Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:58 am
long4theblur wrote:What's this running you?
Page 2 of 3
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 7:22 am
JesseJames wrote:I dunno, I paid 2150 for everything.
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:26 pm
Fucking christ. I actually just had a converstaion with someone today about how I'd never really want to pay over $400 for a guitar, maybe $500 if I could really justify it.
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 6:33 pm
The maple for the top of it cost 200.00 alone.long4theblur wrote:Fucking christ. I actually just had a converstaion with someone today about how I'd never really want to pay over $400 for a guitar, maybe $500 if I could really justify it.
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:46 pm
Wow, surprised PBassPlayer hasn't attacked you for not liking "quality"long4theblur wrote:Fucking christ. I actually just had a converstaion with someone today about how I'd never really want to pay over $400 for a guitar, maybe $500 if I could really justify it.
Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:56 pm
This has nothing to do with that thread, quit trying to bleed your little squabbles into other threads.Motorhead wrote:Wow, surprised PBassPlayer hasn't attacked you for not liking "quality"long4theblur wrote:Fucking christ. I actually just had a converstaion with someone today about how I'd never really want to pay over $400 for a guitar, maybe $500 if I could really justify it.
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:51 am
I won't comment on the retard.long4theblur wrote:This has nothing to do with that thread, quit trying to bleed your little squabbles into other threads.Motorhead wrote:Wow, surprised PBassPlayer hasn't attacked you for not liking "quality"long4theblur wrote:Fucking christ. I actually just had a converstaion with someone today about how I'd never really want to pay over $400 for a guitar, maybe $500 if I could really justify it.
JJ, what finish are you planning on putting on it, that wood grain is almost too cool to cover with paint.
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:40 pm
Read the thread 
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 3:40 pm
It's going to be an oil finish.PABassPlayer wrote:I won't comment on the retard.long4theblur wrote:This has nothing to do with that thread, quit trying to bleed your little squabbles into other threads.Motorhead wrote:Wow, surprised PBassPlayer hasn't attacked you for not liking "quality"long4theblur wrote:Fucking christ. I actually just had a converstaion with someone today about how I'd never really want to pay over $400 for a guitar, maybe $500 if I could really justify it.
JJ, what finish are you planning on putting on it, that wood grain is almost too cool to cover with paint.
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:20 pm
croninburg wrote:Read the thread
Simma Down Now....
Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:23 pm
I could have gotten a lacquer finish, but it would have upped the price $500 and the wait time 4 weeks.
Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:23 pm
so where is this thing, is it done yet?
Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:26 pm
No, he takes a while to do them. Probably be here in January.Dawdy wrote:so where is this thing, is it done yet?
Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:47 am
pffft january?? you could have done the research, bought the tools and built your own cheaper and faster than that.
Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:31 pm
I prolly could have built the body, but as far as the neck and getting scale length right I don't have the foggiest idea how to do that.AoD wrote:pffft january?? you could have done the research, bought the tools and built your own cheaper and faster than that.
Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 1:10 am
I decided to go a different route with the neck and have the actual top wood inlaid into the fretboard.
Spalted maple inlays
Spalted maple inlays
Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 1:22 pm
Looks niceJesseJames wrote:I decided to go a different route with the neck and have the actual top wood inlaid into the fretboard.
Spalted maple inlays
Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 1:40 pm
yeah that does look really nice
Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 6:07 pm
That's pretty cool for the fretboard.
Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 6:13 pm
I'd never seen it before on a guitar, so I thought it would be a nice addition.
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:45 pm
More updates
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:53 pm
Shaping up nicely, is the body quite large?
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:56 pm
I dont know. I think it is standard size.
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:09 pm
i know you think i'm being pedantic and trying to wind you up - i'm not - but i think the shape ruins the whole thing. the body looks beautifully made and the high quality materials make me think it would play like a dream, i just don't like the body shape. it looks kind of bc-rich-esque.
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:10 pm
The shape is different..But I dont hate it.
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:11 pm
What pups/controls are you planning on?
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:18 pm
Tone pros Tunomatic bridge, seymour duncan jb in the bridge and sh 59 in the neck.croninburg wrote:What pups/controls are you planning on?
Controls like a les paul, 2 vol, 2 tone, toggleswitch by the vol and tone knobs.
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:20 pm
I can appreciate your opinion. I like it though. It's something I came up with completely on my own, and designed 100% of it, from the wood inlays to the headstock. When it's said and done there won't be another one like it in the world.DBS wrote:i know you think i'm being pedantic and trying to wind you up - i'm not - but i think the shape ruins the whole thing. the body looks beautifully made and the high quality materials make me think it would play like a dream, i just don't like the body shape. it looks kind of bc-rich-esque.
Some people will like it, some won't. And that's okay.
Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:22 pm
JesseJames wrote:I can appreciate your opinion. I like it though. It's something I came up with completely on my own, and designed 100% of it, from the wood inlays to the headstock. When it's said and done there won't be another one like it in the world.DBS wrote:i know you think i'm being pedantic and trying to wind you up - i'm not - but i think the shape ruins the whole thing. the body looks beautifully made and the high quality materials make me think it would play like a dream, i just don't like the body shape. it looks kind of bc-rich-esque.
Some people will like it, some won't. And that's okay.
good to keep the bullshit out of this forum i think.Posted: Wed Dec 03, 2008 11:58 pm
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:28 am
You designed that so you could sit down and play it, correct? I'm having trouble seeing how you're going to be able to do that still. 
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:30 am
The lower part hasn't been cut out yet.long4theblur wrote:You designed that so you could sit down and play it, correct? I'm having trouble seeing how you're going to be able to do that still.
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:33 am
Ohhh I see it now. Good on ya.JesseJames wrote:The lower part hasn't been cut out yet.long4theblur wrote:You designed that so you could sit down and play it, correct? I'm having trouble seeing how you're going to be able to do that still.
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 4:08 am
i think it'll come out sick man. I know if i was going to have a custom i'd get some shit that was unique as hell looking.
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 10:12 am
When complete, you have to report back occasionally on how the "wood in wood" inlays wear. I would be concerned with odd or uneven wear due to dis-similar woods.
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 11:01 am
Reminds me a bit of them washburn pop-tops if i remember the shape correctly.
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 1:16 pm
that looks awesome!
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 1:26 pm
TK wrote:Reminds me a bit of them washburn pop-tops if i remember the shape correctly.
Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 2:55 pm
still waiting to see the mock up of this lower cut.
Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:31 pm
The more I look at this the more I see the big differences between designs.BassPhemy wrote:TK wrote:Reminds me a bit of them washburn pop-tops if i remember the shape correctly.