Body Shape Opinions...

[foreright]

So, my next build is going to be a more unconventional shape. I've been watching a lot of old Paul Gilbert and Marty Friedman videos and quite fancy either a Kelly or whatever you'd call Paul's pink RacerX guitar (Destroyer / Iceman cross?). Which of the following shapes "works" best?

It will be either a multiscale 7 string (like the first 3) as I have Hipshot tuners and ABM bridges lying around or I have an old RG neck lying around from the late 90s and hardware for a Floyd Rose equipped 6 which I guess could be any of the shapes too - or maybe I'll build both a 6 and 7 haha.

I think I like 1 and 3 from below the most... headstock shapes (aside from the RG one...) are not finalized - 1-3 have perfectly straight strings across the nut:

 

[Taylor]

I like #3

 

[KnightBrolaire]

2 or 3 work well imo. I'd probably lean towards 2 to start since you can always remove material in the lower horn to get it more in line with 3 if you change your mind.

 

[foreright]

I'd agree with that - in fact 3 is literally 2 with the lower horn reshaped to be a bit thinner so that would work. I'm kinda amused that you guys like the two shapes that aren't real guitars

 

[KnightBrolaire]

I'd agree with that - in fact 3 is literally 2 with the lower horn reshaped to be a bit thinner so that would work. I'm kinda amused that you guys like the two shapes that aren't real guitars

2 and 3 just feel more aggressive in their design so it makes a lot of sense given my personal taste in guitars. I like em pointy and mean looking lol

 

[odibrom]

I dig most of the designs. I must say that the hook in the lower horn of 2 and 3 may interfere with the fretting hand at the high frets if you push your hand forward a bit too much. I'd rethink that.

I don't think the headstocks are "unfinished" or to be refined, they look cool as they are now, it's more of an aesthetic option of you. I dig them.

Let me guess, drawn in AutoCAD? Lots of work there, good job.

 

[spudmunkey]

I've always love a Jackson Kelly, so that's my #1 choice. Then #3 is my #2. #4 is my #4.

 

[LiveOVErdrive]

My god I love number 4. Is that a Paul Gilbert Sig? I never knew about it. Looks a bit like what Paul Stanley often uses these days actually. Funky.

Otherwise I like #3.

 

[spudmunkey]

My god I love number 4. Is that a Paul Gilbert Sig? I never knew about it. Looks a bit like what Paul Stanley often uses these days actually. Funky.

The Paul Gilbert and Paul Stanley are similar, but not exactly the same. And OP's design adds a sort of Explorer-type rear to the body.

 

[LiveOVErdrive]

The Paul Gilbert and Paul Stanley are similar, but not exactly the same. And OP's design adds a sort of Explorer-type rear to the body.
View attachment 81997

Ahh. Well I like #4 a lot. Super cool.

 

[Seabeast2000]

I brought my wife in for this important decision. #4

 

[LiveOVErdrive]

Well, I should qualify my vote.

If you ARE doing a binding: #4.
If you are NOT doing a binding: #3

 

[TonyFlyingSquirrel]

#1 if you want unhindered upper fret access.

 

[foreright]

The Paul Gilbert and Paul Stanley are similar, but not exactly the same. And OP's design adds a sort of Explorer-type rear to the body.
View attachment 81997

Hmm... that sig guitar doesn't look the same as the one I've seen him with in various vids and pics like this:

As I say I've not really found a good head-on shot of this one but it looks to be an Ibanez Destroyer with the Iceman lower horn. I think the Paul Stanley guitar is the Iceman (?). There's a pretty good view of it in this video:



Looking at the pic above it's different to my #4 in that I took the Iceman body and added the Destroyer rear end when it's actually the other way around - back to the drawing board on that one

As for fret access - I'd have to print it out / cut it out to check but below is a JEM777 (green) and Strat (yellow) overlaid on number 3 - looks a tiny bit tighter (given it's a 7 and the other two are 6s...) but not excessively so:

 

[JimF]

#3 Looks hot! Its like a Iceman Kelly. The Ice Lolly

 

[ChrispyFinch]

#3 is looking goooood

 

[LiveOVErdrive]

The Paul Gilbert and Paul Stanley are similar, but not exactly the same. And OP's design adds a sort of Explorer-type rear to the body.
View attachment 81997

Realizing now that I was thinking of Paul Stanley's Washburn Sig.

Kinda has a reverse iceman lower horn and an explorer-ish bottom. Not a fan.

 

[Solodini]

#4.

 

[XPT707FX]

I like the look of 3 it looks like a good mashup of the Kelly, Iceman, and Destroyer

 

[Hollowway]

Given my normal taste, this is going to sound weird, but I’d vote for #1 with a NON reversed HS. I just the Kelly design is perfect, and any modification to it says “trying too hard” or just being different for the sake of being different. And it’s literally the only design that I like a non reversed HS on, because then it coordinates so well with the lower horn.

(Literally the only problem with actual Kellys is that they don’t have 8 strings, but that’s another story for another time.)