#1
|
|||
|
|||
Playable prototype
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Okay, so the question begging to be asked is, WHY?? Why do you have the headstock and tuners configured in such a way??
__________________
---- Ned Milburn NSDCC Master Artisan Dartmouth, Nova Scotia |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Now that you mention it, that is a good question.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Can I start by saying that the standard of your work is impressive. I like your wood selection, your attention to detail and your finish. However the stepped head that Fender originated has to be one of the worst head designs that I can imagine. The main fault for me is the weakness that the step creates and the second fault, if fault is the correct word, is in how the strings meet the tuner posts. Your design fixes the second of those issues but in a more complicated fashion than just using a classical guitar type slot head. Could you expand on your thinking behind the design.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
This will allow for headstock shapes that are not possible with this type of tuner and the otherwise necessary slot .
There will be a few tweaks likely once into this test mode like lowering of the saddles and possibly small slots for the string on the path from tuner to saddle . It does hold tune nicely so far . The woods are quartersawn walnut and flamed maple with a mulberry fretboard . The body is quartersawn Norway spruce . I harvested all of the woods used here . It is a very domestic guitar . The picture of the righty full guitar has a black locust fretboard . |