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".