j. pierce Posted October 13, 2007 Report Share Posted October 13, 2007 http://homepage.mac.com/sfjoshua/2007guitars1.jpg http://homepage.mac.com/sfjoshua/2007guitars2.jpg http://homepage.mac.com/sfjoshua/2007guitars3.jpg Basically the same photo, with and without flash and a couple different angles, just trying to get a hang of the camera, I guess. Different angles show the carve a bit more, I guess, in these weird low-light situations. (Don't know why I waited until the middle of the night to take a picture.) Same design I was working on here, with a couple of tweaks. Paduak tops and necks, Macassar fretboards and headstocks. Mahogany backs. (sprayed black.) KTM-9 lacquer - probably finished curing at this point, I haven't wet sanded or buffed or anything yet. This is the same paduak in this photo I posted in another thread - it was that orange if not more until I hit it with the epoxy grainfill. (As I described in another thread) Live and learn. But I decided to go with the colour I ended up with, and it's really grown on me. This is my first time trying my hand at carved tops, and sunbursts. So I'll post better photos as I get further along, and at some point I'll put together all my in progress picks and stuff, but I thought I'd share what I've got so far. Thanks to everyone here for all the help that allowed me to get this far - you folks are all terrific. .j Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WezV Posted October 13, 2007 Report Share Posted October 13, 2007 reminds me of this - which i like!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. pierce Posted October 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2007 Huh. That was certainly one of my inspirations when I started working towards my shape, but I didn't realize how close my outline actually was! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikester Posted October 13, 2007 Report Share Posted October 13, 2007 Wow!! Those two look amazing!! I can' t wait to see hardware on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. pierce Posted December 20, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 Getting there - couldn't resist stringing them up, even though I can't hear them (as the amp isn't wired.) Should have thought to oil the boards again before doing so, I guess I can slack the strings and try and avoid getting the oil on them. (I oiled my board with strings on it once and it gave them the sound of months-old strings!) It's okay, they might need a little more fretwork anyway. No wiring is done (hence the lack of knobs) but unplugged they sound great. Still thinking I might make that bass pickup white (so far I've had good luck with the krylon spray paint for plastic) still needs a bit of spit and polish as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. pierce Posted December 20, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 Truss rod covers too, and the back isn't really buffed/polished at all. Starting to get the hang of this stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WezV Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 they both look great, although i think the bass suits the shape better than the guitar - just looks more gracefull Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickguard Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 they both look great, although i think the bass suits the shape better than the guitar - just looks more gracefull I agree...maybe the guitar body should have been a little smaller? I see a combination between a jazzmaster and one of those Wandre Davoli shapes. Now all you need is the acoustic to go with... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RjY Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 Those both look pretty cool, maybe get some individual close-ups some time soon????? RjY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. pierce Posted January 24, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 They're basically done, but I suck at taking photos. My girlfriend is going to help me at some point take good artsy ones, but whatever, here they are. http://web.mac.com/sfjoshua/iWeb/Site/%2707%20Guitars.html Unfortunately, they're already picking up a bit of belt rash. I tried to clean up most of the fingerprints, but they'll never be as glossy and glassy and perfect as the first time I bagged them up and took them to band practice. They play and sound great. I think I need a different set of pickups on the guitar - I bought a Tony Iommi model, basically for the chrome. (I'm a sucker for chrome, and no exposed pole pieces looks so nice IMO) With the bridge p'up being higher output than I'm used to, I went with the DiMarzio "hot" minibucker in the neck, rather than the regular model I'm used to. The p'ups are bit mistmatched, the neck puts out a bit more than the bridge, so maybe the regular would have sufficed. I just sort of guessed by the impedance numbers for the pickups. I think I rather like the tone of the regular minibuckers over these "hot" ones, but that's also because I'm so used to the set of two on my main guitar, the last build, which I've been playing almost exclusively for almost a year. The hot mine is a little more singy and bell-like in neck position, but also somewhat less defined. The bridge pickup is great, but a bit muddy and midrangey with my gear. Not in a bad way, I'm just very used to a sound and this is not it. This guitar sounds like a really great Les Paul, and I like something with a little more twang or jangle or something. (I spent a lot of time and money making my rig sound like a twenty dollar Montgomery Ward guitar from a yard sale.) I've been running the bridge pickup in parallel (is that the more "chimey" one? Maybe I mean series) and liking the tone a lot better, but I think I want something with a little less output and a little different frequency response. Finally getting the amp and pedals dialed in for this guitar however, so that may change. I hope I remember how I had things set for the last one… Really, if I was playing heavier music through a different amp, like I once did, this setup would be something I would reach for immediately. I just haven't decided if it's what I want right now. Still feeling it out. Did use this guitar through some different gear, and I can really see why that pickup is called the Tony Iommi model, that's for certain. I get the feeling I might really like this in the neck position. For lack of a better comparison, the bass nails a late-Minor Threat, early Fugazi, Dag Nasty, DC era sound. I know not everyone's familiar with it, but that's the sound we've been getting - it makes me think of Minor Threat's "Salad Days" - at least how we usually have it set at band practice. Throw a few switches and knobs around and it's got some wildly different tones however - we managed to get a great thumpy reggae sound, a sort of Policey ("Walking on the Moon") sound, and that cool growl of early Sabbath, like "Paranoid" The controls on both instruments are (moving away from the bridge) Volume, blend, and tone. The two mini toggles are series/single/parallel switches for each pickup and the 5 way toggle switches between kill, neck, neck and bridge through the blend pot, neck and bridge w/o the blend pot, bridge. I also wish I had realized that palm mutes where really different to do on this type of bridge - I keep muting too far forward, being used to TOM style bridges for years. I thought it was pickup problems until I realized it was player problems. In regards to the body being smaller; the original design called for a trapeze-style trem, like an archtop-style bigsby. That changed at the last minute. The trapeze style trem would have taken up some of that extra space visually and probably have worked better aesthetically. I guess I'm happy with the results, it's a comfortable size for me, but were I to redo it, I probably might have gone with something smaller, or used the originally planned bridge. I don't think I need a trem like this, I really do think a Bigsby is my favorite, but it certainly is fun to have something like this, I haven't had a trem like this in ages. I guess I like these guitars better, but I like the body style of my last build better, and will return to that for my next build. Actually, measuring it versus my LP plans - it's only about an 1.5-2 inches longer than an LP. (the bass-side neck join to the bottom of the guitar is the same length as an LP, so that extra length is all in the upper bass bout) At it's widest, it's about the same width as an LP. There's actually *less* space behind the bridge than behind the bridge on an LP. (It's about 3/4" less from the end of the guitar to the break point on the saddles on my build than an LP; and my bridge, being a trem, extends farther back then a TOM.) It's interesting, I thought it was bigger than an LP, and it certainly appears so, but it's not. It's playing tricks on your eyes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j. pierce Posted January 24, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2008 As if my last post wasn't long and rambling enough . . . I've been thinking about adding a pickguard to the guitar, something "floating" in the Les Paul/archtop style - I have enough tortoise shell pickguard lying around that I think I could make a small one, it might look nice with binding on it to match the body. I've been thinking after seeing the clear guards on Garehanman's "tank top" builds, that I might like to try one of those, but keep the bound pickguard idea, like an archtop pickguard. I think it might look cool. I'm working on a mockup, but any comments on this idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.