adorshki
Reverential Member
Yes that series had a lot of different wood formulas.
This site has most of 'em listed:
http://www.westerlyguildguitars.com/
... but there are some spec errors there that actually appeared in Guild's catalogs, because you'll note a lot of the spec sheets cite a Guild catalog source.
That's why I was surprised at the 24-3/4 scale combined with the 1-5/8 nut on F45ce's.
That was a pretty unusual combination for flattops but more common on electrics, so I think they literally used electric fretboards on those even if they might have been mounted on acoustic necks, if there was a different mounting method needed.
Example the '97 catalog shows that combination occurring on the S100 Polara only, all other 24-3/4 scale necks show the 1-11/16 nut.
The '96 catalog shows it on the S4ce Songbird as well.
RE laminated back/ sides: As far a I know the sides were solid on all the "Fce's" although arched backs were laminated.
While that's not a tone-killer when used for a back, there are subtle nuances that make an arched back sound different than a traditional solid flatback.
In general an arched back is probably better at enriching the sound of strummed chords because it enhances sustain and overtones, but a flatbacks' seen as probably more suited for fingerpicking or simple "punch", the individual notes are clearer because of less sustain and overtones.
Rule of thumb: When the guitar's spec'd with a "solid" back it's flat. When it just gives the wood type it's a pretty sure bet it's an archback.
Going by that, I'd narrow your focus to an F47ce.
They considered that one so versatile they offered it in all 3 body woods, 'hog, maple, and rosewood, but only the maple version got the arched back.
They were also full-depth guitars.
Most of the oval soundhole guitars were relatively shallow depth and that and/or the back configuration and/or just a set of strings that maybe really weren't right for the guitar could have yielded disappointing results to your ears.
I think they're well worth more exploration.
I love my F665ce to death.
I don't think I even became aware of the "nut width" issue until I joined here.
I do recall threads in which it was mentioned that it was a popular size for fingerpickers, so I suspect the real motive is not so much to copy Taylor as to appeal to a new market demographic that has more preference for the width.
I've only tried a couple myself. One (can't even remember the make, now) was definitely too wide in terms of space between the strings even close to the nut.
The other was a buddy's Larrivee Taylor that I could have adjusted to over time, because the string spacing at the bridge was such that the strings didn't get so far apart as I went up the fretboard.
