Bring on the paisley!
Printable View
Bring on the paisley!
Paisley inlay? :cheers:
Ok boys... What if we went with Tim's suggestion and specified a "Blank Canvas" guitar, such that you could keep it as is (cheaper) or have it PTC modified (for those who want something unique)?
All we would have to do is choose a body wood (Swamp Ash was suggested), a neck wood (maple was suggested), a headstock shape, and an inlay. From there we would want to choose the pickups routing that would be least invasive so people could modify the pups via PTC.
So if we specified a bolt-on maple necked SAS with a single NF in the bridge, you could do just about anything. Just leave the common element alone to identify it as a Forum guitar. That common element, to me, would be a unique inlay.
Thoughts?
That sounds like what the PTC is doing for me right now :)Quote:
Originally Posted by ]-[ @ n $ 0 |v| a T ! ©
I get it!Quote:
Originally Posted by hippietim
http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/d...n/IMG_0003.jpg
This is a great idea!Quote:
Originally Posted by ]-[ @ n $ 0 |v| a T ! ©
Another consideration is basing it off the NF3/Brent Mason platform, swimming pool route the body, so changes at the PTC can be made easily/cheaply (by CNC cutting a pickguard, instead of routing the actual guitar)
I like guitars with pickguards, but some people hate them.
I've said before a unique inlay would be great (but no words for me) but I'm not keen on a unique headstock, classic PRS for me.
end 2 cents.
Brilliant! Someone get a poll going.Quote:
Originally Posted by justmund
H-H is pretty handy as a p-up combo... probably what 80% of peple will choose and most PRS eleccs cater to that.
P-ups: 57/08's, 59/09s, DGT's?? I like all 3 of those. The 57/08 amy not be everybodies #1.... but most people woudl agree they are a great p-up and are a general crowd pleaser!!
I like SAS switching, but I think McCarty/ME switching may be a good idea as people can switch between McCarty an 5-Way Rotary with minimal disturbance. Again, it might not be everyone's #1 choice but would satisfy most
I'm cooking up a design based on your idea, Timmy. I think it will work. I need to crash (midnight here) but I'll try to get to it tomorrow.
Yeah man, it is tricky... sometimes it is best to find the compromise, not always the favourite..... The fave neck carve would be faught out between wide/fat and wide/thin.... As many people have strong views on those carves. Regular carve migh be in 3rd or 4th spot.... BUT maybe that 'inbetween choice' woudl be acceptable to both parties???
Plus.... I like Regular carve!! :)
Don't rush man.... the playing around is half the fun!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by ]-[ @ n $ 0 |v| a T ! ©
Maybe a headstock, PS-esque eagle holding a banner with "PRS Forum" dunno.... just thinking out loud!!Quote:
Originally Posted by ]-[ @ n $ 0 |v| a T ! ©
I am enjoying this!!
Just loved this idea really. The best so far, at least for me. count me in. we can have an exclusive instrument, fine tuned to our needs and with the same DNA.Quote:
Originally Posted by ]-[ @ n $ 0 |v| a T ! ©
Swamp Ash body, figured maple neck, maple fingerboard, 22 frets, pattern fat carve and I would go with the 408 pick up configuration, but the PTC thing can solve any of those small details.
I have no idea nor preferences for the inlays, but once again, count me in.
I might be in as long as the pickups are changeable, 408's are a no-go for me.
FYI, the NF3 is not a swimming pool route - I'm not sure about the Brent Mason. Here's my NF3 at the PTC:Quote:
Originally Posted by justmund
http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/...psc722b70f.jpg
I like the idea of basing the guitar on the NF3/Brent Mason model. I know *exactly* what I would have the PTC do to it. In fact, depending on what the forum guitar ends up being I may grab another NF3 and do it anyhow.
Hans- I like the idea but I have to agree with others on here and say that the regular PRS body would be the ideal and probably most pleasing to everyone that was interested. Other than that this has my interest because I don't have I Piezo equipped guitar yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by ]-[ @ n $ 0 |v| a T ! ©
I have been watching and poking a little fun here and there, but that does not mean that I'm not interested.
First and foremost, any non-optional materials used must be exportable. So, requiring members to sign on for BRW anywhere on the guitar is a non-starter.
Second, there are sooooo many dissenting opinions on virtually all the specs, that we need to first agree on a base model and PUP configuration. We'll be lucky to get enough people to commit to this thing to get PRS interested without barraging them with so many options.
The body and PUP configuration (layout) is the place where we do all have to agree. After that, if we get enough people committing, and the factory is interested, I don't see a problem with people specifying their favorite pups, electronics, necks and finishes from a pool of options compatible with the basic body/PUP configuration we choose. Changes enhancing the base guitar wold be the responsibility of the individual member.
We also need a unifying inlay that is available only to forum members. Have a look at this post: We need ideas like this one post 33
I have a poll started here for the body: The Body Basics.
Always have.Quote:
Originally Posted by docbennett
My soul was psychedelicized.
Well OK then....I was just beginning to think that Brad Paisley was one of your numerous Highlander identities. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by LSchefman
:)