Ya'll are asking us to bully Alistair into a lot of work (and possibly non-billable work) for one guitar that isn't part of his core business?
Sorry, I can't agree. (yeah party pooper etc).
It was easy for Allistair to use the 2016 design to make a 2" thick hollow body electric guitar for Evan.
The 2016 soundboard could be reused without changes because it had a top sound hole. The soundbox sidewall was simply reduced to 2". Voilą done - it needed very little design work and mold work.
The 2018+ X10N design, on the other hand, will need a lot of work to create a decent 2" thick hollow body electric guitar because the distinctive edge sound hole is partially cut into the corner of the soundboard and partially cut into the top corner of the soundbox.
Judging from the pictures, Allistair reduced the thickness of Evan's Jan 2019 guitar from 4 3/4" to about 3ish inches which seems to leave barely an inch of sidewall lip next to the sound hole to redirect the sound frontward.
He did sincerely balance the desire for a thinnish guitar with the need to do it cost effectively at a quotable fixed price.
Simply reducing the 2018+ X10N thickness from 4 3/4" to 2" would turn the that distinctive Emerald sound hole into mostly a side hole. Few folks would like that result.
Option 1 could be to build a 2" thick X10N hollow body electric guitar keeping the Emerald design strategy of X20 style corner sound hole. Reduce the cut into the sidewall so that at the sound hole there is 1" or more of sidewall needed to turn the sound frontward.
How much would the mold for the sidewall need to be changed? Would the top cut need to be enlarged and the how would the soundboard mold change? (Does the X10N use fan bracing and will the bracing need to change?) How much testing and rework would be needed to get a good result? Is it billable to the customer?
Option 2 could be to use a **bigger version of the 2017 X7 soundboard** which has a top hole design. This is a step backwards from the Emerald strategy of using the X20 style edge cut sound hole on all models.
How much design and testing and rework would be needed to get a good result? (Is fan bracing involved?). How much change is needed to the side mold and the top mold? Is it billable to the customer?
Ą radical option would be to use no sound hole like the Godin Multiac. Nope, totally impractical for one guitar.
BUT. Perhaps it might be worthwhile if 5-10+ of you could commit to buying thin body X10N hollow body electric guitars and commit to paying cost+ for the testing and rework.
If I were in Allistair's position I would not agree to do it because of risks to develop a non-scaleable product, risk of customers unhappy with the results, and risk of customers unhappy with high costs if billable.
As a company owner I'd use scarce resources to increase overall sales revenue by focusing on development of features sellable to many many customers.
As a potential customer I'd encourage Emerald and other companies to develop features wanted by *many* customers.
Mine would be a medium scale neck (?? 24 3/4") as an Emerald standard low cost or no cost option (similar to Rainsong neck options of 25.5" N2 or 24.9" NS). This would be useful to many who aren't comfortable with 25 1/2" long necks and can't justify the high cost of a customized neck.
Emerald, Rainsong, Blackbird, Composite Acoustics, etc have had to make very tough business decisions to prosper in a very small market.
They've each found a sustainable product mix that allows a decent income to a designer-manager-owner and a workforce of 6-12 people.
There isn't much room for unfocused efforts.
Cheers.
PS. How about a neck-up or other device to raise that X7N hollow body electric guitar into a more comfortable playing position?
.
|