Is Zachary Right?

[Primal]

It seems the best thing going for Zachary Guitars is the body shape on the guitar in that video. I must admit, its pretty nice. Other than that, the tone sucks (might just be the mic that was used) and the player in that video (Zach himself?) sucks and has no sense of pitch (god awful tremolo usage, imo).

I've had the opportunity to play a bass that has a very similar headstock, and it was horrible. It was a Dean Jeff Berlin bass, and had the worst tone/action/feel you could imagine. I think the price tag on it was $600, and quite honestly I would have rather bought a Squier bass.

[Mattia]

I was bored and was flicking around this guys site again, and I watched a couple of his videos too

first read this;

http://www.zacharyguitars.com/BestGuitars2.htm

Specifically:

Zachary guitars all come with unique bridges that are the result of design excellence. I can honestly say that I have never broken a string on any Zachary guitar. Not even when I go ape on the tremolo arm. This again is quite an achievement.

Then watch that and skip to the very end

http://www.zacharyguitars.com/141005_03.wmv

Hehehe...classy. And let's ingnore how out of tune that guitar went after he dive-bombed with the non-locking Wilkinson (to be expected, mind you, but reading the hyperbole you'd think the guitars were made of solid unobtanium).

Primal: yeah, guitar shape looks pretty decent when actually being played; the tone, well, hard to judge, because so much depends on the mic and the amp used, but there wasn't anything particularly offensive or particularly exciting about that. And the playing was pedestrian at best.

Edited June 10, 2006 by Mattia

[Ben]

Yeah the body shape does look better when its on a person somehow. It actually looks pretty ergonomic.

[Primal]

Have all the spelling errors on his page been brought up in this thread yet?

[Ben]

Nope. Its sort of a given that there's spelling errors all over the internet, but on a webpage representing a business it does seem a little unprofessional.

Mind you, who are we to criticise his site and philosophy, he must be doing something right :

http://www.zacharyguitars.com/Currently_for_Sale.htm

He's sold pretty much every single guitar hes ever made, plus he charges $2500 for something thats so much simpler and easier for him to produce than similar handmade guitars of that price.

[Primal]

Well, all I know is that if I'm going to drop $2.5k, the site better have correct spelling and grammar.

And on a side note, does anyone else find guitar logos that are above the neck pocket cheesy?

[Nitefly SA]

i think it was cool for steinberger because they had nowhere else to put it, on zachary's i like that is burnt in but yea the headstock "Z" would be fine by itself.

[Robert Irizarry]

I keep coming back to Zachary Guitars and his design ideas (I'm not debating his attitude here, just his ideas).

I'm getting ready to shape my headstock -- I can go with a traditional drop down, or even an angled neck. But Zachary's headstock idea makes more and more sense to me.

I don't really like the way he executes it -- all those string trees, and obviously you can't hang a guitar with a headstock like that (I have young kids, my guitars have to be hung).

But the idea of maintaining as much of the thickness of the wood as possible past the nut makes a lot of sense to me.

I think the idea would work better as a 6 in line anyway --and I'd use a bar instead of strings trees, like the old Japanese guitars used to have. Except I'd use a slippery material like a trem nut blank.

In fact, since I'm going with a zero nut, I'm thinking I could combine the string guide with this compression bar somehow.

I'm just wondering what you all think about the basic idea of the design.

At the risk of returning this post back to topic, I think its an interesting idea. In keeping with the idea of maintaining as much as wood as possible past the nut, have you looked at what Kramer did with his Delta Wing Stealth Concept? Click through the screens and take a look at some of the things he's done at the headstock - thicker headstock, smaller headstock angle, staggered tuners (accomplished by recessing), etc. Its actually quite interesting and he avoids the use of string trees and the opportunity for strings hanging up on them.

As far as Zachary is concerned, do I believe everything Zachary states on his site? Of course not. He's a bit too much of a zealot for my tastes although I do think there is merit in some of his ideas. The problem with zealots is that they make what may be an incremental improvement sound like it is the end all be all. He's not the first to do this. Every manufacturer does it to some extent or another. Their feature (take your pick) is the best thing since sliced bread. That said, I like the idea of the one piece neck and the fact that it would make for an easier neck build. If I weren't currently more interested in headless designs, I would consider it (or the Kramer Delta Wing approach).

P.S. It's good to be back. I was sidelined with tendonitis in my right hand for a spell. I've gotten it mostly under control now so I'm hoping to get back on track with my own project idea soon.

[rhoads56]

Nope. Its sort of a given that there's spelling errors all over the internet, but on a webpage representing a business it does seem a little unprofessional.

Mind you, who are we to criticise his site and philosophy, he must be doing something right :

http://www.zacharyguitars.com/Currently_for_Sale.htm

He's sold pretty much every single guitar hes ever made, plus he charges $2500 for something thats so much simpler and easier for him to produce than similar handmade guitars of that price.

Ok, lets put this into perspective then...

approximately nine guitars per year, at $2500, for ten years (remember, some are listed as NFS - not for sale)...

Thats $22,500 a year, less business expenses, less parts, less woods, less phone bills... machinery upgrades... machinery repairs... tools... mistakes... stock... rent... power bills... etc etc etc.

1997 - 3 guitars

1998 - 6 guitars

1999 - 16 guitars

2000 - 16 guitars

2001 - 10 guitars

2002 - 9 guitars

2003 - 10 guitars

2004 - 10 guitars

2005 - 12 guitars

(nine of those he kept for himself)

Not really making what id call a decent living, especially considering he has a standard fixed design that is easily replicated.

[Primal]

Considering how little must really go into each guitar, he probably easily juggles guitar making with another job.

[Dino]

Im quiet happy to share my research with the world if someone wants to reimburse me for my time and effort. Afterall, it cost me a years wage to do it, and at least six months of production. Otherwise, you'll have to do the research yourself. I thought it was worthwhile to spend the money, and the proof is in my guitars. But, until you've played one, please feel free to make assumptions from behind a keyboard My clients who are ordering multiple guitars, and coming back to give me repeat business, who know what i can do (because of research).

I have no problem doing research to prove to myself what is or isnt right. I guess thats the difference between a pro who turns away the majority of commissions he gets offered, and the majority of the members on this forum... hobby tinkerers.

Perry, no disrespect, but I don't think you're setting the world on fire with your guitars.

If there is in fact something "special" about them, then I would think you could only benifit from pointing out what sets your guitar apart from others in explaining why they are so "special".

To state that a majority of the members on this forum are "hobby tinkerers" is a clear display of your arrogance and ignorance IMO. It's quite clear to me that you are "making assumptions behind YOUR keyboard" as well. Sorry, but I enjoy this site and have alot of respect for it's members and their knowledge.

And the fact that you interpret helping others as "spoon feeding" and/or expect to be compensated for your knowledge leads me to believe that maybe this isn't the site for you.

Edited June 11, 2006 by Dino

[rhoads56]

Not sure if any other businesses freely share their research with others, i wont. Cost me money and time, so its important i reap the benefits. Thats business right?? Be extremely silly for me to fund research to determine what does and does work, and then tell all my competitors exactly what i discovered/proved/etc.

You'll get no argument from me Dino, i have nothing to prove to anyone here. Simply not interested. I let my clients decide my fate.

Have a nice day

Considering how little must really go into each guitar, he probably easily juggles guitar making with another job.

Yup, i believe thats correct, but im only assuming.

[Gemm012]

If no one minds me pointing out another contradiction, you can't (in most cases) make something that is the "best" in tone and functionality. For the first, extremely obvious, reason, "best" is not quantifiable, especially in something like tone. Second, for an example, something that has the "best" tone, we'll say that a vintage Fender synchronized trem with a brass nut has the "best" tone, not that it does. But I don't think that anyone will argue that that specific trem setup is more functional than a Floyd Rose Double locking trem. Compromises must be made. You can't have the "best" of both tone and functionality in a lot of cases. And then this chump swears. C'mon, swearing is just unnecessary, especcially on a buisiness website.

"I know, I'll sound really professional and drop the 'F' bomb. I'm a big dumb guy. I have a company named Zachary guitars and my name's Alex the butt hole."

(That's what he thought while typing.)

[Dino]

Not sure if any other businesses freely share their research with others, i wont. Cost me money and time, so its important i reap the benefits. Thats business right?? Be extremely silly for me to fund research to determine what does and does work, and then tell all my competitors exactly what i discovered/proved/etc.

On the contrary Perry, several guitar manufactures share alot of their research findings to help educate the public in knowing what sets their guitars apart from the competition. It's called marketing. And I'm not sure who you are "funding" to do your research for you, but either something works or it doesn't. You're building a guitar, you're not developing a cure for cancer.

Also, as Gemm012 pointed out, what's "best" is always open to interpretation.

Edited June 11, 2006 by Dino

[Primal]

Ya know Dino, you seem to just be a stirrer of... well, nevermind. In the past, people have brought up these same arguments about Perry, and quite frankly, every time Perry has "won" the argument. In my opinion, Perry isn't arrogant at all. I'm not going to launch into a big discussion about this, though. If we could only all learn to think for ourselves and/or do a little bit of independant research...

Marketing is telling people WHAT you have. TRADE SECRETS are the methods by which you produced a product. Pickup manufacturers can MARKET a pickup by showing people charts and graphs showing the frequency response, etc of the pickup, but they don't have to tell people HOW the developed a pickup to those specifications (coil wire gauge used, number of wraps, etc).

As for the research thing, wouldn't it be so much simpler if things either worked or they didn't? Sadly, almost nothing in life is such. Case in point: Just look at wood combinations. The "either it works or it doesn't" theory kinda falls apart there, wouldn't you say?

[Mickguard]

At the risk of returning this post back to topic, I think its an interesting idea. In keeping with the idea of maintaining as much as wood as possible past the nut, have you looked at what Kramer did with his Delta Wing Stealth Concept? Click

Ah, make sure you add this guy to the "cool luthier sites" thread --and I bet you know of a few others too.

Kramer's headstock is pretty much exactly the idea I've been working on --nice to see it in action. Although I don't see the need to stagger the tuners --is there a functional problem with the bass E being set as low as the treble E?

My idea has been to recess a strip along the entire backside large enough for the foot print of the tuners themselves. That way most of the headstock will remain quite thick. But instead of a flat strip, it'd been easy enough to angle ONLY that part, which will be enough to stagger the tuners. Hmm...I've been waiting to work on the headstock.

I like Kramer's design --seems there's a whole school working in that direction, bears a striking similarity to Scott French's designs, for one --although I think Scott pulls it off a little more elegantly. Look at the back of Kramer's guitars--just looks messy with all those plates (especially the bolt on). Zachary's guitars are also much nicer in that way.

Incidentally, Robert, I just finished my first practice neck...really, it looks a lot scarier than it actually is!

For the rest, I'm not going to get into a dogpile luthier bashing party, no matter who it is. You simply can't quantify things like best or whatever. I have mentioned that I find Zachary's attitude a little too smarmy for my taste, but that doesn't take away from his guitars...

Although... I just watched the video -- I love the end where he breaks the string! Excellent! Makes me think most of what he writes on his site is just tongue-in-cheek Hard for me to comment since I simply HATE that kind of guitar noodling...

Personally, I think his body design looks WORSE when played...stunted and dwarfish, if you ask me. But that's just personal opinion. Still love the headstock though!

Oh yeah, as for the number of guitars he sells --he doesn't do this for a living, apparently his main job is owning a store and repair shop. That's a big difference from Perry, who is a dedicated builder.

[Mickguard]

As for the research thing, wouldn't it be so much simpler if things either worked or they didn't? Sadly, almost nothing in life is such. Case in point: Just look at wood combinations. The "either it works or it doesn't" theory kinda falls apart there, wouldn't you say?

I'm not sure I see how...the wood combinations in most guitars seem to be a combination of tradition and trial-and-error. Hell, Danelectro made their guitars out of masonite, for grandma's sake--and, they have a distinctive sound all their own (whether it's to your taste or not).

I think when you're developing a new type of medication, it's important to conduct a great deal of research, clinical and otherwise, in order not to poison people.

Of course, what often happens is that drug companies spend billions on research and development --they then discover that the drug they've dumped hundreds of millions on is indeed dangerous. But they're able to fund enough studies so that eventually they'll find a couple of studies that support their claim, push their application through the FDA, and market the drug. It's a calculated risk --they try to recoup their investment as quickly as they can, hope not too many people die from the drug (because of lawsuits, not through any moral imperative), and the few people who do die can be paid off easily enough. And worse comes to worse, they can continue to market the drug in the third world.

This sort of thing happens all the time.

So that's why I'm leery of 'guitar research'. I prefer--again, just personal preference, not a 'best-worst' thing--the idea of trial and error. Makes as much sense to me, and doesn't cost as much. And frankly, I admire builders who spend that kind of time and effort on their own designs.

As for me, I'm playing around with a headstock design --I'm going to build a neck using the idea. If it doesn't work, I'm going to figure that out pretty quickly when I string up the guitar. In that case, I'm out a couple pieces of wood and a few hours of my time spent doing a hobby that I've really come to enjoy.

But If it does work--then I'm a winner. I can use it for the next guitar--or tweak the design, or try a different idea altogether.

Doesn't this way make more sense?

[rhoads56]

Oh yeah, as for the number of guitars he sells --he doesn't do this for a living, apparently his main job is owning a store and repair shop. That's a big difference from Perry, who is a dedicated builder.

I thought he might have done other things other than build full time.

For the record, im not a dedicated builder. Most of my time is spent repairing.

[Supernova9]

Perry, no disrespect, but I don't think you're setting the world on fire with your guitars.

I love it when people post 'no disrespect, but....' They're always followed with a needlessly inflammatory comment. Just like this one.

If there is in fact something "special" about them, then I would think you could only benifit from pointing out what sets your guitar apart from others in explaining why they are so "special".

To state that a majority of the members on this forum are "hobby tinkerers" is a clear display of your arrogance and ignorance IMO. It's quite clear to me that you are "making assumptions behind YOUR keyboard" as well. Sorry, but I enjoy this site and have alot of respect for it's members and their knowledge.

And the fact that you interpret helping others as "spoon feeding" and/or expect to be compensated for your knowledge leads me to believe that maybe this isn't the site for you.

The majority of this board are hobby-builders. I don't see more than 2500 pro luthiers on this board, do you? Maybe if we did we wouldn't get ridiculous suggestions like filling every cavity on a guitar with marine epoxy

[Ben]

I'm with Perry actually. As nice as it would be to see his research, theres no way I'd share something I'd spent that much money on to get myself an 'edge' over the competition.

Maybe tone isnt quantifyable, but headstock strength definitely is. And I suppose that if you knew what you were looking for tone wise (like an even frequency response for example) you could quantify it somewhat.

To state that a majority of the members on this forum are "hobby tinkerers" is a clear display of your arrogance and ignorance IMO.

I'm also not sure that that sounds in any way arrogant or ignorant to me either... because its probably true!

£.02 (which is worth more that $.02 )

[Primal]

I'm not sure I see how...the wood combinations in most guitars seem to be a combination of tradition and trial-and-error. Hell, Danelectro made their guitars out of masonite, for grandma's sake--and, they have a distinctive sound all their own (whether it's to your taste or not).

That's exactly what I was trying to say. When it comes to wood choices, there is no right or wrong, there is only tradition and personal preference. I think we are arguing the same point.

[Mickguard]

That's exactly what I was trying to say. When it comes to wood choices, there is no right or wrong, there is only tradition and personal preference. I think we are arguing the same point.

Gotcha.

[fryovanni]

It's funny how a thread like this gets so much attension, and a thread that could actually produce some positive or helpful information gets much less.

I don't know if that fella deserves much more thought. You can breeze through his site and I think you get the idea.

As far as Perry. Well, I think the Hobby comment was funny, all be it true to a great extent. His R&D is his bag and that is fine by me. I think he tries to help out, and I see no reason to fault that no matter how much or little (it's all good). He is just another board member, all else is equal in my book. It is just too bad he has to turn such a fun hobby into work .

As far as wood combinations. Well it can be difficult to quantify when we talk about something as unique as wood. Think about acoustic guitars for a minute. Wood plays a much greater role is how an acoustic sounds than a solid body. Two acoustics builts from EIR/ Sitka/ and Mahogany, same classic design(say Dred). Those two guitars will not sound identical. It is even common to find one sounds quite nice and the other like dirt. Electronics/ strings, Design, construction and set up, and then we start to look at wood/hardware material....(IMHO- Maybe others could say what order of importance they would place on these things). I am not mentioning Amp and remainder of signal chain (which is huge, but not the actual guitar itself). Well that is my take for what it's worth (of course I learn something new everyday,so maybe I am off base?).

Peace,Rich

[Dino]

Primal wrote: Ya know Dino, you seem to just be a stirrer of... well, nevermind. In the past, people have brought up these same arguments about Perry, and quite frankly, every time Perry has "won" the argument. In my opinion, Perry isn't arrogant at all.

Primal, I'm not trying to "stir" up anything. Simply making an observation. And since you state that others have brought up similar arguments, I dare to say I'm not alone.

Edited June 11, 2006 by Dino

[Ben]

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/4319.jpg