Ben

I also decided to cut off the ball shape at the end of the lower horn due to a slight mishap with the router when cutting the bevel. I'm really liking the new look now though.

Good decision! I was going to comment that it looked like it would snap off, then I looked at the pic in your post and it was already gone!

Looks better without it IMHO.

Nice design, nice wood and nice work so far!

Someone called Howard Klepper ( I think it was him, other people here will probably know) made one a while back. It may be in the MIMF forum library if you are registered there.

Cant see anything that sucks from here. It looks very nice. The edge needs beveling, but it seems you plan to do that (judging by those pencil lines)

Nice guitar!

Explorers and V's are 2 of my favourites, but theres far too many body styles that I like to list here, some are unique custom builds without names too. I dunno if I have an overall favourite.

It rings a bell with me too... I'm sure Ive seen it somewhere...

I really really like that bich.

Sounds like it was a real PITA, but you got a stunning guitar in the end.

I think that just plain 'bitch' would be a good name for it that sums up the whole ordeal you went through quite nicely

3L-3R means 3 left, 3 right, ie 3 tuners on each side of the headstock

Surely binding the fretboard would just cost you the price of the binding... so not much really. I dont think the cost of the glue is even worth worrying about.

I bound a body myself a while back, and it was pretty easy. Mine was flat-top though, if yours has a carved top it may well be harder.

I forgot to mention that the pickups, inlay, fret board and bridge are all not my designs. I just took them off a PRS design cuz I was lazy to draw it out in photoshop.

The pickups will probably be duncans. the there will only be one inlay at the 12th fret. As for the bridge, I haven't had time to research on it. The guitar shouldn't look too different from what it looks like now.

And yeah, i do think I should fatten the body a little more, but maybe not in the PRS way, I'd fatten it up to the angular look for the 1st and 3rd.

As for the cloning, I don't want to be too adventurous. So it's kinda like a PRS/Ibanez SA shape mix, with some minor adjustments. It's lopsided, the right is slightly lower than the left. not very noticeable. but yeah you can call it a PRS look-alike, but I did draw it from scratch, with reference to PRS and Ibanez. \

Sounds good!

I'm not so sure, I just drew this a diagram in A9CAD (poor man's autoCAD).

I know the diagrams a bit convoluted, but it seems to show that the path of the tip of the bit is the same as the path of the centre, but 'r' units lower in the Y-axis, and that the path of the centre is the same as the circumference of your desired radius fretboard radius + the radius of the cutting bit... hence the equation.

Obviously you are only cutting a small section of the top of that circle for your fretboard radius, but I drew the whole circle to try to illustrate the point.

I can email you the original above diagram in DWG format if you like.

I should probably do my own maths work now, I hope I helped you somehow.

Ben

EDIT, I had to shrink the image because it was too big (640x640), am I right in thinking 640x480 is the allowed limit?

Otherwise I THINK the equation:

(x^2) + (y+r)^2 = (R+r)^2

Where R is the intended fretboard radius and r will be the radius of the cutting bit (5/8)

Might do it, but check before you take my word for it.

(Thats the same sort of idea as controlling the position of the centre of the ball)

Its hard to explain what I'm thinking without a diagram, but that should sort of 'indirectly' control the position of the centre of the ball by controlling the position of the tip...

Sort of the same as the offset idea.

I wouldnt understand what I just wrote if I were you reading my post... this really needs a diagram I think.

(This is good revision for my upcoming maths exams!)

I have no idea how you program or use these things, but I'm guessing that normally you would write an equation to control the position of the tip (the bit directly below the centre) of the ball thing... would it be possible to set it so that your equation controlled the position of the centre of the ball instead?

Then you could just set the radius 5/8" larger than the one you wanted.

I have no idea how I'm going to decide this month, they're all great.

You probably know more about wood than I do, but are you sure thats silky oak? I bought some silky oak veneer and it looked nothing like that, it had a sort of crazy spotty grain pattern.

2nd and 4th look better to me, I like the horns, but I think it would look better if you fattened up the bottom a bit, although then it would look just like a PRS!

Personally I think that with the bird inlays, the flamed maple, and the bridge and pickups like that, you'd be better making a PRS clone if thats what you want, as otherwise it may look like you tried to make a PRS style and went wrong

Otherwise I'd design my own inlays and make the body less PRS like and make it a more unique looking guitar.

Just my opinion

Your image is too big, I think the rule is 640x480 max.

Did you know you can just type stuff like "3/16 inches in mm" into google and it converts for you?

Also has other things like the speed of light and the radius of earth.

Yes, Pete (psw) posted that a while ago, hold on while I find the thread...

EDIT: found it; heres the link

http://projectguitar.ibforums.com/index.php?showtopic=22765

It is darn nifty. heres the link to the patent from Petes thread:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?...S=REF/4,297,936

I like it, headstock and all. Red with black bevel is a good variation on the usual black with red bevel.

Its looking great!

I never read your first post propperly so I thought the flamed maple was going to be the top.. In which case I prefered the padauak back... but now I realise your putting that amazing redwood top on it and it looks fantastic.

The veneer lines look really classy.

One thing that I noticed (and I don't really know how it will affect the string placement) is that you have you bridge located parallel to the neck. You don't have it angled like usual on TOM's. That will affect intotation for you and as I picture this in my mind, by added the angle it will being the strings a little closer to the pole pieces.

Thats what I thought when I saw the pic. Maybe when its angled slightly it will reduce the string spacing a bit. Cant imagine it would be much though.

Guitar looks great BTW!

The pine looks funky!

I like the design

is taht bolt in or bolt on?

I had no idea what the difference was so I searched on google and it returned edromans site:

http://www.edromanguitars.com/tech/NeckMountingMyths%20.htm

From the way he describes it, its probably 'bolt in'.

If you want to see exactly what you get look here:

http://www.universaljems.com/cart/ht10/ht10.htm

The headstock shaping isnt hard really. Depends what tools you have. When I did mine I had no real previous woodworking experience, I cut it out with a hacksaw, then just sanded it a bit. Its not perfect, but looks fine. If you have more woodworking experience/tools it should be easy.

It was prs shape.

Look at the "HT-10" and "PRS-Style kit" reviews here:

http://www.harmony-central.com/Guitar/Data4/Saga/

The scores range from being very bad to very good, which is what makes me think I got lucky with mine. They seem to vary greatly in quality.

The devastator is a *fantastic* first effort

First effort ?!?

Damn right it is.. puts me to shame.

I like everything about the longhorn.. except the body shape

Just never personally liked that body shape.

Love the finish and inlay though.

The SG and Tele, while they have lots of there own unique features and look way better than the 'real thing', are still an SG and a Tele. They look fantastic but I prefer to see peoples unique designs.

I feel bad passing any sort of judgement on any of these guitars since they are so much better than I could ever build.

Scott's gets my vote. Everything is so unique and well executed. I love all the quirky features too... the devastater bass has a light up control cavity (that was a plus in my mind)... but Scott's has an egg shaker, fret lights and the cool mercury switch thing.

EDIT: "And remember, I am 16yrs of age and this is build #1"

Just noticed that at the bottom of the post! Feeling even more ashamed of my first one now

Dont know what your sorry for, I'm the one with all the stupid questions

Thanks for answering, and sorry to Pete for the deviation!

ahh.. touché

Edit: they're only tiny little things though, would it have any noticable effect?

Why not relays? I have zero experience with them, but in principle they seem quite simple.

Both sound great to me, especially the flying V.

I personally find floyd roses annoying though... makes down-tuning to drop D harder, you need to use alan key when you want to tune or restring, and it may just be coincidence, but every floyd rose equipped guitar I've played just sounds sort-of sterile ... but of course I'll never play the guitar so who cares what my opinion on floyd roses is!

Good luck with the finish on the bass!