Could someone have decided the top was too ugly to be a NT D-35 and so sprayed it cherry?
Or maybe we are wrong in guessing it’s spruce and that top actually IS mahogany? (Even if it’s sprucy looking).
D35's didn't offer a Cherry finish. And yes it IS possible it's a 'hog top.
I was just going along with the assumption it was spruce for the purpose of explaining why it had to be an oddity for an as-yet unknown reason, and not a "transitional model".
it looks like a flat back D-25 from 71-72, that was not completed until 74. that is an entirely feasible scenario. By 1974 D-25's had a spruce top, so that is what they used.
A 1974 D-35 has slightly different trimmings (rosette, purfling, tuners)...this is a D-25 (a very cool one!)
I'm willing to bet there's no difference between the flatback D25 and D35 bodies, they were even introduced together. So I don't believe a flatback body that suddenly turned up after being missing for a couple of years would require a (current) D25 top just because as supposed to be a D25.
On the other hand, if the heelblock was already stamped "D25" (as a converse of Gardman's story of a D25 with a D35 stamp), maybe on this day they decided to go by the heelblock, spec change be damned?
Now, if the guitar needed a re-top, and
they no longer had any dread-sized 'hog tops to use....