eljib Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Suprised no one has mentioned this yet. Scott French guitar shapes are beautiful. He used to post here, but I haven't seen anything from him in a while. His website also seems to need updating; I hope he hasn't quit the game. I can't post pics from my cpu at work, but you can find them easily enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 (edited) This was the iceman model that I always coveted...very short in production. I thought the committee who came up with the design did a very good job overall...the picture doesn't show the original long 3+3 headstck, but that was an important element dropped on later models. I was in a band where one of these ovation breadwinners was the collective (spare guitar). Some of the hardware and build of the originals were a bit wacky...the neck was a full access 24 fret but was kind of "rubbery" and the bridge had plastic bits...but it was certainly a comfortable striking guitar to play and pioneered active electronics too. I guess this kind of thing is now associated with the kline headless things A lot of 'shapes' are very image based...it's all pretty much a personal preference. I liked the direction ibanez was going with the sabre (super slim streamlined and light practical guitars that looked good and versatile in sound and appearance)...guitar that would work for all occasions. Above...the most uncool body shape...the gibson "can opener" corvus...another of those gibson, what were they thinking moments... Edited February 25, 2009 by psw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prostheta Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Probably a failed Gibson attempt at a travel guitar? I've never been able to fit anything 24-3/4" long in my pocket before though, ARF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ae3 Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Gibson made as many shockers as they did winners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avengers63 Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Personally, I love the Corvus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iSoto Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 I'm kinda in love with the Gibson Q-3000 body shape and the Gibson WRC headstock shape...aaaaah....if only I had the knowledge, experience and tools... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadovfor Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 This was the iceman model that I always coveted...very short in production. I thought the committee who came up with the design did a very good job overall...the picture doesn't show the original long 3+3 headstck, but that was an important element dropped on later models.[ The reverse iceman is really doing it for me at the moment. It’s a build that I want to have a go at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtrplyr Posted February 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Ibanez Sabres Does anyone know the disadvantages of a skinny guitar like that? I want to make a guitar like that but I want to know if it's a bad idea so I need to know why all guitars aren't like that, thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postal Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 Hard to get hardware and electronics to fit. Also the body tends to weigh a lot less than normal so you need to take balance into account. Hardware/electronics is the main reason though. Some people like thinner guitars, others dont- as far as comfort goes- it's just a personal preference as to what someone is used to- a thin guitar will put the strings closer to your body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtrplyr Posted February 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 ok got it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prostheta Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 As a guitar, they're fantastic. Very light, ergonomic and personal-feeling to play. I don't see any "disadvantages" other than from a builder's point of view. They're not skinny in the centre, as the radius/carve doesn't drop out either side until it's clear of the pickups and trem cavities. It's a sexy sexy shape. Sexy, Julian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donovan Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 (edited) V'ish, yet slightly more graceful and a whole lot more functional (you can sit and play it) is the Gibson Moderne. Though I have never seen one in real life, I really appreciate the simplicity of the design, seen here. Edited February 26, 2009 by Donovan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foil1more Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 hmm, my favorite body styles are the Teles, Jags, and almost any hollow body. I guess it would be easier to say I don't like spikey things and Strats without a top carve. Hope that isn't too much heresy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ae3 Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 As far as that Ibanez S goes, I've played on it on a number of occassions, and standing up it is VERY light and comfy. Sitting down it looses out to regular thickness guitars because it doesn't stay in my normal sitting position well, could be different for others. Building wise, expect a lot of sanding/shaping/headaches Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Paper Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 As far as that Ibanez S goes, I've played on it on a number of occassions, and standing up it is VERY light and comfy. Sitting down it looses out to regular thickness guitars because it doesn't stay in my normal sitting position well, could be different for others. Building wise, expect a lot of sanding/shaping/headaches I Have a J factory S from 1995. I find the neck is too thin to play like I normally would. The guitar is however, as stated, a dream to play in a live situation or just standing up. I never really considered copying it until this thread, weird. I'll have to put that on a to-do list for whenever I actually start building stuff. FWIW I wish it had a Kahler and not the Floyd Rose, I no longer like the feel of the Floyd since I bought a Kahler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
postal Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 As a guitar, they're fantastic. Very light, ergonomic and personal-feeling to play. I don't see any "disadvantages" other than from a builder's point of view. They're not skinny in the centre, as the radius/carve doesn't drop out either side until it's clear of the pickups and trem cavities. It's a sexy sexy shape. Sexy, Julian. I did a carved top thats only 1.33" at the thickest. Used modern fender strat bridge, 90 degree 3 position toggle and mini pots. Had to grind down the trem blocks a LOT to get that bridge in there.... In retrospect, I shoulda just used a TOM... In my case, with the carve top and recessed matching electronics cover, that 90 deg toggle *BARELY* fit. No chance of getting a strat style blade switch in a thin guitar- Those are really tall. Building thin can be done, but it's a PITA. Mine balance great because the body is wenge/zebra- Even as thin as it is... it's got some serious heft to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prostheta Posted February 26, 2009 Report Share Posted February 26, 2009 (edited) Ah, I remember those ancient debates as to why dense woods and huge bodies make for better "tone" and "sustain". Being more in contact with your instrument (and a better made one at that) counts for so much more in terms of sound and playability, IMO. Hahaha...."PITA? ***? FFS! ROFLOLBBQ" <edit: it seems the word filter doesn't like "w t f"> Edited February 26, 2009 by Prostheta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 Does anyone know the disadvantages of a skinny guitar like that? I want to make a guitar like that but I want to know if it's a bad idea so I need to know why all guitars aren't like that, thanks. There are no disadvantages...if well thought out. The shape has to be well balanced enough to handle the lighter weight,or else heavier wood must be used. I have plans for a radiused LP,Explorer,and V out of bubinga. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPA or death Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 Myka is a member here and a master builder. I didn't read back through this thread but I'm sure I'm not the first to list something he does. Not so much radical as it is simply beautiful, here is my favorite body shape: DiSanto Claro-Limba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtrplyr Posted March 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 ive always liked that wood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WezV Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 Myka is a member here and a master builder. i love Myka's work so please dont anyone take this the wrong way... but what makes someone a 'master builder'? i dont think david refers to himself that way and always wonder about the people who do. personally i sometimes struggle when people refer to me as a luthier... sounds so bloody poncy!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPA or death Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Myka is a member here and a master builder. i love Myka's work so please dont anyone take this the wrong way... but what makes someone a 'master builder'? i dont think david refers to himself that way and always wonder about the people who do. personally i sometimes struggle when people refer to me as a luthier... sounds so bloody poncy!! No, he really is a master. He's got the member's card and everything. Honestly, it was just a word used to describe his building. Could have easily used "excellent" but that's how the human mind works sometimes; it pushes other adjectives to the front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psw Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Is master builder akin to Master Bates in the Tin Tin books? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prostheta Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Hah! Well, David is obviously a very well-learned and experienced luthier who is more than capable of applying himself to almost every aspect of building, and if he isn't then i'm sure he understands what he cannot do as well as what he can do. Many amateur builders and even some "pro" builders end up learning and looking back on builds with hindsight, whereas "master" builders know the end point, the steps and goals along the way, and therefore the processes, procedures and have the experience to avoid any of the pitfalls in advance. I would like to see what David would consider a real challenge, and what would truly push his skills to their boundaries. But yeah, superlatives are cheap despite being a very good way of overstating something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzz Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 As far as a commercially-produced body shape, I've always been drawn to the Yamaha SG. Call me weird. I won't call you weird either, Yammie SG, cooler than a les paul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.