Leaderboard

Something like this...

Gio18

Newbie
Messages
10
ok so im new to everything here but right now im raising money to pay for a custom build and what i want to make is something like this
http://www.marcchicoine.com/realisations3.html (its the blue soloist one on the right)got any ideas what the specs are and colr,etc
 
2hib1h1.jpg


So, a soloist with a flame maple top, TOM, 24 fret neck (with a headstock veneer), and twin 'buckers...
 
That headstock has "tuning problem" written all over it, even without the help of a wang bar. That's just a bad design no matter how you look at it.
 
Gio18 said:
ok so im new to everything here but right now im raising money to pay for a custom build and what i want to make is something like this
http://www.marcchicoine.com/realisations3.html (its the blue soloist one on the right)got any ideas what the specs are and colr,etc

Welcome to the forum!

The specs are more your personal choice but here's a few thoughts:
Body
Soloist body flat top
Mahogany body
Flamed maple top (go to Unique Choices in the body section and select the actual top you want, that way you know what it really looks like. Costs more $ but if looks are important for you then you can get exactly what you want).......
Recessed T-O-M bridge with string through ferrules.
Finish. Your choice of Blue Dye, Washed Blue Dye or Caribbean Burst...depends on how washed out/faded you want the look to be.
2 x Humbucker routs.
1 x Volume, ! x Tone, Toggle switch...or go lever switch?



Really here it more about your choices here...
Mahogany neck with rosewood fingerboard..or

Maple neck woth rosewood fingerboard

Headstock top painted black.

Headstock design : Reverse Jackson

Corian nut

Planet Waves or Sperzel tuners..

Electronics

Again your choice.....You can decide to go either a standard passive system and choose whichever humbuckers take your fancy...or think about an EMG system. With an EMG system you would have to consider whether you want to have a battery box cavity routed into your body when you order...






 
Thanks and yeah the headstock is nasty but a reverse Jackson would do just fine!thanks for the help! :hello2:
 
Both. The reverse headstock doesn't look "cool", no matter how many spandex-wearing anorexic hairball rockstar wannabes buy into it. It's inconvenient, which is anathema to good playing/performance, just like having a million pots and switches on a guitar is. But, assuming that's you, and I mean no offense <grin>, you have two severe angles on the string going through the nut. No way the string is ever going to move freely through the slot, so keeping the thing in tune is going to be an exercise in futility. String's gonna hang.

Now, if you put the dreaded Floyd on there along with a locking nut, you could get away with it. String isn't supposed to move at the nut with that lash-up, so wild angles aren't an issue. But, broken strings might be. I don't know first-hand - I've never been so foolish as to try it. Not that I don't do foolish things, but you know what I'm saying. Some things are better left untried, like jumping off the garage roof with an umbrella for a parachute, or electing a socialist to run a capitalist country. It can only end badly <grin>
 
i like the regular headstocks, but reversed jackson/strat/tele/firebirds look ugly to me.  plus i like to be able to reach the tuners whilst playing (which is part of what cagey said)
 
Okay, so the string pull on angle was an issue...
Good to know 'cause I was in the middle of drawing
up a headstock design on Adobe Illustrator with
straight string pull. It's a elongated version of
Music Man headstock.
 
Cagey said:
Both. The reverse headstock doesn't look "cool", no matter how many spandex-wearing anorexic hairball rockstar wannabes buy into it. It's inconvenient, which is anathema to good playing/performance, just like having a million pots and switches on a guitar is. But, assuming that's you, and I mean no offense <grin>, you have two severe angles on the string going through the nut. No way the string is ever going to move freely through the slot, so keeping the thing in tune is going to be an exercise in futility. String's gonna hang.

Now, if you put the dreaded Floyd on there along with a locking nut, you could get away with it. String isn't supposed to move at the nut with that lash-up, so wild angles aren't an issue. But, broken strings might be. I don't know first-hand - I've never been so foolish as to try it. Not that I don't do foolish things, but you know what I'm saying. Some things are better left untried, like jumping off the garage roof with an umbrella for a parachute, or electing a socialist to run a capitalist country. It can only end badly <grin>

Ok, now to completely refute Cagey's ridiculous claims...

1. Reverse headstocks are badass. Only cool and talented people can use them however.

2. The Floyd Rose locking tremolo system is the best bridge ever designed for any guitar.
Only people that have issues with things like forks and spoons find them confusing.

3. Jumping off the garage roof with an umbrella works great, thanks.

Cagey's an old man, thus when the 80's rolled around - he was already telling those
"damn kids" to get off his lawn... and the radio - therefore, the greatest revolution in music
that occured during that time escapes him, in his mind chalking it up to a 'fad' vs. the
true transformation of the world as normal people know it. Cagey! Let go of your hate,
live in 'the now' brother! ;)

As for replicating the posted guitar...

A soloist body will get you in the ballpark, but in the picture above the horns wont be
as sharp or as slender. You can use any headstock shape you want IF you use a
locking nut ala the Floyd Rose, if not - then yes, using a more traditional headstock
would be recommended to avoid tuning stability issues. Ozzie's recommendations
will get you the rest of the way - anything else, just ask!  :icon_thumright:

ORC
 
Back
Top