2x2 headstock or Fender Style?

[JohnEdward]

Edit: I will need to build a completely new neck for 2x2.

The body contours are the result of a mistake. Figured I’d run with it. Putting tortoise binding on. Will have a dimarzio model one and a single volume knob.

Body is sapele and hollowed, modeled off a Guild M20.

 

[Flamingo21]

Both options have the potential to emphasise the fact that the headstock is a mistake.
With some inventiveness you may be able to make one of them look like deliberate quirkyness.
Have you considered 3+1?

 

[MCS4]

To me the headstock still looks Fender-esque (Telecaster?), and IMO 2x2 would look strange. I would go standard Fender four-in-line myself.

 

[covermego]

With it being kinda Tele-shaped, I'd also go with 4-inline. However, I'd NOT use tuners with the big clover paddles; Gotoh 350 or 707's.
That there is a most beautiful bass!

 

[Wyrdlow]

I think the tele-ish headstock would look best with four in a row tuners, without a doubt. Perhaps smaller than the big "elephant ears" type though.
Looks great so far - I look forward to seeing it finished. Good luck!

 

[Wyrdlow]

With it being kinda Tele-shaped, I'd also go with 4-inline. However, I'd NOT use tuners with the big clover paddles; Gotoh 350 or 707's.
That there is a most beautiful bass!

You posted while I was typing. "Great minds think alike!"

 

[Plectrum72]

Shape of the headstock screams for 4 in line even though I prefer 2 x 2 when given a choice.

 

[Flamingo21]

One drawback of four-in-a-row is that all four strings are offset in the same direction, so they could pull the nut out of position.
That nut would have to be glued in very securely.

 

[carsonchilders]

Are the contours on the body a mistake? Cuz those look SUPER cool. I am very pro more contours on basses.

 

[JohnEdward]

Are the contours on the body a mistake? Cuz those look SUPER cool. I am very pro more contours on basses.

Yes, I messed up the rout for binding and so this is the result. It’s giving me a more classic, old school vibe (as in classical instruments) so I don’t hate it, and it’s driving my decision to go minimalist with the Dimarzio and a single volume. My only concern is comfort on the forearm, but it should be fine.

 

[WI Short Scaler]

With it being kinda Tele-shaped, I'd also go with 4-inline. However, I'd NOT use tuners with the big clover paddles; Gotoh 350 or 707's.
That there is a most beautiful bass!

I'm firmly in the "inline" camp, whether or not it's "Fender" style could be argued since that's a pretty popular design.

I think some Lollipop type tuners like Hipshot HB10 Bass Tuners would be good on there. Best of luck.

 

[JohnEdward]

Both options have the potential to emphasise the fact that the headstock is a mistake.
With some inventiveness you may be able to make one of them look like deliberate quirkyness.
Have you considered 3+1?

No to the 3+1. I also updated my post. I will need to build a whole new neck if 2x2.

I’m surprised to see that the Fender style head is winning. About 80% of me is leaning towards the 2x2 as this bass is modeled off a Guild m-20 that I’ve got in my living room.

But I mocked up this 1/2 way done neck last night and now I’m torn. It does look cool…but it isn’t symmetrical like the rest of the body so I don’t know.

 

[JohnEdward]

With it being kinda Tele-shaped, I'd also go with 4-inline. However, I'd NOT use tuners with the big clover paddles; Gotoh 350 or 707's.
That there is a most beautiful bass!

I was thinking hipshot ultra lite with lollipops.

 

[enzodm]

My first vote without looking at your bass was 2+2 (I do not like inline at all). With that nice body shape again I would vote 2+2. However, if you have to reshape this specific headstock, honestly better to stay on the safe side with inline...

 

[JohnEdward]

Shape of the headstock screams for 4 in line even though I prefer 2 x 2 when given a choice.

I’ll need to build a new neck for a 2x2 headstock. I swear I mentioned that in the post when I put this up, but I guess I deleted it.

Honestly, if someone were to ask me if a Fender Tele headstock should be considered as a 2x2, I’d think they were a bit off. So, I appreciate the respectful replies, lol.

 

[JohnEdward]

My first vote without looking at your bass was 2+2 (I do not like inline at all). With that nice body shape again I would vote 2+2. However, if you have to reshape this specific headstock, honestly better to stay on the safe side with inline...

I’d have to build a whole new neck, which I’m willing to do. Turns out building basses might be more addictive than buying them.

 

[ctmullins]

How is this a Tele-shaped instrument??? That body really needs a 2x2 headstock. In fact all basses do. I hate inline headstocks. Don't get me started....

@JohnEdward , posting a bit more explanatory context would help us all respond appropriately. I interpreted your question as "would a 2x2 or inline headstock better suit this body?" Apparently others interpreted it as "would a 2x2 or inline layout better suit this headstock"....

 

[JohnEdward]

How is this a Tele-shaped instrument??? That body really needs a 2x2 headstock. In fact all basses do. I hate inline headstocks. Don't get me started....

@JohnEdward , posting a bit more explanatory context would help us all respond appropriately. I interpreted your question as "would a 2x2 or inline headstock better suit this body?" Apparently others interpreted it as "would a 2x2 or inline layout better suit this headstock"....

You interpreted it correctly. I’ve since edited the post. I had included this clarification late last night but somehow deleted it before posting and going to bed.

 

[Wyrdlow]

Aha! Now I understand the question, I'd think a 2x2 headstock is far better suited to the body, a Guild or Washburn type of thing.

 

[ole Jason]

I think 2x2 would look better if the headstock is symmetrical. Given the symmetry of the body I think a symmetrical headstock would look good, similar to archtop guitars.