Reviving the Jagstang 2.0
- Fiddy
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 12396
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:38 am
- Location: Canada Dry
Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0
Nooooo, no contours.
- neutralomen
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:19 am
Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0
Hehe. Once I finish the template, I'll have a bunch made and open a shop to sell to you guys. This way you can individually decide if you want contours or not, if you're building one.tribi9 wrote:Nooooo, no contours.
- s_mcsleazy
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 18443
- Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:30 am
- Location: glasgow
Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0
i'd rock one..... granted i'd most likely put a jazzy trem on it but i would still rock it
offset guitars resident bass player.
'Are you trying to seduce me Mrs Robinson? Or do you just want me to solder a couple of resistors into your Muff?'
'Are you trying to seduce me Mrs Robinson? Or do you just want me to solder a couple of resistors into your Muff?'
- neutralomen
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:19 am
Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0
That would throw the WHOLE DESIGN OFF YOU MADMAN!s_mcsleazy wrote:i'd rock one..... granted i'd most likely put a jazzy trem on it but i would still rock it
XD
- Rgand
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 1171
- Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2017 3:55 pm
Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0
How about putting a Bigsby on one.
- neutralomen
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:19 am
Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0
nooooo this has all gone to hell!!Rgand wrote:How about putting a Bigsby on one.
- s_mcsleazy
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 18443
- Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:30 am
- Location: glasgow
Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0
duo-sonic bridge?
offset guitars resident bass player.
'Are you trying to seduce me Mrs Robinson? Or do you just want me to solder a couple of resistors into your Muff?'
'Are you trying to seduce me Mrs Robinson? Or do you just want me to solder a couple of resistors into your Muff?'
- soggy mittens
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 2086
- Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 2:08 am
- Location: middle of somewhere
Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0
the original jagstang was such a fucking train wreck of an eyesore, good to see a proper version being made, good stuff!
If OSG has tort me anything...
- Rgand
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 1171
- Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2017 3:55 pm
Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0
This sums it up.soggy mittens wrote:the original jagstang was such a fucking train wreck of an eyesore, good to see a proper version being made, good stuff!
- neutralomen
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:19 am
Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0
By the way, what do you guys think we should do about depth? Fender guitars are 1.75'' deep, but mustangs are 1.5''. Does anyone know how deep the Jagstang was?
I feel like it might be fun to make a contourless slab body with 1.5, and another with contours at 1.75. Fiesta Red and Daphne blue, respectively.
I will not be doing Sonic blue. That color just looks like toothpaste when it's new.
I feel like it might be fun to make a contourless slab body with 1.5, and another with contours at 1.75. Fiesta Red and Daphne blue, respectively.
I will not be doing Sonic blue. That color just looks like toothpaste when it's new.
- Rgand
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 1171
- Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2017 3:55 pm
Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0
I am just getting started on a new build and the body will be 1 5/8" thick, like some Fenders and Squiers. That 1/8" makes a big difference for parts installation and weight. I'd stay away from 1 3/4" on one of these. 1 1/2" would be really fun to play with the short scale neck but with a full 25 1/2" scale neck, it might be a bit neck heavy.
- neutralomen
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:19 am
Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0
This will definitely be short scale. So maybe I should split the difference? 1 3/4' inch body depth?Rgand wrote:I am just getting started on a new build and the body will be 1 5/8" thick, like some Fenders and Squiers. That 1/8" makes a big difference for parts installation and weight. I'd stay away from 1 3/4" on one of these. 1 1/2" would be really fun to play with the short scale neck but with a full 25 1/2" scale neck, it might be a bit neck heavy.
- Rgand
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 1171
- Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2017 3:55 pm
Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0
Wouldn't 1 5/8" be the split?neutralomen wrote:This will definitely be short scale. So maybe I should split the difference? 1 3/4' inch body depth?Rgand wrote:I am just getting started on a new build and the body will be 1 5/8" thick, like some Fenders and Squiers. That 1/8" makes a big difference for parts installation and weight. I'd stay away from 1 3/4" on one of these. 1 1/2" would be really fun to play with the short scale neck but with a full 25 1/2" scale neck, it might be a bit neck heavy.
- neutralomen
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:19 am
Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0
I'm not so good with maths.Rgand wrote:Wouldn't 1 5/8" be the split?neutralomen wrote:This will definitely be short scale. So maybe I should split the difference? 1 3/4' inch body depth?Rgand wrote:I am just getting started on a new build and the body will be 1 5/8" thick, like some Fenders and Squiers. That 1/8" makes a big difference for parts installation and weight. I'd stay away from 1 3/4" on one of these. 1 1/2" would be really fun to play with the short scale neck but with a full 25 1/2" scale neck, it might be a bit neck heavy.
- Rgand
- PAT. # 2.972.923
- Posts: 1171
- Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2017 3:55 pm
Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0
I'd go with the 1 5/8", too.