Obi-Wan zenabI

On 9/28/2020 at 2:56 AM, Bizman62 said:

That's an interesting looking one, both the body and headstock look nice!

If the headstock is at an angle no string trees should be needed.

If it ever has been played then it has had a trapeze. There's longer and shorter ones and I guess a long one might apply more pressure on the bridge. However, since there's obviously solid wood under the bridge a wraparound might also be an option, with some luck even without extra drilling. And of course if the inside block is big enough a tune-o-matic endpiece could also be installed. Or a Bigsby... Choices, choices!

Thanks! 
 

It does have the three small holes from a trapeze bridge By the end strap button location.  

The string guide seemed like it might be necessary given how far in the b string tuner is... the angle from the g string at the nut makes things look crowded! 

If regular trapeze bridges for thin hollow body guitars usually work on more LP style axes, it’s worth trying. Great to know!  

I’ve come across this sweet semi-hollow body that looks like it was built with a trapeze. 

It seems to be a project guitar of some kind.  The seam of the back to the sides and the mis alignment of the tuners makes me think so.  I think it has a lot of potential for sure.  

I’m seeking advice for getting this guitar playing — it needs a nut, and I’m wondering if string trees/.guides are going to be needed. 
 

But the main thing is the tailpiece. I just think that maybe the guitar was misdesigned because I can’t imagine a trapeze on a body this flat getting enough angle to solidly connect the strings to the bridge. 
 

I welcome all ideas!