What instrument designs do you want to see published each month?

[ProjectGuitar.com]

The title says it all. What do you want us to publish?

[SwedishLuthier]

If possible without infringement of copy rights etc I would love to se a series of complete (or as complete as possible) drawings of all the old classics (Tele, Strat, LP, SG and so on)

[ProjectGuitar.com]

There is no issue of copyright infringement. All published downloads are made available under a Creative Commons non-commercial licence. They are purely for personal, educational, historical record or critical end-use. Use of them in the commercial domain would be highly problematic hence why they are specifically covered by this type of licence.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

[curtisa]

I'd actually prefer to see non-classic designs for download. Plans of Teles, Strats, LPs and SGs are a dime a dozen all over the interwebs. What about modern takes on the old designs, or (assuming the designer is happy to release their blueprints) completely original creations?

[SwedishLuthier]

You are right that there are several versions of the classics out there. The problem is that very few of them are very accurate, or complete (example, the extremely detailed and accurate Tele body drawing floating around, no neck that match that level of detailing is available). My thought was that a "PG stamp of approval" in regards of accuracy would be a very nice touch.

[ProjectGuitar.com]

The purpose of the plans is not to provide a reference to "perfect" examples since even within the same runs there were variations. There are plenty of sites which spend a lot more time dedicated to spec-wrangling and they do it well. Rather than over-complicating the issue, simple examples "in the style of" is a better plan rather than automagically opening the can of worms labelled "this plan is different to my 19xx MIA Spong-o-Matic bridge Strappy-faster 0,2mm in that screwhole location". The disclaimers state that the plan is not for any sort of specific end-use which would include as "historically-accurate records". I'm not saying that these aren't good things, but the sort of people who would get the best use out of the Downloads section are people who are looking for an out-of-the-box instrument plan as the basis for one of their first "project guitars".

Also, a "detailed Tele plan"? Your dry sense of humour impresses me, Peter! ;-)

The only original plan that could be "approved" by anybody would be original drawings as used in the factory to develop working procedures, jigs, etc. Chances are, the resulting instruments would all vary from the plans so its sort of a catch 22. Nobody wants threads that would rival "the" sustainer thread....

[2groggy]

I've been lurking for a few months, but that question was good enough to make me register.

First, let me tell you that I have a beginner's perspective. I've built one kit guitar (a Steinberger headless), then built a tuning tailpiece to replace the original piece of junk, and am now working on a bass (P-Bass kit that was missing the body).

So what do I need? I'd say designs based on readily available and inexpensive components and purchased necks. That would be the gateway drug to take beginners like me beyond the kits towards making the jump to building our first neck. It would likely be "below" the craftsmanship I see from all the posts here, but it's what I need.

[ProjectGuitar.com]

Thank you for your input and welcome onboard! What you guys want to see is important to steering the ship in the right direction.

Using pre-built necks presents a slightly different set of problems. Often the necks are made without any specific dimensions to the heel, unless they are a licenced Fender Tele/Strat design for example. The ones that don't conform to any "established spec" are often built with the express purpose of being fitted to bodies made by the same manufacturer. Importers of cheap nasty box kits tend to sell both the neck and body separately also. Generally I don't tend to recommend them because of the low standard of fretwork and finessing. In general though, those are a quick and cheap way to gain experience before heading onto making all of the parts from scratch. Couldn't agree more.

You're perfectly correct in that readily available components is a big box to tick. It would defeat the purpose of the exercise if half of the components were highly specialised or would leave the instrument "too specifically designed" to use alternative hardware. Over time we'll vary the designs because something a little left-of-centre is always good to have in the mix, but we'll do the odd "fun" design such as a $100 Superstrat (probably in name only, but demonstrates the idea) to showcase minimal but pragmatic design.

Using pre-built necks would be more useful as a site article, working out the required geometry for the body, heel, etc. as a methodical process. That way the randomly-shaped heels out there can be made to fit anybody's purposes.

By all means post a link to pre-built neck makers that you are interested in (whether it be a store, ebay auction, etc.) and we'll look working something out along these lines. Chances are it would be more useful as a written article than as an "out of the box" plan like these and intended to be.

[2groggy]

RE: pre-built neck specifications... I don't have a specific source of supply in mind. I've just been picking up whatever necks I could find and plan to make a one-off neck pocket cut for each body. I've only done this once and the joint did end up a hair looser that I would have liked.

For a beginner build design, I'd hope to see the plans include the complete BOM or shopping list of parts. There would be nothing stopping someone from building the neck or upgrading or fabricating any part that they want.

[ProjectGuitar.com]

Again, using pre-built necks as a specific part of one of our instrument plans is problematic. Specifications differ, whereas the instrument plans are an end-to-end solution using components that have more or less established dimensions. Planning in pre-built necks would overcomplicate the purpose of the instrument plans section as there's no guarantee that dimensions from neck A will work as gracefully as those from neck B.

A shopping list is published with each plan in the support thread, so we're on the case there. :-)

[demonx]

You are right that there are several versions of the classics out there. The problem is that very few of them are very accurate, or complete (example, the extremely detailed and accurate Tele body drawing floating around, no neck that match that level of detailing is available). My thought was that a "PG stamp of approval" in regards of accuracy would be a very nice touch.

I'd tend to agree and like the idea of a correct model that is PG approved.

Pretty sure anyone who follows my builds knows I'm not one for making Strat or Tele clones or LP clones, in fact I never have, however these are the three most common forms of guitar on the planet dreadnought aside, so it'd make sense that a full 3D model which is correct in details down to screw placement, good enough that the person building one can buy hardware and have it line up perfectly, makes sense that would be a worthwhile resource.

[ProjectGuitar.com]

If you guys are up to the task, I am sure that it would be gladly received. I imagine that once the purists get wind of such a plan being available the support thread would make the "old sustainer thread" pale in comparison. For one, until CNC became a regular feature in factories, exact placement was never a realistic aspect. Probably the best that could be offered would be a derivation of values from a vintage specimen, with notations made on the year and any irregularities in that specific example or within that run. Variations between individual instruments are to be expected both because of manufacturing conditions and the broad range of changes made over decades of production for most instruments.

By all means, bring it to the table.

[Prostheta]

I've been working on a Strat plan for the last couple of days and have found all kinds of inconsistencies. Measuring my plan against others available online show so much variability that unless deriving every last measurement from one specific specimen, it will be a set of compromises and averages.

On that basis, I believe it would be more appropriate to publish a "Strat" plan which is designed around currently available hardware and more modern specifications and design choices. Wide-spaced vintage Strats are what I would call the "original" whereas the much-copied and evolved versions we see from Fender and all manner of other manufacturers is what I think a plan should aim for. Certainly, there are people far better than myself archiving and curating the measurements and specifications of the vintage models.

The plan as it stands uses measurements derived from a Hipshot stainless steel hardtail bridge and implements Gotoh Vintage-style tuners. Very common parts which can easily be swapped out for any other similarly-spaced bridge or tuner as desired. Alternatively, I could plan it out for a tremolo of some description. Preferably not a six-screw though! That said, SwedishLuthier has

Apologies to anybody that feels I lean far too much towards modern design and component choice. You would be right in feeling that way. I think that the ethos of ProjectGuitar.com being more biased towards first-time, amateur and occasional builders a simpler modern design is a superior choice to slavish replication of voodoo-peddlers and vintage-correct dorkery. There's always plenty of room for vintage reproductions of course! I just don't think that I am personally good at that kind of thing, especially as I can't help but end up tweaking things.....

Input?