Return of the Jag-Stang II

[Amon 7.L]

This next revision is pretty much one of the 20+ variations I have done on my "JAG-STANG DONE RIGHT" drafting board (there's one for every level of crossover).
There you go:

[neutralomen]

Took some measurements and refined many areas. This is a subtle evolution of IX, and I think about as perfect as I can get it proportions wise.

Behold, the Mark X!



What do you all think? Thanks again for all your feedback so far!

Really interesting. My discoveries ultimately led me back to something a bit more similar to the official jag-stang. It's less extreme in the waist and the butt, and the cutaway is depressed which isn't the case in the official Jag-Stang. But truly, the lesson has been, if you add volume to the horn and the lower butt, take volume away from the waist. This way it stays a "small, narrow" guitar like a Mustang.

I really think this is the one!

[sal paradise]

Build it & they will come

[BTL]

I like the updates. It's going to be interesting to hear how well the current Jag-Stang sells.

[neutralomen]

Everyone... You need to see this.



The cutaway and horn were too flared and slightly too large. I shrank both of them and made sure the thickest point on either is equidistant from the middle. I think this is PERFECT. I'm embarrassed to say when I zoomed out and looked at it, I said "hell yeah!" out loud lol.

What do you think? Is she finally ready?

[CROSS_guitars]

I prefer your very first mockup.
The lower horn looks too pointy and sticky outty to me on this one.

[neutralomen]

I prefer your very first mockup.
The lower horn looks too pointy and sticky outty to me on this one.

The horn and cutaway are actually smaller than the original, although the cutaway is a bit lower. The reason it looks more "sticky-outy" is because I took the waist in, so relative to the original it may look that way.

As I've stated, problem with the original in the thread is, the body is just too BIG for the mustang hardware. I say again, the mustang is proportioned beautifully against its hardware. It's a small, thin guitar. If you "jag-ify" it without taking any of the mass away from certain areas to compensate the added area, it, in effect, makes it look like a "bloated" mustang.

That said, maybe you're seeing some slight proportion improvements. I can take the waist in a TAD and the cutaway in a TAD, but imo this is very close to a very handsome design! I hope some of you agree.

[windmill]

Like it.
☺

[Amon 7.L]

Aside from the already addressed issues with the lower horn being too skinny/pointy, I think the lower cutaway being that slim will imply not much room for a comfortable roundover, which means you'd be in for a very squared slab body.

While trying to retain the general locking points of your MARK XI, I re-designed the lower horn & tweaked the cutaway to address the general offset angle and correlation throughout the body with a bit of an enlargement to make room for a more generous roundover:


It doesn't look that different from the official production model but at least it's an improvement, I guess?

[CROSS_guitars]

I whipped this up just now.
It's based off your first drawing.
I downloaded some random Mustang pdf and modified it.

[PorkyPrimeCut]

I don't know if any of you folks have seen the fantastic digital images a guy created for his son, taking his childish monster scribblings & turning them into almost life-like images. That's kind of how I see the JagStang. They took the drawings of a guy who couldn't draw & transformed them into a reality that was close to absurd. They took it far too literally. Sorry, I hate the JagStang with a passion.

These mockups though, particularly the blue one at the top of this page & the layout drawing from Cross_Guitars, are much more like it.

[neutralomen]

Aside from the already addressed issues with the lower horn being too skinny/pointy, I think the lower cutaway being that slim will imply not much room for a comfortable roundover, which means you'd be in for a very squared slab body.

While trying to retain the general locking points of your MARK XI, I re-designed the lower horn & tweaked the cutaway to address the general offset angle and correlation throughout the body with a bit of an enlargement to make room for a more generous roundover:


It doesn't look that different from the official production model but at least it's an improvement, I guess?

I definitely want the .5" radius standard to contoured fenders. This will be a slab with a .5" radius around the edges just like a mustang.

Your point is well taken about the round over, but I'd sooner take the pickguard in and maybe restore a little height to the cutaway before bringing the cutaway that tall.

I appreciate your angle refinements, which I would have done when taking that final step to a CAD drawing, but I think the cutaway is just too scooped and tall and doesn't agree with the rest of the body.

I'll try a version with the pickguard taken in more to accommodate the radius.

In re:looking like the production model, trust me.lol. put them side by side. The production model is much more extreme, pinched, and um....ugly. I just learned a few lessons from what they were trying to do with pinching the waist a little and keeping the body small.

Thanks so much everyone for your collaboration and feedback it's helping so much.

[neutralomen]

I whipped this up just now.
It's based off your first drawing.
I downloaded some random Mustang pdf and modified it.

I really like this but my opinion stands that I just think it is too BIG in the lower butt and waist. It makes the mustang hardware in the middle look too small. Albeit only slightly.

What I'm learning from what you're seeing though is, maybe my reductions have been slightly too extreme so I'll try a pass that splits the difference.

Do you see what I'm seeing at all in re the total body area just being kind of "bloated?" A jag is a big ass body and a mustang is very small so if we are using mustang hardware as the basis for design the body's total size needs to be kept under control.

[neutralomen]

Okay everyone. Truly, your feedback has been so helpful. The last round of feedback has shown me that, while I do think I learned from revisiting the official jag-stang designers, I still took it a bit too far.

This graphic will illustrate the principle I was talking about re: maintaining volume. In my original redesign, I wasn't taking volume away, just adding it. This was resulting in a "bloated" look due to the mustang hardware still needing to be proportionate with the rest of the body. So, the principle of maintaining volumes was really helpful. When you add area, you must remove it from other areas. I went too far, though, and things were rightly pointed out like not having enough room to radius the edges. I also noticed the treble side waistline wasn't symmetrical with the bass side. I re-measured and balanced them out.



Mark XII takes into account all this helpful feedback but still improves on my original redesign by keeping the body "small and narrow" like a mustang. I also took pickguard area away and rounded the point, allowing for the 1/2'' edge radius like on strats and mustangs. That was a really good catch. thanks again for pointing it out.

How do we feel about this revision?

[GeekG]

Hello fellow jagstangers.

My name is George from Austria and I read alot here and did my own drawings for the last years.
My perfect design is very close to amon 7s and those jagstang mark XII.

Important is waist no too thick or narrow. A lower right butt that's not too exaggerated like the production model or jagstang done right designs.

Both horns etc..

This mark XII is almost perfect for me.
But what do you guys think about a reverse headstock?!

In my opinion a reverse large headstock flows much more naturally with most offset guitars because then the headstock has this same tilt as the pickups and waist etc. It makes the design much more congruent in my opinion. Please try it and let me know what you think. You might be surprised. Large or ormsl headstock is in the eye of the beholder I guess but I guess you will like the look of reverse headstock also.

There is even a chance of this design making the low E and A strings s bit tighter and not as flubby. Especially in short scale. Some have reported that in a stratbuz some said it makes the lower strings more flubby, less tight. In feel.

I would like your opinion on this also. Does a reverse headstock tighten the feel of low E and A strings or not? This is important for me because I don't like rattling strings, fret buzz..