaperbackRyder]

I had a JC for a couple of years, and never liked the neck profile, but the sound was great. Had ti.add ultra light tuners and a "mod bar" to the bridge which opened up the tone a lot. It sat in the mix similar to a PBass. But now I have two great PBasses so longer own the JC. SO if you want a P type sound with a very cool HoBo look, at a great price the JC is an awesome choice.
I am thinking about getting a Starfire II for the very rounded old school tone that would suit certain music I've been working on. Small acoustic gigs and some esoteric songwriter stuff

 

[Boneless]

I actually have both, the JC and the new Guild Starfire. They are similar but not quite. Apart from long scale vs short scale, and even though they share pickup position (which makes them sound Precision-y) the JC is more of a Gibson-school instrument, so darker and chunkier. The Guild instead is sort of a Mustang, if you will. Kind of bright and more Fender-y. Neither are "true" hollowbody basses (the Guild has a centre block, the JC has sort of a centre block, it's more of a thick brace running along the back, but it does make the body much more rigid than a true hollowbody). The JC sits in the mix really nicely, in a different way to a Precision (it's thicker, it's more even sounding and kind of less articulate, but in a good way). The Guild is more similar to a Precision in the way it sounds, with a bit more... bloom? Dunno. Either way, a very nice bass as well. The Guild is better suited to flats, in my opinion, whereas I find that flats and the JC are a bad fit, it's far too dark and thuddy for flats, I think it shines with rounds.