SJE-Guitars

A considered response? Just so you know I don't care either way if linking to your own commercial site is allowed or not - but since it currently states in the forum rules it ain't then it either the same rule for all not one for some and not others. I personally enjoy this forum with way it is with endless links to sites - all photos can be shown using the img link so why just post an ad for a site saying you can find pictures there? Like I say it's either one rule for all not one for some and not others.

With respect why not just post the link to the pictures rather than advertising your site? I was under the impression links to commercial sites was banned in any forum other than the classified section - including signatures.

Well that Ibanez headstock ain't bad . . . but I have to say after much looking at the designs I am pretty much sold on this design:

I bet the very last thing the 'Innovative Collective' were expecting on this thread is a discussion on scroll saw techniques!

Cheers for the comments. I have to say in terms of the body I cannot see anything that will change before it gets turned to wood. It's been 3 days since I did the CAD and I have say I myself that I still look at it and think - it looks right! The design actually came from a sketch what I did sitting in the car waiting for the supermarket open as I'd arrived at the place early. It's had some refinement in CAD but after leaving it and looking at it fresh eyes each day it still looks exactly the pointy agressive type of look I was after. The main difference in the original and the CAD is that the front top curve was less pronounced and lower - however done to scale I couldn't get it looking 'good' so redid it numerous times until I was happy. As for the originality of the 3+3 headstock . . well it was produced in CAD purely based on the curve of the back of the guitar and then selective position of the curve points on part for the connecting sides. So in that respect it's as original as it could be - if it's similar to another 3+3 around then maybe it is, no matter how you try it's difficult to be original in such a small space but it certainly isn't based on any design in particular. Dadovfor - Cheers for suggestion but in terms of that headstock the excess pointy bit on the bottom doesn't appeal, although I did play around with a curved top like that but couldn't get it looking anything like I envisaged in my head. As for the last headstock - I do like it .. .. but I also did a pointier version which looks like this: (I know it needs lengthening slightly to accomodate the tuners but it that's just a tweak that could be easily made) So round the tip or not round the tip . . . that is the question! Just for ease of comparison as this post has gone on the 2nd page:

Good decision!

Righty - I have a good feeling about this one. . . The bottomend curve mimicking the bottomend curve of the body and the front tip curve picks up the curve on the front wing..

Thoughts?

Very astute! The curve on the top of the headstock is actually a copy of the curve on the rear just scale down a 1/4 in size and rotated 180 degrees. Fresh eyes from not staring at CAD this morning and reading the comments I agree that inline doesn't suit. The same fresh eyes also like the 3+3 more than they did last night, but like I say I'll try a few pointy inline designs and see what I come up with - I don't want just copy a Jackson headstock. Cheers all . . . back to the CAD!

Well I've had this design on paper for a while and so I've decided to do the CAD work and start making it into reality. The influences are pretty obvious being the Explorer, Jackson Kelly and the Mustaine V. In terms of the body my initial thought are a 1 piece Asian Padouk back and either a macassar ebony or siam rosewood top. The neck will also be Padouk with most likely a Laos Rosewood fretboard. To be confirmed. This will probably be a slow mover initially until I've got the 8 string and 2 cut finished (both of which will be moving along next week since I've finally got my coil wire and other bits I've been waiting on!). Obviously hence the 2 designs the first question is 3+3 or the 6 Inline? At first I thought the 3+3 all the way but once I'd done the 6 Inline design I actually looked at it and though . . . hmmm that looks pretty damn good! So what d'ya reckon on the body and 3+3 or 6 inline?

Well the only difference between a SD Neck and Bridge pickup other than the obvious resistance difference is the string spacing, which is measured between the centre of outer poles - a trembucker pickup string spacing is 52.6mm, standard humbucker is 50mm and a standard neck is 48mm. So if you have a trem and wider spacing in theory the standard 'bridge' spacing would end up about right . . . so nothing to worry about there. In terms of tone - I virtually always use non-matching pickups for a great tone range - in my strat style guitar before I used a StagMag (2 coils - 16k and I think 44AWG wire - so bright!) with an APH1 in the neck and it gives a great range of tones. Matching pickups are dull in my opinion - just like my old Peavey EVH there was so little difference between to two pickups it was pointless in ever changing I just used the neck virtually the whole time. In Short . . . go for it!

Hmmm a batman rhoads replica! Certainly not for me - personally I can't think of any design that those bats would suit - maybe one of the large ones sidewards in the middle of the fretboard might look ok.

I'll help Cam out here! The top one does have a very slight reddish tinge and the lacquered one does have a very faint blue hue - however I think these are just aberration of either monitors or the camera that took the photos in the first place. Or just a trick of the light in the photos. Edit: Forgot say the colour looks good . . I've played around with a black/dark grey myself but not going to use it on my current builds but probably will do in the future.

Nothing wrong with bolt-on necks - I personally prefer them to set neck.

Yep I thought the same. The neck and fretboard were looking pretty damn fantastic then they go and cover it in black dye! :o Why didn't you just track down a high grade piece of ebony?

So what is the actual point of the half n half neck? Ebony and Maple - two similarly bright tone woods making . . . it much the same as a whole ebony or maple board. Now if it had a rosewood for the bass 3 strings and Ebony on the high 3 strings I could actually see 'some' conceptual reasoning behind it. In my eyes its a Tom Gigliotti guitar with TV Jones pickups and TT frets. . . oh and a custom strap (quite what that has to do with a build I don't know!). As for my tail piece comment I meant located as in there ain't no bridge - just a tailpiece - not a bridge in sight and the fact that that then progress pictures show furrule holes . . a tad pointless as the main advert. As said if your intention is to sell it you might have a better chance with a correctly scaled and 'workable' mock up.

I've got to agree with Wez here. The mockup is a total waste of space - a tailpiece where the bridge should be does little to inspire. The only 'innovation' I can see is the two wood fretboard and that isn't something personally I'd want to replicate or see what it achieves add sound wise incomparison to an full ebony or maple board. I really don't get the 4 pickups thing either.

The black rings look WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better! As for all the above about control positioning - I think people need to remember it's a big bodied guitar and squeezing them all up close to the bridge just wouldn't look right on the body. On the controls though have you not considered some slightly 'classier' control knobs? Such a metal cap bell knobs such as these at Stumacs: I think they'd suit the design far more. I bought 3 pairs of those speedknob things and I think they have either been slung or are gathering dust somewhere in my workshop, for me they just look really cheap!

Ooooooh I do not like those white pickup rings! Personally I think black rings would suit the body far more . . I know there is the white binding but I think there is a bit too much white for such a dark body.

Not exactly close ups I know . . but a recess is a recess! To recess them in as I have here I actually modify the thumb wheel so it's flush with the body of the t-o-m so the recess slot can be exactly the same size as the bridge opposed to the large Warmouth style recess. Forgot to say - remember when you recess a t-o-m the strings will be obviously be closer to the body so much so that standard humbucker rings can end up being to tall to fit under the strings. So it's either modify them to fit or make custom ones - of course this is dependant on just how deep you recess the t-o-m!

Funnily enough after posting on this thread I ended up doing basically the same thing last night on my jointer! It was B&W Ebony being levelled up (the fretboard for my 8 string) - it was 7mm to start and I levelled it up down to 6mm. Basically as I said above I just took it slow and steady and took about 8 passes with my jointer table set for on its stop for 0.1mm removal. I just used fence to keep it straight and pushing blocks to firstly keep my fingers away from the blades and secondly allow me to keep an even pressure on the wood. Pushing blocks are must with when working with thinner stock. Like all Ebony trying to take more than 0.1 - 0.2 mm and your jointer blades will be blunt before you know it and be destroying the wood with it. Some fiddling and around with glue, clamps and caulks later and it was perfectly attached to the neck with no glue lines or visible joints. So it must work! I would love a drum sander I have to say mainly for there ability to do a one piece top or body - but getting them over here is another story!

.. ... Bingo! The punch indent is there so the tip of the bit has something to go into so it doesn't walk. I also have 0.8mm drill bits which I use to make the punch indent slightly deeper as it'll go into the indent - then a brad point bit gripped in the chuck as high up the shank as possible. With all fine bits when you grip them at the shank it only takes the slightest bend for the bit to wobble when spinning which will make it walk. Always start your drill press up and check it's spinning straight before even trying to drill something and whilst you're at it test everything on a scrap before you do attack the fretboard! If you don't have a brad point bit then using the wood/metal bit you can grip them on the twist so leave only a small length (~1cm) of the bit sticking out which also removes the walking problem as the small length doesn't bend. As with everything the 90% of the work is preparation the last 10% should take about 2 minutes to drill the holes in the fretboard.

For me I make a template in CAD - measure the thickness of the fretboard then absolute centre them in CAD both horizontal and vertically. Use good ole double side sticky tape to hold it in place then use a centre punch on the centre marks then just drill away. Works for me!

7mm is no problem over a jointer or through a thicknesser! In terms of tearout . . . well take it down slowly say 0.3mm at a time and make sure you blades are sharp and you shouldn't have any problems with tearout.

Agree. The cream pickups don't do anything for the body. Interesting to see a burl that has been coloured can't say I'm overly keen on it myself - I think burl is interesting enough not to need colours. Although it'll be interesting to see it all finished.