Reviving the Jagstang 2.0

Talk about modding or building your own guitar from scratch.
Post Reply
User avatar
neutralomen
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:19 am

Reviving the Jagstang 2.0

Post by neutralomen » Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:34 am

Hello, everyone. I'm new to this site. I wanted to share a project I'd like to get started in the hopes that you may guide me in the right path.

So, I'm really interested in the various "Jagstang done right" projects I've seen over the years. While I appreciate all of them, there are a few details I haven't seen that I think the ideal Jagstang needs.

I put together this crude drawing to show what I mean.

Image

Here are a few bullet points that delineate my priorities:

-I think a Mustang bridge and bridge plate are quintessential. The newer jag trems are probably better in terms of playability, but the "Mustang bridge on an offset body" is the centerpiece of the Jaguar-Mustang combo. With a Jaguar bridge, it's too much Jag and not enough Must.

-The control plate must be the convex mustang shape, rather than the concave jaguar shape. One of the things that gives the design that funky dissonance is how the convex control plate rubs against the outer shape of the offset body.

-The bridge humbucker should be offset. Not only is this in keeping with the original release, but it balances the overall design aesthetically. The slanted pups are a part of the mustang's profile.

-finally, I superimposed a jag over a Mustang to get this shape, but had to make some alterations. A straight up Jaguar body with a Mustang cutaway throws the proportions off when you put a mustang pickguard and assembly on top.I can see why Fender took the sides in. They went WAY overboard, but I needed to take the sides in ever so slightly to balance the shape with the Mustang assembly. Second, the butt of the body, by the control plate, needed to be tamed a bit and made a bit more convex to balance the negative space.

Anyway, this is my rationale, and I'd love to have this body built if I can. Obviously I'd need to clean up the design and get more precise measurements.

Any thoughts? Any leads?

Thanks for reading, everyone, and hello!

*UPDATE*

With the help and feedback of the community, along with my own fastidious and fussy eye, I have gone through six iterations, and landed on this shape. You can read the whole thread if you want the explanation for these developments. I have to say I'm pretty proud of this, and am very excited about getting it made! Thank you all for your help and support!
Image

*UPDATE 2*

I know it's been a while, but I have recently come back to this project with a new set of eyes.

For this pass, I decided to be bolder and, rather than simply to sticking to the original drawing, truly go for a jaguar-mustang blend. What do you guys think of this direction?

Image

The body shape is the same, which I think is perfectly balanced. The left side of the mustang pickguard has been "reversed" in the direction of its skew. This sort of morphs it into more of a jag pickguard, but keeping it close to the mustang. I put jag controls on the right, but still screwed right in to the guard, rather than into a chrome plate.

Most noticeably, I added a jag vibrato. In Kurt's original, he did say "whichever one works best." I think we can all agree the jag trem is a superior design.

Anyway, Id' love to hear your thoughts. I think this direction "justifies its existence" a bit more. I think the other one, while more loyal to the drawing, is mustang-heavy. This is a true blend.

btw keeping the mustang control plate was intentional and that's a keeper! The convex control plate against the offset body is one of the my favorite elements of this design!

*UPDATE 3*

The Jag trem was a good experiment, but my eye keeps taking me back to the mustang trem. That said, it's still "mustang-heavy. For this pass, I took the "flipped" mustang pickguard, which gives it a bit of an upward skew, and put it on the mark VI body.

This blends Kurt's design with a jag more, but stays more in keeping with the original spirit. I also moved the switches up to compensate for the pg angle, and I also turned the jag switches to 2-way.

Image

*UPDATE 4*

Mark VIII is out. In this pass, I was a bit bolder in blending the two shapes. I flattened the right horn. The Jag's right horn is REALLY flat, so I wanted to influence the mustang horn a little bit. Kurt wanted something similar. I think he went a bit too far, but I think the thrust of the idea is good.

Image

Very subtle difference, but effective.
Last edited by neutralomen on Wed Mar 21, 2018 4:54 pm, edited 7 times in total.

User avatar
Shadoweclipse13
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 12435
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:22 pm
Location: Stuck in the dimension of imagination

Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0

Post by Shadoweclipse13 » Wed Jun 14, 2017 4:18 am

I like it! If it were my project, I'd get rid of the Mustang switches above the pickups for pickup selector. I'd still have them for phase and series-parallel options, but to me, using a 3-way slider for pickup selection isn't reasonable if you switch pickups during a song a bit. Otherwise it's great!!
Pickup Switching Mad Scientist
http://www.offsetguitars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=104282&p=1438384#p1438384

User avatar
neutralomen
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:19 am

Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0

Post by neutralomen » Wed Jun 14, 2017 4:46 am

Yeah perhaps it's a bit vain of me, but those switches are so quintessentially mustang. I'd like to stay faithful. However, what might be useful is a 4 way blade switch like the new jags, with bridge, both in parallel, neck, both in series, and then have the bottom switch coil tap, and the top switch be a phase switch. They could both be 2-way which would simplify things.

User avatar
Shadoweclipse13
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 12435
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 9:22 pm
Location: Stuck in the dimension of imagination

Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0

Post by Shadoweclipse13 » Wed Jun 14, 2017 6:15 am

Kinda like what I'm thinking for sure! I don't mean to sound like I'd get rid of the upper switches, just that I'd want the pickup switching from either a blade type or toggle type on the lower bout, personally. It's a really cool design though.
Pickup Switching Mad Scientist
http://www.offsetguitars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=104282&p=1438384#p1438384

User avatar
Rgand
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2017 3:55 pm

Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0

Post by Rgand » Wed Jun 14, 2017 6:54 am

Taming down the offset in the butt really helps this design. You have some good ideas in your drawing.
Shadoweclipse13 wrote:Kinda like what I'm thinking for sure! I don't mean to sound like I'd get rid of the upper switches, just that I'd want the pickup switching from either a blade type or toggle type on the lower bout, personally. It's a really cool design though.
I would use a 3-way switch for the pickups, too. It just makes switching on the fly easier.

Looks good. I hope you get going on this soon. It'll be a fun one to follow.

User avatar
neutralomen
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:19 am

Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0

Post by neutralomen » Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:17 am

Rgand wrote:Taming down the offset in the butt really helps this design. You have some good ideas in your drawing.
Shadoweclipse13 wrote:Kinda like what I'm thinking for sure! I don't mean to sound like I'd get rid of the upper switches, just that I'd want the pickup switching from either a blade type or toggle type on the lower bout, personally. It's a really cool design though.
I would use a 3-way switch for the pickups, too. It just makes switching on the fly easier.

Looks good. I hope you get going on this soon. It'll be a fun one to follow.
I'm mostly here for leads on how to get started! I'm not a builder at all, but I do work as an illustrator so I know I can make a template. Provided I have a clean template, how do I find someone to make the body for me?

Once I have the body, I figure I'll warmoth the rest.

User avatar
neutralomen
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:19 am

Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0

Post by neutralomen » Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:00 pm

if anyone could point me in the right direction, that would be great!

User avatar
JVG
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 1401
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 9:54 pm
Location: Sydney, Straya

Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0

Post by JVG » Fri Jun 16, 2017 2:58 am

What country are you in? That info might get the suggestions for builders flowing.

The body shape looks really nice, by the way.

For the neck, warmoth are fine, but Musikraft will give you something more like an original mustang neck. More options, and more authentic transitions around the heel and base of the headstock.

J

User avatar
neutralomen
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:19 am

Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0

Post by neutralomen » Fri Jun 16, 2017 10:38 am

Im in the northeastern usa. thanks for the neck tip! anyone know where i van get the body built if i make a template?

User avatar
neutralomen
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:19 am

Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0

Post by neutralomen » Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:34 pm

*update*

I took another pass, this time nailing down proportions and measurements a bit more precisely. IMO, the important thing here is to make sure that the offset language is coherent. The mustang's hip offsets and pickup offsets must govern the offsets throughout(not the jaguar offsets). This unifies the whole shape around the central pickups and hips.

Image

Also, since the Mustang and Jaguar vary in thickness so much, it's important to unify the two areas of maximum thickness from the center of the guitar. The outer shape looks balanced when the two cutaways and "butt" if you will, are the same width out from the middle.

Finally, I'm going to route it for two mustang single coils, but put a black Dimarzio rail humbucker in the bridge. This was both in keeping with Kurt's intentions, and also, it's just a cleaner, slicker look than a full sized humbucker.

What do you guys think? Here are my proportions against the current Jagstang design.
Image Image

User avatar
MattK
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 3569
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 9:51 pm
Location: Hobart, Australia

Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0

Post by MattK » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:27 am

Yours is only about a million times better, if that's sufficient then go for it!

User avatar
Rgand
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2017 3:55 pm

Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0

Post by Rgand » Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:10 am

Hands down, yours is better in so many ways. The standard one has always looked lopsided and askew to me. You have re-defined the Jagstang and made it attractive. THAT's a major accomplishment. Thumbs-up!

User avatar
raphaël
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 881
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:42 am
Location: Moëlan sur Mer, France

Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0

Post by raphaël » Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:34 am

This is THE right path!!

User avatar
Amon 7.L
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 739
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 5:45 am

Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0

Post by Amon 7.L » Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:51 am

You've got my full attention!! Go ahead, make our day!!

User avatar
s_mcsleazy
PAT. # 2.972.923
PAT. # 2.972.923
Posts: 18423
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 7:30 am
Location: glasgow

Re: Reviving the Jagstang 2.0

Post by s_mcsleazy » Mon Jun 19, 2017 9:56 am

i would make the ass like 5% smaller.
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?'

Post Reply