Working on our first model

[StringPluckery]

We're working on bringing this thing to life. We plan to offer it in 6 to 10 strings and with or without all sorts of features.

Specs:
-Headless
-Multi-scale
-6 string 25 - 26.25
-7 string 25.5 - 27
-8 string 26.5 - 28
-9 string 27 - 30
-10 string 28 - 32
-Custom scale lengths upon request
-Stainless steel frets
-Fishman Fluence Modern pickups standard
-Latching on/off and pickup selection switches - traditional pots upon request
-Hipshot Headless Solo Bridge/Tuners - maybe Hantug
-Threaded inserts neck attachment
-Scalloped upper frets - or not
-Custom Hantug string lock
-5 piece neck asymmetrical
-1.25" thick body

Any constructive criticism or feedback would be hugely appreciated.

 

[Lemonbaby]

What's going to be your differentiation/USPs against the competition e.g. Strandberg?

 

[profwoot]

I'm not familiar with the latching pots/selector you're talking about. Is that something other brands have done?

1.25" for the body is pretty thin, unless that doesn't include the maple cap?

Fishmans will limit your market, as I think they're on the downhill slope now. I don't see a battery compartment so maybe no big deal to trade them out, but they'll presumably increase the asking price nonetheless.

25-26.25" is an interesting fan for a 6, but pretty long on the low side, which might limit your market a bit. 25.5-27" for a 7 is exactly the same as everyone else, meanwhile. Might be better to differentiate a bit.

I dig the Strandberg-esque shape. I wish it would become the new standard, really. I really miss that back thigh cutout on all my other guitars now. You'll want to make sure you don't put the output jack in the middle of it.

 

[StringPluckery]

What's going to be your differentiation/USPs against the competition e.g. Strandberg?

We aren't looking at having them produced at a factory. Think more of a major brands "custom shop" without paying some brands "custom shop" prices. The intent is to have a very high quality guitar with incredible attention to detail and the option to add or remove features without driving up the price...within reason...obviously extra strings means extra hardware, but not charging an additional $100 on top of that just because you clicked a box that says 7 strings.

As far as appearance vs a Strandberg. Beats me, haha. I think It's obviously heavily inspired by them and Padalka. I haven't gotten my hands on a Padalka...yet...but I know we can do better quality wise than the Strandbergs I've played.

 

[StringPluckery]

I'm not familiar with the latching pots/selector you're talking about. Is that something other brands have done?

1.25" for the body is pretty thin, unless that doesn't include the maple cap?

Fishmans will limit your market, as I think they're on the downhill slope now. I don't see a battery compartment so maybe no big deal to trade them out, but they'll presumably increase the asking price nonetheless.

25-26.25" is an interesting fan for a 6, but pretty long on the low side, which might limit your market a bit. 25.5-27" for a 7 is exactly the same as everyone else, meanwhile. Might be better to differentiate a bit.

I dig the Strandberg-esque shape. I wish it would become the new standard, really. I really miss that back thigh cutout on all my other guitars now. You'll want to make sure you don't put the output jack in the middle of it.

Check out Tesi Switch for the latching switches. Basically an On/Off button. I understand not everyone will like that so regular pots will be an option at no extra charge. Probably should reverse it and make the pots standard.

1.25" is including the maple cap. The body will also be weight relieved.

What's going on with Fishman? I love mine and have never had issues so I haven't looked into problems. I also know that doesn't mean that's true for everyone else.

I was hoping we'd get some feedback on the scale lengths so thank you. We will be offering custom scale lengths at no extra charge, but we're still working out what the standards will be.

We also love the Strandberg shape. It's so much more comfortable than a traditional guitar to me. For me, it's hard to improve upon because they really nailed it. That is where I had the jack originally, haha. I'm already working out a more universal position that doesn't take away from aesthetics.

 

[Thesius]

Option to have the entire top maple rather than that Kiesel route away and passive pickups would be a win in my book

 

[StringPluckery]

I dig the Kiesel route away look, but I like that idea. Being able to have a top bent to follow the contour or even delete the contours for a flat top.

Different pickup routes are one of the most common requests for the CAD models we offer, so that's and easy request.

 

[dmlinger]

We aren't looking at having them produced at a factory. Think more of a major brands "custom shop" without paying some brands "custom shop" prices.

How do you plan on doing this while still being profitable enough to continue on as a business and not end up like countless other “companies?” It cost a lot of money to employ skilled people to build guitars.

 

[Purelojik]

We aren't looking at having them produced at a factory. Think more of a major brands "custom shop" without paying some brands "custom shop" prices. The intent is to have a very high quality guitar with incredible attention to detail and the option to add or remove features without driving up the price...within reason...obviously extra strings means extra hardware, but not charging an additional $100 on top of that just because you clicked a box that says 7 strings.

As far as appearance vs a Strandberg. Beats me, haha. I think It's obviously heavily inspired by them and Padalka. I haven't gotten my hands on a Padalka...yet...but I know we can do better quality wise than the Strandbergs I've played.

I apologize in advance if i sound overly pessimistic, but as a veteran of this forum and a builder myself I feel like this is the tagline of every new company that pops up here with the intent to start building commercially. Here on the forum, we've seen a fair share come and go because they're trying to reduce the price of a generally more expensive model while trying not to cut corners. There's no problem charging for quality work; it's when new brands promise custom shop quality without custom shop prices is when my eyebrows raise a bit. I agree with @dmlinger here. Business model-wise, it doesn't always make sense to charge less to entice customers if that is, in fact, the intent. I'd maybe try to figure out how to stand apart from Strandberg a bit more to carve out your own brand identity. Aviator has done that, and even though they are similar, they've got certain design aspects that I can identify as their own brand while still seeing their initial influences. Otherwise, I wish you guys all the success, dudes!

 

[StringPluckery]

No worries. You're not going to hurt our feelings and you have every right to be skeptical of some random dudes (we've both been lurking around here since our teens, in our 30s now) popping in here saying the same stuff. Not hitting custom shop prices doesn't mean cheap. We're not looking to sell anything at $5,000+ like say Fender, Jackson, Gibson, etc. I think most would agree there is a certain point where more money doesn't equal a better playing instrument. We haven't fully worked out a completed pricing model yet, but I know we won't be competing with anything you'd generally find in store. We won't be undercutting ourselves, but we also won't be overcharging. We're still learning every day how to run a business and stay profitable so all of your feedback is welcomed. I still have 8 years until I can retire. If we fail to do what we're setting out to do by that point I still have no doubt that I'll at least be able to fund woodworking projects with my woodworking projects and other income sources as I've already been doing for years. As far as paying employees, right now the intent is to keep this a small operation. Just myself (Chris) and Brandon (the other guy). It would be hard to trust someone else to maintain a certain standard of quality, especially when we don't have a proven business model at this point.

I actually just learned about Aviator guitars a few weeks ago. They look amazing. As far as standing apart from Strandberg design wise...we're working on it. The renders up there are the first draft. We're steadily refining it and I'm certain we'll have to make more changes once it's a real guitar.

Are there any features, options, combinations that you guy's would like to see available?

 

[KnightBrolaire]

Honestly I think you're too late to the headless game at this point, especially with that particular design. It feels overtly Boden esque minus the Ormsby esque horn scoops.



There are production models from ibanez , Agile, Legator, Strandberg, Ormsby, Goc, and NK in the 600$-2000$ range and Aviator, Aristides, Rusti, Padalka, Hapas, Mayones, Skervesen in the 3-5k$ custom range (to name a few).

 

[SalsaWood]

I like it. Gimme a 7 in gloss.

And no goofy neck profile shapes, just ultra thin C.

 

[StringPluckery]

Honestly I think you're too late to the headless game at this point, especially with that particular design. It feels overtly Boden esque minus the Ormsby esque horn scoops.



There are production models from ibanez , Agile, Legator, Strandberg, Ormsby, Goc, and NK in the 600$-2000$ range and Aviator, Aristides, Rusti, Padalka, Hapas, Mayones, Skervesen in the 3-5k$ custom range (to name a few).

We will be making models with headstocks as well. This is just the first model we're working on. We aren't trying to directly compete with Ibanez and the gang. Aviator and those homies are more of where we're looking to get a foot in. I like to remind myself that everything has been done. I just have to do it better. (Better being pretty subjective when you're talking about high end guitars. All these dudes have their own spin and I plan on having a few of those names in my collection) I know that's a pretty high bar given some of the names up there, but I'm up for the challenge.

 

[StringPluckery]

I like it. Gimme a 7 in gloss.

And no goofy neck profile shapes, just ultra thin C.

Thin C and D shaped neck profiles are on the to do list.

 

[dmlinger]

Build some completed guitars and post on here. We all geek out over that stuff, so post progress pics. Get some builds under your belt (if you haven't already...I didn't see any on your socials) and gauge feedback from there.

 

[ItWillDo]

Although I admire the vigor, I think the main point has been pretty much established already. You are basically trying to penetrate an established, niche market without any particularly strong differentiator.

Generally this isn't a favorable position for a successful product launch, so please consider freeing up budget to build up a marketing presence as it's one of your best shots to turn the market into your favor.

 

[Demiurge]

OP, have you or your partner built guitars previously? It might be helpful to have those available as an illustration of ability until this model is produced.

 

[StringPluckery]

I've been building guitars for about 12 years now. My partner is new to it, but quite a capable human. We'll be posting photos of builds as they progress. It'll likely be a good while before anything is "ready" as we aren't just trying to jump into this prematurely and still have lots of homework to do. We appreciate all of the very realistic feedback on the business side of things. We know it won't be easy.

Profwoot mentioned 26.5 being a little long for the low E. I prefer using super light strings when able, but again my thing isn't everyone's thing. I know I've seen some others doing 25-25.5 and 25-26. What's your take on scale lengths for a sixer? Same with any of the other number of strings. I prefer longer scale lengths, but I'm also 6ft 1000 and have gorilla hands.

 

[profwoot]

I've been building guitars for about 12 years now. My partner is new to it, but quite a capable human. We'll be posting photos of builds as they progress. It'll likely be a good while before anything is "ready" as we aren't just trying to jump into this prematurely and still have lots of homework to do. We appreciate all of the very realistic feedback on the business side of things. We know it won't be easy.

Profwoot mentioned 26.5 being a little long for the low E. I prefer using super light strings when able, but again my thing isn't everyone's thing. I know I've seen some others doing 25-25.5 and 25-26. What's your take on scale lengths for a sixer? Same with any of the other number of strings. I prefer longer scale lengths, but I'm also 6ft 1000 and have gorilla hands.

I think something like 25-25.75 for the 6 would be cool. A bit longer than Strandberg but still a short enough fan to keep the neutral fret at zero, which is ideal.

 

[penguin_316]

It hasn’t exactly been said up until this point, so I’ll take a shot. Whatever you decide to go with, understand there is 0 room for error. The first guitar that you produce that is even slightly off will be torn to shreds by people living in their moms’ basements.

Better spend a few years perfecting everything before releasing anything or your funeral is inevitable. Good luck, it’s a tight market but it isn’t impenetrable especially if you have favorable wood/electronics connections.