Design critiques wanted!

[JuliusJahn]

Hey everyone! My name is Julius Jahn and I'm a 19 year old luthier-in-training. I'm working on making my own original interpretations of classic designs, and wanted to know what everyone thought. All my family and friends say they look good but they are biased and what better place then the internet for the negative side of things! This time though, I actually want you to critique my work as harshly as you see fit. I want these designs to be perfect before I start offering them to you guys for sale as custom builds.

I know already that the LP headstock will probably need some redesigning as well as the back end and lower horn of the superstrat style, but not sure how. I also prefer a rounder back end, but people seem to be going crazy over BM style rear end's and like the straighter variant.

All guitars lower horn's are perfectly in line with the last fretwire for ultimate ease of access and playability, as well as straight pull 6-in-line headstocks.

So please, critique away! Once they are finalized I will be offering them to the public/internet for sale. If you're eager, feel free to like me over on facebook (https://www.facebook.com/jahnguitars) while my website is still in the works. And yes, I do have building experience with my age. I just gave build #4 to the client from a province over, and have #5 and 6 starting this monday.


T3

C1

LP

Thanks again!

 

[DredFul]

I think they all look great but a bit generic. Are you planning to offer your customers something one-of-a-kind or just a different take on the classic desings? Although the "hook" of your guitars could be thing you said about fret access

 

[Fretless]

I think they all look great but a bit generic. Are you planning to offer your customers something one-of-a-kind or just a different take on the classic desings? Although the "hook" of your guitars could be thing you said about fret access

Going to have to agree with this. The designs are all pretty generic. I understand the desire to be sleek and low profile, but I think there is a ton of room available for creativity rather than just slapping a black machine bevel and deeper horn cavities on these models. The blueprints are nice in terms of quality.

 

[UncurableZero]

These are great, but have you thought about offsetting the Tele and the Superstrat, as in angling the body a few degrees in this way:
http://www.carltonguitars.com.au/resources/Image/telstar/15/15_body_front5.jpg
http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac345/Telenator/Winter%20Close-ups%20with%20Speedy%2012-31-09/OffsetStrat2.jpg
Looks quite a bit more interesting in my opinion.

 

[jwade]

I really don't see the point of adding the blackmachine bevel to something like a Tele. It's far too specific of a reference that it appears forced, imo.

I would also reconsider using that Gibson inlay shape. You're already 'borrowing' the body shape and the general headstock shape, why push your luck?

 

[pondman]

They look ok but if I were starting out as a business I would do something more original as a starting point.
Good luck with the business.

 

[DredFul]

I agree with UncurableZero. That offset tele looks badass! Also I think BMish bevels on tele look great. Especially if they go through the top into the body wood

 

[Kammo1]

They look ok but if I were starting out as a business I would do something more original as a starting point.
Good luck with the business.

Absolutely agree> Also why do you think ssomeone would actually pay you for something that can be had for free ? If you want to carry on with this I would definately come up with something original. I know we cant reinvent the wheel but find a design that is refreshing and new

 

[Khaerruhl]

I like the T3 design. But the vintage style headstock looks off with such a modern body. Try losing the lower dip of the headstock and have it go in a smooth line from the neck, and down to the tip of the head. The Blackmachine nudges perhaps could be worked into something that's more you, as opposed to using the design straight off. It's a badass design, but it'd be cooler if you let yourself be inspired by Blackmachine and not do what they do straight off.

C1 looks good too, but it feels like it's too similar to the T3, because of the body. Body bevel could be something that's a bit more you, as noted above in my post. Are you aiming to having the guitar look like a vintage, or more modern? The bridge makes it hard for me to really see where this is aimed for, but seeing that it's a superstrat Im thinking it's supposed to be modern. Maybe a more modern looking Hipshot bridge, or Schaller Hannes? Perhaps a Schaller 3D-6 bridge to make it stand out a bit more! Truth be told, Im not a big fan of the body being so similar to the T3. Try slanting the body like UncurableZero suggested, work the bevel into something more unique, and concider a change of bridge model. The headstock looks awesome though! Really like it!

The C1 looks like it's taken straight off the Gibson catalogue, but with a different headstock. They say to never mess with the classics, but I think that's exactly what you should do. The Les Paul is a fantastic guitar, but this feels lazy. Even if this is based more towards the Rock guitarist with a preference to vintage guitars, I think you'd be better off with doing something that's a bit more unique. Not to be mean, but this feels just outright lazy. You can do better than this.

 

[patata]

Well what you just did was a fusion of Blackmachine with classic designs.
I would work a bit more on making them pop out in the crowd.

 

[redstone]

All guitars lower horn's are perfectly in line with the last fretwire for ultimate ease of access and playability

Perfectly in line is not deep enough to reach the low strings, try adding ~1/2"

 

[JuliusJahn]

Well thank you all! I never expected so much in less then 24 hours. It's all very helpful, and I'm trying to not take it too personal.

I think they all look great but a bit generic. Are you planning to offer your customers something one-of-a-kind or just a different take on the classic desings? Although the "hook" of your guitars could be thing you said about fret access

My builds will be 90% customizable (as in materials, inlays, etc). I prefer to add personal touches when I can. Here is Lorraine, a guitar dedicated to the customers grandmother who passed away. The body is in no way original (he requested a direct copy and was build #3) but all the wood is from his grandfather's personal stock. Ivory nut (was made before it was illegal!), engraved covers, bookmatched top,bloody jasper/MOP rose inlay.

Perfectly in line is not deep enough to reach the low strings, try adding ~1/2"

I do not really want to make these too "shreddy" and hate the way an overly deep horn looks. Also, I've never heard of anyone playing the 24th on anything else but the EBG strings. With the addition of the horn carve on the T3 access should not be an issue. These are also prototypes, so to speak. I will of course change the design as I build them and improve from there.

Well what you just did was a fusion of Blackmachine with classic designs.
I would work a bit more on making them pop out in the crowd.

The bevel is just a visual idea more than anything. I tried it on my strat build, but find it has no functional purpose, but people seem to like them.

I prefer to have a arm carve similar to strats, or even a flat top. These bevel's are not set in stone, and are completely up to the customer when they order. I want to stress that these are not factory models, and every aspect can be changed.

I like the T3 design. But the vintage style headstock looks off with such a modern body. Try losing the lower dip of the headstock and have it go in a smooth line from the neck, and down to the tip of the head.

C1 looks good too, but it feels like it's too similar to the T3, because of the body.... The bridge makes it hard for me to really see where this is aimed for.... Maybe a more modern looking Hipshot bridge, or Schaller Hannes? Truth be told, Im not a big fan of the body being so similar to the T3. Try slanting the body like UncurableZero suggested, .....The headstock looks awesome though! Really like it!

The C1 looks like it's taken straight off the Gibson catalogue, but with a different headstock. They say to never mess with the classics, but I think that's exactly what you should do. The Les Paul is a fantastic guitar, but this feels lazy. Even if this is based more towards the Rock guitarist with a preference to vintage guitars, I think you'd be better off with doing something that's a bit more unique. Not to be mean, but this feels just outright lazy. You can do better than this.

Here is what my first headstock turned out as on my first build. In my mind that would make it seem more like a banana headstock.

As you can see, the lower horn is also a bit more "square" and the arm bevel is much deeper, and round.

The bridge choice will be fully up to the customer, based on their budget and preference. The "base" model will come with Gotoh hardtails. I'm still working on getting my name out, and having some of those higher end bridges will drastically kill my chances. I'm having a hard time to have people to even commit to 1400$ for a build and they suddenly lose interest. CNC's and factories like Halo (blehh) seem to be killing the chances of making sales (also living in a small town which I why I came here) when made by hand, and not having 25+ years experience.

The thing is, the strat design I'm working on is much different and has a much nicer back, but the upper horn is a bit too wide.

Can you explain where/why the T3 and C1 are too similar? [I see now that the lower horn's curve is almost the same (the part that would sit on your leg)]
I'm glad that atleast the headstock came out alright!

The C1 is the one that I also spent the least time working on (whipped the blueprint up in ~30 minutes) and have no problem changing. I think it would look a lot better with a sharp horn

but am also working on something like this (this is a very rough sketch!)

to cover my single cut/jazzy needs. If there's interest I will also make a blueprint for it and smooth out all the details. This of course, is a much more original idea and may actually be prototyping it soon enough after some input. Soundhole being my #1 concern.

Absolutely agree> Also why do you think ssomeone would actually pay you for something that can be had for free ? If you want to carry on with this I would definately come up with something original. I know we cant reinvent the wheel but find a design that is refreshing and new

What do you mean by free? The design/body shape of it?

I agree with UncurableZero. That offset tele looks badass! Also I think BMish bevels on tele look great. Especially if they go through the top into the body wood

Bevel's are something that will be chosen by the customer when they order. I did something like that on this tele (pre-made body, I did all the woodwork for someone on it) but I prefer to use 1/2 or even 3/4 caps so that would not be possible unless asked to put on only a 1/4" top.

They look ok but if I were starting out as a business I would do something more original as a starting point.
Good luck with the business.

Thank you, and that is what I am here for!

I really don't see the point of adding the blackmachine bevel to something like a Tele. It's far too specific of a reference that it appears forced, imo.
I would also reconsider using that Gibson inlay shape. You're already 'borrowing' the body shape and the general headstock shape, why push your luck?

The bevel is just visuals right now, I explain higher up what my procedure is for building/customizing.

The inlays are like that to keep costs down. I can get them for 30$ cut from stewmac and would never be able to make them in 30$ worth of my time + materials. You can also choose to get the blocks, dots, custom inlay, or whatever you want if you were to order one. The LP shape was the one I spent the least time on and will be seeing the most radical changes. See above.

These are great, but have you thought about offsetting the Tele and the Superstrat, as in angling the body a few degrees in this way:
http://www.carltonguitars.com.au/resources/Image/telstar/15/15_body_front5.jpg
http://i914.photobucket.com/albums/ac345/Telenator/Winter%20Close-ups%20with%20Speedy%2012-31-09/OffsetStrat2.jpg
Looks quite a bit more interesting in my opinion.

Yes I did actually. Here's a build I'm finishing now and has a slightly angled back.

The real reason for the flat back on the C1 was that the style seemed to be very popular these days, but I guess going after the masses isn't the best idea according to you fine folks.

Going to have to agree with this. The designs are all pretty generic. I understand the desire to be sleek and low profile, but I think there is a ton of room available for creativity rather than just slapping a black machine bevel and deeper horn cavities on these models. The blueprints are nice in terms of quality.

Thank you, they are all drawn in a CAD program then exported to a 2d image. I feel like I addressed the rest of your concerns already.

 

[Tom Drinkwater]

Great work so far. It is really hard to work from the classics and make them your own. That is probably why 90% of guitar builders just make straight up strat and tele knock offs.

I would make a list of all of the things that make each original model what they are in terms of aesthetics like pickguards, pickup configurations, colors, shapes, bevel curves and contours etc. From that list decide what you want to keep as is, what you want to change and what you'd like to introduce to the list to make it your own.

I really think a BM style Tele (Telemachine?) would be amazing because they are both super basic plank style bodies with no rounded edges. The body could be really thin like the BM as well and even the head stock could borrow some of the BM styling as well without being too much of a direct rip-off.

The LP is a tough one because pretty much anything you change on the LP will make it so different it isn't an LP anymore. That may be a good thing though. JJ Guitars does a fantastic single cut that has many of the LP attributes that people like while eliminating most of the things that suck about the actual LP. A LP style guitar could have a radius top rather than a traditional carve or you could radius the front and back like an Ibanez S, that would be great. Keep the set neck but carve that heel like a neck thru. Keep some of the LP goodies like the T.O.M. bridge and do similar finishes and wood combos to make it attractive to someone that may be in the market for an LP.

As far as the super strat goes make something as new as you can. Stay away from the BM style or else you'll get stuck being the low price BM knock off guy.

 

[Khaerruhl]

What I ment with my comment about the T3 and C1 body being similar is that the only real difference when it comes to the body (on the blueprints) are the upper and lower horns. But of course, that could work too!

Also: LPs with sharp lower horns look great I think. Makes it pop out a bit more, and it works even for other styles than metal.

Good luck with it all man! Gonna be real fun to see where it goes! Just be careful and don't fall into the trap other luthiers have done... (BRJ and such)

 

[Dana]

reverse headstock tele

 

[redstone]

I do not really want to make these too "shreddy" and hate the way an overly deep horn looks. Also, I've never heard of anyone playing the 24th on anything else but the EBG strings. With the addition of the horn carve on the T3 access should not be an issue. These are also prototypes, so to speak. I will of course change the design as I build them and improve from there.

Whatever suits you best ! - that being said

Most deep access horns are fugly because the designers don't fix the horns dimensions/location. They just carve mindlessly the original design...

Does this suit your taste ?



We cannot know how many guitarists would use the full length of their 24th fret since most 24th fret guitars aren't designed to allow it... That T3 horn carve doesn't help to reach the low strings, the edge of your hand is still in the way ^^

 

[JuliusJahn]

reverse headstock tele

Got ya covered.

What I ment with my comment about the T3 and C1 body being similar is that the only real difference when it comes to the body (on the blueprints) are the upper and lower horns. But of course, that could work too!

Also: LPs with sharp lower horns look great I think. Makes it pop out a bit more, and it works even for other styles than metal.

Good luck with it all man! Gonna be real fun to see where it goes! Just be careful and don't fall into the trap other luthiers have done... (BRJ and such)

On paper it seems that way, but when it comes to me actually making templates I'm sure I'll end up smoothing some things out more. Here's the template I used/made for the strat build I posted, which I prefer to the C1 personally. I may actually scrap the C1 style and swap out for this, with a thinner upper horn

Thoughts?


I do as well (the sharp horn), but am not sure about the market for it tbh. I know frank montag let's you pick the horn you want, but that seems unnecessary to me.
What did BRJ do? I don't follow many other luthiers, I was only on projectguitar until today. This community is much more active and helpful, since it's not just all established luthiers complimenting each other

...That is probably why 90% of guitar builders just make straight up strat and tele knock offs.

I would make a list of all of the things that make each original model what they are in terms of aesthetics like pickguards, pickup configurations, colors, shapes, bevel curves and contours etc. ...

I really think a BM style Tele (Telemachine?) would be amazing because they are both super basic plank style bodies with no rounded edges. The body could be really thin like the BM as well and even the head stock could borrow some of the BM styling as well without being too much of a direct rip-off.

The LP is a tough one because pretty much anything you change on the LP will make it so different it isn't an LP anymore. That may be a good thing though. JJ Guitars does a fantastic single cut that has many of the LP attributes that people like while eliminating most of the things that suck about the actual LP. A LP style guitar could have a radius top rather than a traditional carve or you could radius the front and back like an Ibanez S, that would be great. Keep the set neck but carve that heel like a neck thru. Keep some of the LP goodies like the T.O.M. bridge and do similar finishes and wood combos to make it attractive to someone that may be in the market for an LP.

As far as the super strat goes make something as new as you can. Stay away from the BM style or else you'll get stuck being the low price BM knock off guy.

I think it also has to do with market. There's simply more guys who want a strat with different pickups then there are progressive (not the genre) players who want 3 woods in their neck and will diverge from maple/ash/mahogany for everything.

Colors, pickups, and bevels are all decided by the customer. This will probably be a pain when it comes to ordering, but I am not a machine, therefore I am not programmed like one and will gladly make you custom plates, inlays, curves, f-holes, etc.

I personally do not like the look of BM headstocks, and feel like there is much hype over them, but you can just call me bitter that my last build didn't sell for 18k on ebay.

JJ's do look good but just remind me of PRS SE's. Radiusing and all that are also a custom thing. I won't spend hours radiusing your front and back if you don't want it, or can't afford them. I'm going for fully custom, but also barebones with still the high quality of a handbuilt for those people who don't have over 2k for a single guitar.
My heels are always very deep, and try to be as close and controured as possible to the body. I also use a long tenon that goes all the way into the pickup route.
Woods will also all be customizable, but it is standard with mahogany and a flamed maple cap

Whatever suits you best ! - that being said

Most deep access horns are fugly because the designers don't fix the horns dimensions/location. They just carve mindlessly the original design...

Does this suit your taste ?

View attachment 38212

We cannot know how many guitarists would use the full length of their 24th fret since most 24th fret guitars aren't designed to allow it... That T3 horn carve doesn't help to reach the low strings, the edge of your hand is still in the way ^^

That is true, and the more I design and test other guitars, I realize how badly designed some of them are. LP's are all just drawn with perfect radius' which is why it stood the test of time and is visually appealing. There are some guitars out there though where I wonder if they even played it before selling them off.

That does look good, but I think I will first make them where it is in line with the fret, and if I find it to be an issue I can just go deeper on the template. Unless of course you mean having the option to play 24 with something besides your ring or pinkey finger. Let me build the prototype, then I'll give it more thought

 

[patata]

aaaaaaaaaand that's a solid yes.

 

[Watty]

Also why do you think ssomeone would actually pay you for something that can be had for free ?

Uh.....what? Last I checked, wishes didn't count as currency.

 

[Kammo1]

Uh.....what? Last I checked, wishes didn't count as currency.

What I meant was why would anyone pay for a tele or strat design when you can design it yourself for free