12'' fretboard radius for MIA Guilds VS 16'' radius for MIC Guilds - Why?

ClydeTower

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
585
Reaction score
7
Location
Montreal
Hi,

Anybody have an opinion as to why American made Guilds have fretboards with a 12'' radius while Guilds made in China have a 16'' radius?

The general consensus seems to be that a flatter radius (16'') is best suited for lead play or fingerstyle while a rounder radius (12'') is better suited for chording. Martins are 16'', Taylors are 15'', Gibsons are 12''... Personally, I think I prefer the playability of Guilds (and Gibsons) because in part of the 12'' radius. So why would Guild make its Chinese guitars with a 16'' radius?

If they're going to offer different radius', wouldn't it be more logical that OM size guitars or smaller aimed more for fingerstyle get the 16'' radius, while dreadnought and jumbo's get the 12'' radius, no matter if they're MIA or MIC?

Thanks for the enlightenment :)

Claude
 

ClydeTower

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
585
Reaction score
7
Location
Montreal
Bump...
Anybody have experience or comment on playability regarding the 16'' radius on the MIC Guilds?
 

swiveltung

Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
425
Reaction score
79
Location
Pac NW
I dont know, but I like the 12" myself. I find the 16" hard on my hands for some reason. The other thing is many of the newer Guilds have a 1.75 nut also dont they? I dislike that as well.
 

chazmo

Super Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
25,443
Reaction score
7,105
Location
Central Massachusetts
No idea, Claude. The necks, truss rods, etc on the MIC Guilds (GAD,100-series,Westerly-series) have really no relationship to USA-built Guilds. Well, at least not under Fender's stewardship. One guy who had significant impact on the MIC Guild designs, Tim Shaw, was a Fender guy with a lot of Guild-specific experience behind him. Beyond him, there was practically no interrelationship between the New Hartford facility and the GAD line. These days, under CMG's (Cordoba) ownership, the picture might be different.

As far as I know, no one ever asked that question during our Let's Meet Guild events in New Hartford (when Tim or other Fender brass were present).
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,789
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
Bump...
Anybody have experience or comment on playability regarding the 16'' radius on the MIC Guilds?
No personal experience but I'm sure your original conjecture is correct, the MIC's were targeted towards finger-pickers because they also offered 1-3/4" nuts at a time (2004) when Guild didn't offer any 1-3/4 nut option.
OR a small folk-body option; ie no F30's or F20's were made in Corona.
Guild only formally announced a uniform 12" fingerboard radius in the first Guild Gallery, Winter '97.
It was probably pretty universal before, but I've never seen anything spec'ing fingerboard radii for periods before that, only member reports here of 'em varying primarily in early years, late '50's-'60's, especially on electrics, and some first year ('64) D50's and D40's built with 1-3/4 nuts and very flat fingerboards.
As for "matching" the radii between sources by body type, Guild USA had no say in what the specs were, GAD's were entirely Fender corporate babies so that would have had to be imposed by Fender on the GAD's, not Guild.
Actually I'm not so sure the dreadnoughts didn't offer a 12" radius, I only remember the folk bodies offering that.
Ah, here we go: GAD25 with 12" fretboard radius:
https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/GAD25--guild-gad-25
However, I see that the Westerly Collection does show 16" radius on the dreadnoughts.
( I see Chaz and Swiveltung posted while I was composing this.)
Chaz's comment about Tim Shaw was news to me or at least I'd forgotten I'd ever seen it, but it still corroborates my understanding of the relationship between Guild USA and the MIC models, under Fender.
 
Last edited:

ClydeTower

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
585
Reaction score
7
Location
Montreal
The necks, truss rods, etc on the MIC Guilds (GAD,100-series,Westerly-series) have really no relationship to USA-built Guilds.

I thought there was some correlation in specs between MIC and MIA models, ex: M-120 vs M-20, D-120 vs D-20, D-140 vs D-40... the specs are similar, but differ in some key areas like nut width are fretboard radius.
I'm curious if this is a conscious decision by Guild to offer similar guitars but with 2 different player profiles. If so, if we generally associate 1 3/4'' nut widths + 16'' fretboard radius with easier lead/fingerstyle play and 1 11/16'' nut widths + 12'' fretboard radius with easier chording/strumming play, I wonder why the designers at Guild would target MIC guitars with the lead/fingerstyle profile type of setup and MIA guitars with the chording/struming profile...

The reason I'm asking is I've been auditioning some Martin OM and 000 type guitars lately and have discovered how much fretboard radius affects playability. Martins all have a 16'' radius and I can't seem to find one on which I feel comfortable, no matter the nut width or neck profile. I also tried some MIC Guilds and felt the same... when I checked the specs and saw the MICs had a 16'' radius it finally dawned on me that the radius was the issue and why I feel most comfortable with MIA Guilds and Gibsons...

So MIC Guilds seem to be off the table for me...

I was curious how LTGers liked the flatter necks of the MICs?
 

chazmo

Super Moderator
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
25,443
Reaction score
7,105
Location
Central Massachusetts
I thought there was some correlation in specs between MIC and MIA models, ex: M-120 vs M-20, D-120 vs D-20, D-140 vs D-40... the specs are similar, but differ in some key areas like nut width are fretboard radius. [ . . . ]
Claude, the MIC models bear some resemblance to their US counterparts, but if you're looking for correlation in the specs then I think you're off track. AFAIK, these were clean sheet designs. The intent was to sell into a different price point with the Guild name.

The situation is different, of course, if we're talking about the MIK electrics (Newark Street series) which were quite significantly based on the originals. Even then, Fender said these were an homage to prior models, not intended to be recreations or re-issues.
 

ClydeTower

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
585
Reaction score
7
Location
Montreal
Guild USA had no say in what the specs were, GAD's were entirely Fender corporate babies so that would have had to be imposed by Fender on the GAD's, not Guild.

Interesting... Is Cordoba responsible for the design of the current MIC lineup? I read somewhere that Ren was responsible for establishing the specs used for Cordoba MIC Guilds. Not sure if that is accurate.

If you look at the current MIC lineup, the Westerly Collection 120, 140 and 150 lines all have specs of 1 3/4'' nut width and 16'' radius. The MIC archbacks also have 16'' radius, but some have 1 11/16 nuts.

I always thought that the main selling point for MIC Guilds was their value in terms of low cost vs good quality. I never realized they might be aiming to attract fingerstyle players with optimized specs for this segment...
 
Last edited:

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,789
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
I thought there was some correlation in specs between MIC and MIA models, ex: M-120 vs M-20, D-120 vs D-20, D-140 vs D-40... the specs are similar, but differ in some key areas like nut width are fretboard radius.
I'm curious if this is a conscious decision by Guild to offer similar guitars but with 2 different player profiles.
Don't miss my observation about the timing of introduction of the GAD's and which models got those specs in '04.
I wonder why the designers at Guild would target MIC guitars with the lead/fingerstyle profile type of setup and MIA guitars with the chording/struming profile...
Because it wasn't the designers at Guild, it was the designers at Fender.
Jay Pilzer, known for a while as "the Guild Guy", and a member here, wrote an article for Vintage Guitar a few years back in which he details Fender's search for vintage Guilds in an effort to "catalog" the specs and decide what were the best ideas with an eye towards incorporating 'em in Corona builds and designs:
From here: https://www.vintageguitar.com/21567/guild-in-the-post-fender-era/
"When Guild was acquired by Fender, Tim Shaw and others at the Fender facility in Nashville were charged with evaluating Guild flat-tops. Bill Acton, then Marketing Director for Guild acoustics, surveyed dealers and players to determine when the best of each model had been made; i.e. which era had produced the best D-55s, D-50s, F-50s, etc. Bill, Tim, and others then acquired representative models and began to examine them closely for bracing patterns, bracing size, top thickness, top radius, bridge plates, materials, finishes, and every other aspects. Shaw explained that the goal was to make guitars that were “vintage defensible.” That is, Guild would take the best features of their best guitars and replicate them in current production."
and:
"The move necessitated major changes to the guitars; the folks in Westerly made guitars based on long-practiced techniques evolved over time. They did not have engineering drawings, and the process was not portable, since none of the Rhode Island crew would move to California. This was where the “vintage defensible” strategy was implemented. Drawings had to be created to detail specifications on each part of each instrument. Those drawings reflected what had been learned in the “vintage defensible” investigations."
And more about the Tim Shaw's role in Corona at least:
"Most of the tools and tooling from Westerly were sent to California, and to the Fender plant in Mexico where braces, raw necks, and internal parts such as tail blocks were made. So in that regard, there was some consistency of manufacture. Yet, none of the people who made Guilds in Rhode Island moved to either new plant. It was up to Tim Shaw and Jon Kornau to spec the guitars, insure their quality, and keep faith with the Guild tradition."
A few years back I had an insight:
I bet those drawings were also the source material for the engineering drawings for the GAD guitars, since the name itself meant "Guild Acoustic Design". ***
Anyway as I noted earlier, the MIC guitars originally DID offer a 12" radius.
And like you I find that pretty "flat" but it might be more manageable with a 1-11/16 nut, and/or a deeper neck cross-section.
We've seen before that sometimes it's not just a single spec that influences neck feel/playability.

*** EDIT: I Don't mean that to contradict Chaz's comment about a "clean sheet design"< it's just a guess on my part.
Also, there are obvious build detail differences that prove that even if those drawings provided source material they weren't just "copied".
 
Last edited:

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,789
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
Interesting... Is Cordoba responsible for the design of the current MIC lineup?
You know, that's a good question.
At first I wanted to say "Oh absolutely, CMG owns the brand name now, and that factory is simply a contract manufacturing operation.
All they do is build 'em like they're told to. ("Make it like the blueprint, Fred")."
In fact it's even the same factory Fender used and I've wondered if that's how Cordoba first got the idea to acquire the brand, because they were using it too.
But a better answer is:
That would explain why they introduced a whole new name for the line-up, and witness all the new models that have been introduced under 'em, besides.
I read somewhere that Ren was responsible for establishing the specs used for Cordoba MIC Guilds. Not sure if that is accurate.
THAT would surprise me. Can't recall ever seeing that detail mentioned here.
If you look at the current MIC lineup, the Westerly Collection 120, 140 and 150 lines all have specs of 1 3/4'' nut width and 16'' radius. The MIC archbacks also have 16'' radius, but some have 1 11/16 nuts.
I always thought that the main selling point for MIC Guilds was their value in terms of low cost vs good quality. I never realized they might be aiming to attract fingerstyle players with optimized specs for this segment...
I think the "finger-picker" thing is still related to the fact the they were started up with models no longer offered by Guild USA including the D25 and the JF30, but the F20's '30's were always fingerpicker's choices and there was rising interest or return to the style at the time which seems to have remained fairly consistent over the years, so why change the recipe?
Although CMG Obviously has in one respect at least, so far.
Good catch on the 16" radius with the 1-11/6 nut, btw.
 

ClydeTower

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
585
Reaction score
7
Location
Montreal
Originally Posted by ClydeTower:
I read somewhere that Ren was responsible for establishing the specs used for Cordoba MIC Guilds. Not sure if that is accurate.

THAT would surprise me. Can't recall ever seeing that detail mentioned here.

From the Guild website:

"We wanted to develop a product that incorporated all solid woods and the top notch craftsmanship Guild is known for, less the hefty price tag. With design input from players, artists, dealers and Ren Ferguson, Guild’s VP of R&D and Manufacturing, the Westerly guitars feature a 1 3/4” nut width on a vintage shaped Guild neck (1 7/8” on 12-string models), iconic Chesterfield headstock emblem reminiscent of 1960s Guilds, period correct tortoiseshell pickguard, and Guild’s new lightweight polyfoam case."


Maybe he had some input or maybe they just loosely sprinkled Ren's name here and there to give the MIC Guilds some street cred. I did however read elsewhere that Ren was involved in the design of the Cordoda MIC Guilds, but can't find those articles.
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,789
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
From the Guild website:

"We wanted to develop a product that incorporated all solid woods and the top notch craftsmanship Guild is known for, less the hefty price tag. With design input from players, artists, dealers and Ren Ferguson, Guild’s VP of R&D and Manufacturing, the Westerly guitars feature a 1 3/4” nut width on a vintage shaped Guild neck (1 7/8” on 12-string models), iconic Chesterfield headstock emblem reminiscent of 1960s Guilds, period correct tortoiseshell pickguard, and Guild’s new lightweight polyfoam case."

Maybe he had some input or maybe they just loosely sprinkled Ren's name here and there to give the MIC Guilds some street cred. I did however read elsewhere that Ren was involved in the design of the Cordoda MIC Guilds, but can't find those articles.

Fair enough, I got no issues with your recall, particularly with that quote from the website corroborating it..
 

Rayk

Enlightened Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2015
Messages
5,769
Reaction score
1,172
I was curious how LTGers liked the flatter necks of the MICs?

Huh that’s funny you bring this topic up as I just bought the OM-120 and was reading specs and seen the 16” radius. I scratched my head for a sec then let it go .

Anyway I’m not really effected by it but after reading this thread I probably won’t get it out of my head so yeah , thanks . 😐 lol
 

ClydeTower

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
585
Reaction score
7
Location
Montreal
Huh that’s funny you bring this topic up as I just bought the OM-120 and was reading specs and seen the 16” radius. I scratched my head for a sec then let it go .

Anyway I’m not really effected by it but after reading this thread I probably won’t get it out of my head so yeah , thanks . &#55357;&#56848; lol

Your welcome :)

I guess you're taking full advantage of the fingerstyle attributes of your new OM-120, right? How does it compare to the playability of your F55?
 

MLBob

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2012
Messages
1,016
Reaction score
721
Location
SW Ohio
Was doing a lot of reading regarding fretboard radius this past weekend after I had decided to send sent back a short-scale Taylor 12 string. My main reason for doing so was that the flat radius on the 12-fret neck. It was driving me crazy because it seemed that I was constantly having to adjust my hand angle and finger pressure to get clarity when barring certain chords. For me, much as I hated to admit it, the flatter fretboard radius on this particular guitar just wasn't working. The guitar that I replaced it with (a Gibson 12 string that although it has a neck almost exact in full circumference to fret locations on the aforementioned Taylor) does have a more pronounced curve to its fretboard radius (12") Supposedly all Taylors have a 15" fretboard radius, but I'm betting this Taylor short scale was more like 16" and more suited to a fingerstyle player (Guild 12 strings generally were 16" Fb radius). I'm not having any of the same issues with the Gibson, (which in addition to its more curved fretboard radius has a 14 fret neck).

Here's one of the many articles I found this weekend :

Does Fretboard Radius Matter?

Fretboard radius is an often overlooked and sometimes misunderstood part of the guitar selection process. There are more important factors in overall feel, like body shape and neck profile, but (depending on your playstyle and how picky you are, which we’ll discuss later) a guitar with a radius that doesn’t work for you simply never will. Ibanez traditionally have a flatter radius, while Fender have a rounder radius, for example. This leads to a lot of misinformation because Fender normally have thicker necks and Ibanez normally have thinner necks, and people tend to group that in with radius. So, what is a fretboard radius? Does fretboard radius make a difference to you?
Fretboard Radius Defined
Fretboard radius is the measure of the curvature of the guitar’s playing surface. A radius in general is the length of a line from the center of a circle to the edge of a circle, so the larger the radius, the larger the circle. A lot of people are often confused that a larger radius is flatter, but this is the reason for that. Your fingerboard is a section of that circle, and the larger the circle, the more stretched out and flat the board will be, and the smaller the circle, the more curved the board will be.
How Does Fretboard Radius Affect Your Playing?
We’re going to be speaking in a lot of broad strokes here, but what it really comes down to is action. A flatter fretboard allows for lower string height, which is generally considered easier to play. This is very desirable for metal playstyles, because it requires less effort to depress the strings, and large bends during soloing can be accomplished easily without fretting out. A more rounded fretboard makes playing barre chords much easier, at the expense of making bending more difficult. The higher action required requires more left hand effort to play, but in many instances is preferred by fingerstyle and slide players. It can also be helpful to have higher action if you’re particularly heavy handed to prevent your notes from being bent out of tune during fretting. These are the core principles at play, but they affect different guitarists in different ways.
Should You Care?
Different players are going to have different tolerances for fretboard radii. My favorite is 12”-16” compound radius, which is a radius that starts at 12” and flattens to 16” towards the higher frets. This is common on Jacksons, and is a great compromise for a lot of people. I’m not really bothered by normal Fender 9.5” radius, but their vintage 7.25” is just too round for me. I like Ibanez up to about 17”, but the 20” radius found on some EBMMs for example isn’t really my thing. It’s also worth noting that most classical guitars have a completely flat (infinite radius) fretboard. Remember how I said barring is more difficult? Obviously not a problem for classical players; overall technique level is a large factor.


---Another interesting link for it's breakdown by manufacturer and some models:

https://www.thaliacapos.com/pages/fretboard-radius-guide-by-guitar-make-model

Bob
 
Last edited:

Mark WW

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
660
Reaction score
99
Location
Floriduh
This article seems to reference solid bodies. My Ibanez Hollows and Semis are very comfortable. I can't play most Fenders (solid bodies) because of the neck profiles. I am also comfortable with most Guild Hollow Bodies (2000 on) as well as some Gretsch's but again can not pinpoint radius as a point of comfort/discomfort. I also like my action high so would that mean I should prefer a 1-5/8" nut? I don't. I think Fender folks put a lot more stock in radius or maybe it just seems like they talk about it more?

Either way it still leaves me confused but then again so does a lot of stuff.
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,789
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
This article seems to reference solid bodies.
The original question related to flattops but the principles should be the same.


I also like my action high so would that mean I should prefer a 1-5/8" nut?
I don't see the correlation. Are you thinking that a narrower nut would be more compatible with a particular radius, related to the "flatter allows lower action" comment?

I don't. I think Fender folks put a lot more stock in radius or maybe it just seems like they talk about it more?

I think maybe with electrics it's just that the effects of imprecise technique are so much more glaringly obvious, so that spec gains more importance if it helps with clean technique in a given style.
It also kinda turned the light on for me as to why so many highly-skilled players might keep a variety of guitars on stage, not just for different tone , but because different necks might be more suited for given tunes...
 

Mark WW

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
660
Reaction score
99
Location
Floriduh
Quite obviously I should stay out of the Radius waters. Makes no sense to me.
 
Top