x189player

Way Cool!!! I love the anti-shiny approach, and using text as texture is a beautiful thing- especially when it's text that means something... mashup of strat and tele, yes, with a little jazz bass slant.

And speaking of scrounging good wood, check your local Kubota tractor dealership. Amazingly, many pallets are made of very nice mahogany that is often yours for the asking, or for a six-pack.

More tips: Say "mahogany body with zebrawood top". don't use the word laminate, it sounds cheap (even though that's what any guitar with a top is) Include sound clips of the guitar. that always helps sales- mch better than taking your word for how it sounds. I hate to say it, but that 'Stew Made' script is kinda ugly. OK, I'll be frank- IMHO the name sounds homemade, much more so than the guitar's obvious artisanship. The script on the logo is clunky, the curve above it makes the straightness of the text look awkward- worst of all is the shadowing under teh text. You could use the name and logo by softening it, like by outlining the text in red rather than black... but what guitars have the maker's name on the body? People expect it on the headstock, and will forgive a lot there, but on the body where a rosette would be, it's gotta be dead perfect. The Hibiscus image is relaly nice though- why not use jsut the flowers? I also think the fan shape is fighting with the direction of the zebrawood stripes- try flipping the logo upside down and see how that shape works better. I'm not trying to be harsh or mean. You asked why it's not selling, and to my eye (I'm an art director) that a part of the problem- and one that could be fixed so as to do justice to this obviously fine guitar.

Never use a reserve. Pick your lowest acceptable price and open at that. To do otherwise comes across as... not quite shady, but not good. There are two kinds of auctions- those in which somebody wants to find a buyer for something valuable, and wants to hold out for a good price. The other is in which you are trying to move product ASAP. You have to decide which you are, and stick to that. My advice would be- why compete with the cheap? You'll always be beaten on price by poor quality new stuff and undervalued vintage stuff. The lower you go the fiercer the competition. Better to make a guitar that can fetch teh highest price. Part of this comes in the materials you choose- I have a friend who binds books. He can take a paperback and make it into a hardcover clothbound boo for about $25. Or... he can bind it in goatskin and python leather for about $100. either way, his labor is about the same- but the higher-priced materials raise the cost and the price- and his margin. And people who can pay $100 for a book are less likely to be affected by ups and downs- it's a richer market. Do some research on ebay. What price range guitars are selling best? What features do guitars have to have to compete in a particular price range? Who's your competition? This is another reason to pick top-end hardware carefully, it's part of how people equate custom guitars to others in value. Then I would be immodest but shrewd about setting a price that will sell, and repeat the ad until it sells. You're not looking for the highest bidder, you're looking for the one person who comes along who wants what you have and is willing to bid on it. In that case I'd even suggest setting a high price, and a Buy-it-now at the same price. If they decide to buy it, it's theirs, they have no risk of being outbid- and that can help on higher ticket items. Stop thinking of ebay as an auction. It's a marketplace, repeat your listing as long as it takes- if the price is fair, don't worry about it. Someone will eventually come along, and until then, what does it cost you, 5$ per 9-day listing? Spend that fearlessly as marketing money rather than selling the guitar for less than its' worth to you.

plain xacto works ok. i like to make two cuts, to make a v-shaped groove, rather than a single line. But like i say, you want to practice this first before going carving lines in your guitar.

one way this is done is to scribe fine lines in the wood, then stain will not bleed much from one area to another. this is done as a sort of 'mock inlay', often to create faux parquet patterns in wood floors and the like. i've done this and can recommend the technique, but i'd suggest doing a test pattern first to get the knack of scribing the lines, applying stain, etc. YOu need to have a feeling for how delicate and detailed a design you can do- there's a limit to the detail you can scribe, also how fine a line of stain you can apply without bleed.

All my favorite guitars are solid maple, it'll be great! You may get brighter tone than the other kids, but you can always ease the tone knob down a little, that's why it's there....

As far as balance is concerned, I've already tested it, as I mentioned. I temporarily bolted a bass and guitar neck to the body- backwards, because of course they won't both fit in the neck pocket. Note: I am NOT proposing actually building the guitar this way- but it is a quick and dirty method of rougly approximating the balance of the thing. although there are no strings, the tremolo and tuners are in place because they're big contributors to the angular momentum of the thing: and here it is hanging: As you see, it's not neck-heavy. If it were mahogany, korina or something, it would be, but it's rock maple, adn that body is heavy. The balance point is pretty good- it's right about in the middle of the existing neck pocket. again I'll say it: there's plenty about this mockup that's wrong- the necks are too close together here, and the body is hanging upside down- actually if you flip it over it's even more tailheavy, and hangs straight down and then some, and balances up like this. And that's without pickups or bass bridge yet either. But I do think this adequately addresse the balance issue. Scale is fine too- I've measured based on the 12th fret length, and places the bridge neatly on the back leg, just as in the photoshop mockups up top. That also leaves room for where a pickup will go. I don't have pics to show, but I tested the neck spacing by hanging a second neck from a guitar with duct tape, and seeing how close together they could be before it started to interfere. And it looks like I can just get away with it with the spacing planned. Strength is indeed what I'm worried about. Again, no way with mahogany, but solid rock maple? Maybe. I'm going to try it, and if I'm wrong it will break, or start to. And then I'll unstring it and come up with some engineering- like a truss rod from the shoudler to the bridge, or sawing it up again and adding an additional spacer block- but if I can get away without doing that, I will. The design isn't in question- I'm using this shape, this body, or trying to. We'll see. The execution, however, is open to options yet. At this point I'm leaning to stripping the whole thing first, to keep an eye on the wood as well as realizing that I like natural wood pointy guitars better anyway, even if it's humble unfigured maple under there... probably... I'm thinking about that saw kerf again- I think what I'll do is cut into the back angle, three blades wide, to compensate for the three longitudinal slices. that way I can leave the back lines unbroken. I can see I'm going to need to set up a clamping table for this... and clear the boxes from around the radial arm saw...

good point about the saw kerf width... So I need to cut straight across through, so I can compensate for that, rahter thna cutting a C shape. I think I can work around the control cavity issue. I'll have to enlarge it and drill more knob holes. The balance is actually pretty good- one of the reasons I picked this body shape is it's so large and heavy- it's essentially an explorer with a notch taken out of the back face- and I tested the weight by test-bolting the necks on, bolted them to the back of the body, two screws from each neck going into the four holes of the cavity (does that description make sense? they were too close together, but it looked good! ) and it's actually quite well balanced.

See? I told you they'd say that- yet I have a coil tapped humbucker guitar that sounds so much like a strat that it's hard to tell side-by side in sound clips. don't believe me? try this test: A or B ? C or D? E or F ? G or H? One guitar is a 1982 '69 Strat reissue, the other is an '84 Electra with humbuckers being coil tapped. Can you tell the difference? Just to prove these are indeed humbuckers, here's the same Electra (with coil tap off) compared with a LP- which is which? X or Y heh, I'll let y'all chew on that a bit before telling the answer. For the record, the Electra is BTW made of Canadian Rock Maple, and the strat is made of... whatever strats are made of. regardless, I'm responding to what you said your friend needed- " he needed a brighter funkier sound for the type of music he now plays." If filling that need is the goal, coil-tapping may be the answer, as the above clips show. btw, Electra made stellar LP copies with all that wiring already installed, just like the above- and you can get them for under $400 on ebay all the time, with gorgeous flamed tops and all- I'd suggest your friend look there first. Cheers, Paul

could be easier than that. try taking a standard LP and coil tapping the humbuckers. Hey, i hear the stratophiles say, a coil tapped humbucker doesn't sound the same! Well, mighty close. And the pickups are far more important than the wood in getting these sounds. THis is a pretty standard mod- install a DPDT toggle switch that grounds out a coil from each pickup. Give a humbucker guitar way way more versatile sound. I empathize with your friend- I'm not sure I could stand a humbucker-only guitar either, even an LP. Even better, install a second DPDT switch for phase reverse, then you have a truly versatile instrument. Here's a diagram how to wire it: If it's a real LP, I wouldn't want to drill holes for a toggle switch, so I'd replace two of the pots with pull-switch pots so you pull the knob out to flip the switch- stealth wiring mods, woo hoo!

For my next project, I'd like to do a doubleneck guitar/bass- because I hate having to switch back and forth. Rather than building a new body, I'd like to work with existing bodies I have, to create a doubleneck version that never existed of one of my favorite guitars. Anyway, this raises questions. I've seen it done where somebody basically chops off the top and bottom third of two guitars and glues them together. Problem is, just like a traditional doubleneck, it's huge and heavy as heck. So what I'd like to do is section an existing body and move the center section downwards, then mount the second neck above it. This will also bring the necks much closer together, which is what I want (I've been experimenting by duct taping a second neck to a guitar and seeing how close I can stand it before my hand gets squeezed in the middle) it looks like there's just enough room. Here's what I have in mind: before: sectioned and rearranged: additional neck pocket routed for upper neck, bass bridge mounted on back leg: my question is... anyone know of issues involved with doing this? with slicing up a guitar body and gluing it back together? The body is canadian rock maple, not a solid piece but a plank glued-up at the factory from boards about 4" wide. Any opinions on whether I can get away with this without stripping the poly first? If I could do it, I'd almost be tempted to slice it and reglue it with red intact, then fill the lines with matching red paint (it's a toyota red color) then drop filling and polishing like a repair. all opinions welcome before I get out the saw...

wow, great prices! Well c'mon, these circuits aren't rocket science and they've been around for years, why the heck shouldnt they come down in prices? I mean, when any other piece of audio gear- CD players, for instance- came out, they were expensive- now you can get all kinds including cheap ones at Radio Shack. I hate to say it, but manufacturers have been spoiled getting upwards of a hundred bucks for these things- they ought to be 24.99 like many of these are. Save the pricey market for really innovative stuff- like boutique specialty pedals- now those are worth the premium prices. but EQ's and overdrives??? I say good on Behringer for bringing the prices down where they ought to be. If you want to make money, don't do it by skinning musicians. (never mind that the big names do it all the time...)

very, very beautiful! the only criticism I might offer- and it's tiny- is that I don't care for the knob. The quilted top is so gorgeous, but the plastic knob with white letters looks cheap by comparison- that said I must admit I don't care much for strat-type knobs in general, but prefer the more jewel-like gibson-style ones. I jsut wonder if something like a speed knob or bell knob might complement the top more nicely. It would be easy to try it... and anyway, you can ignore my opinion if you like, what do I know. But that aside, you've made a truly one-of-a-kind beauty, congratulations! It's an inspiration to us all! let's see it again:

cool, can you keep us posted with a link when the site is ready? and will there be a way to get them in the US? I found these links so far: http://www.gruhnguitars.com/afri-can/acan.html http://www.southafrica.info/doing_business...ting/guitar.htm http://www.africanguitarsusa.com/ those are some seriously cool looking guitars, i'd love to hear how they sound! wow- just found a link to sound samples: http://www.africanguitarsusa.com/listeningRoom.html

wow, i'm very impressed. I LOVE the minimalism! it takes some really innovative thinking to hide the pickups under the wood... good job! you're thinking far more creatively than most of us hope to at any age- keep it up! I can't wait to see your next project!

I'll drill anything, install anything. Any guitar this thing goes in is a total hotrod, no pretending to be a 57 tele or anything. I'd suggest looking at switched pots, you know, like a radio volume knob with an off switch. Not sure the value you need for gain, i think generic radio volumes are what, 10k? That would combine two of the most important controls together. In that case I'd suggest using pull-switch DPDT's for the harmonic mode and drive modes. I like having seperate switches rather than a rotary of combinations- who can remember them? On a three- knob strat a nice way to install it would be to convert to master volume and tone, and make the third knob the off/gain knob. Swap the other two pots for pull-switch pots and you have a completely stock-looking knob arrangement. So forgive me for being to the point, but do you have any idea when you might make these available? wild guess? (this year?) I'm really dying of suspense here. sorry if you're sick of hearing the question...

Well, I'm jsut speculating but it seems like the lower one would have a bit too much bulk under your right elbow as you play it... ever play an explorer? kinda an ergonomic issue. with either design i think the key to a comfortable guitar will be how you bevel the back to fit your body. (no beveling might feel a lot like a board...) i believe I'd consider making a mockup out of cardboard and playign some air guitar on it to see how it feels. both are really nice shapes though- nice lines!

most modern gloss black guitars use two-stage auto paint, color then clear on top. spraypaint will be pretty good, but the key is to wet sand it afterwars with a sanding block to get that super-glossy shine. try 1000 and 2000 grit sandpaper and see how it goes! you still may want to consider a top clear coat.

check hobby satores that cater to radio controlled race cars, they often have a wide supply of neon & metalflake colors in aerosol.

sounds cool! I haven't decided to do with the second switch yet, probably DPDT will do. for the first one, well it's a 4PDT... I needed at least three poles for the series/prallel switch with a blend pot selector. I'd love to hear more.

hmm... well, a mixer usually has some resistors in series with the lines in- are you using a schematic for this? and another thought is- by the time you buy the project box and the pots and parts, you might as well consider this 39$ radio shack mixer: http://www.radioshack.com/product.asp?cata...ct%5Fid=32-2056 It also gives you sliders instead of knobs, and slider pots are hard to find and pricey- by the time you figure out how much you save doing it yourself divided by how long it takes you to build it... you may wind up paying youself 2$/hour for your labor... ...plus you know this way it's gonna work... I don't mind using radio shack gear for simple, cheap stuff. mixers have been around forever, so a Radio Shack mixer will be fine so long as you're not snooty about the brand name. I had one of this model and it was fine.

Comparing is your best bet. I'd measure a stock SG, or something else with a similar scale length. Aren't there standard 'Fender' and 'Gibson' lengths that are the yardstick for everything else? Remember, measuring the neck from nut to 12th fret gives half the neck's scale. measuring from 12th fret to the heel and subtracting that from the former gives you the distance your body must measure from heel pocket to bridge. A body could be used with different necks to give different scales, but a neck has to have a body of a certain size (assuming the bridge position is fixed). Problem is, when you order necks you get the overall dimensions and the number of frets, like "22-fret neck with 25 1/2" scale length" and I don't know what that translates to in actual length. My guess is the guy who built it used some guitar body as a template. Get SG drawings and see if yours is standard Gibson dimensions. If so, you're home free. If not, I would get a neck with the same number of frets and try measuring it, and work from there as a guide. To be sure, try making a paper neck and seeing how many frets you'd get with your body.

I've got a little problem with a guitar I'm rebuilding, not a big deal but I'm wondering how to handle it. in the 2 locations where toggle switches should be, the holes have been enlarged way out, double the size they should be. it's no problem temporarily, I'm just using big washers to cover the holes and give the toggles something to hold on to. but it's ugly, and I'm wondering what other ideas might give a nicer fit & finish. so far the only idea I've come up with is to cut a piece of pickguard material to go over the area, but i'd rather not confuse the shape of the existing pickguard. the guitar is a solid mahogany explorer copy, the holes go through about 1/4" of wood between the front and the control cavity. thanks in advance for any ideas!