i heard a rumour that dingwall is coming out with a new model... is anyone else as excited as me?
anyone have any details on the truth of the rumour?
anyone have any details on the truth of the rumour?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
a new dingwall model?
- Thread starter brian v2.0
- Start date
Geoff St. Germaine
Commercial User
- Aug 31, 2001
- 6,267
- 302
- Disclosures
- Owner - St. Germaine Guitars
Where'd you hear this? Did you hear anything about what differences there would be?
Sheldon might post and confirm/deny if he spots the thread.
Sheldon might post and confirm/deny if he spots the thread.
There is a new hollowbody. Here is a pic of the 4 prototype.
I believe this will be called the ABO (organic?) I dont know if he's activly making one for anyone yet, or if he's still workin out the kinks and waiting for his strings to be made.
He is having flatwound strings made for these, and Im sure you could get them for other Dingers as well. This pic is of the big body, he said they can also do a slim body version, still hollow and it keeps the weight way down. The plan for my fretless is a 6string one of these, slim body, with only the RMZ Piezo as shown in the pic. Note the cool wooden bridge as well
The body style has a slightly different curve on the lower horn, I really dig it a lot.
I believe this will be called the ABO (organic?) I dont know if he's activly making one for anyone yet, or if he's still workin out the kinks and waiting for his strings to be made.
He is having flatwound strings made for these, and Im sure you could get them for other Dingers as well. This pic is of the big body, he said they can also do a slim body version, still hollow and it keeps the weight way down. The plan for my fretless is a 6string one of these, slim body, with only the RMZ Piezo as shown in the pic. Note the cool wooden bridge as well
The body style has a slightly different curve on the lower horn, I really dig it a lot.Attachments
We always have something new on the horizon - including the ABO2 that Juneau mentioned, but likely the model your thinking of is our version of a J bass. Frank is getting a highly modified version of the first one. The production version will be a lot simpler.
I wouldn't mind a few opinions on some details that I'm considering though.
On this model we are going with a much shorter scale length of 32" on the G, 34.25" on the E and 35" on the B. I'm looking for more of a shorter scale vibe on this one. As a designer, I'd like to go with a reverse headstock to get more length past the nut on the bass strings - not that it's a substitute for scale length, but it does help a bit. There's no point though if it's unpopular.
Anyone have some thoughts on traditional bass (except for the fanned frets) with a reverse headstock? I've included a shot of Frank's headstock. If you're wondering what the darker, curvy section is, it's a 3D scallop that defines a flame on the edge of the headstock.
I wouldn't mind a few opinions on some details that I'm considering though.
On this model we are going with a much shorter scale length of 32" on the G, 34.25" on the E and 35" on the B. I'm looking for more of a shorter scale vibe on this one. As a designer, I'd like to go with a reverse headstock to get more length past the nut on the bass strings - not that it's a substitute for scale length, but it does help a bit. There's no point though if it's unpopular.
Anyone have some thoughts on traditional bass (except for the fanned frets) with a reverse headstock? I've included a shot of Frank's headstock. If you're wondering what the darker, curvy section is, it's a 3D scallop that defines a flame on the edge of the headstock.
Attachments
the news is out.
I can't wait.... The superJ should have a vintage vibe melded w/ all things Dingwall. Big time playability, punch, and amazing craftmanship. No more putting up w/ deadspots, uneven string tension (and tone), and plinky G strings.
if you want to hear what this bass should sound like, capo your 37" scale at the first fret, and retune to pitch.
I personally think the reversed headstock nails the unique nature of a Dingwall, but still retains a vintage look. However, I also understand that more traditionalists will like a "normal" looking headstock, to each his own. This bass should be a cool option for vintage type players
2 years in the making
frank
I can't wait.... The superJ should have a vintage vibe melded w/ all things Dingwall. Big time playability, punch, and amazing craftmanship. No more putting up w/ deadspots, uneven string tension (and tone), and plinky G strings.
if you want to hear what this bass should sound like, capo your 37" scale at the first fret, and retune to pitch.
I personally think the reversed headstock nails the unique nature of a Dingwall, but still retains a vintage look. However, I also understand that more traditionalists will like a "normal" looking headstock, to each his own. This bass should be a cool option for vintage type players
2 years in the making
frank
- May 2, 2004
- 2,862
- 243
- 38
- Disclosures
- owner/builder, ISLAND Instrument Mfg.
personally I'm not feeling the reverse headstock, it looks okay for Kirk Hammett (who? 
) but I find it would look odd on a bass with the large tuners...I would presume your fanned frets more than compensate for scale length (more than longer string past the bridge ever would..) I'm no guitar tech and you are the professional, and I could very possibly be very wrong. aesthetically though I'd say go traditional headstock.
Got any leaks of the body design?
) but I find it would look odd on a bass with the large tuners...I would presume your fanned frets more than compensate for scale length (more than longer string past the bridge ever would..) I'm no guitar tech and you are the professional, and I could very possibly be very wrong. aesthetically though I'd say go traditional headstock.Got any leaks of the body design?
I think I like the reverse, but I think I would have to see it with the body to make a decision.
I too would have to see it with the body to make up my mind as to whether or not I like it reversed.
I don't mind the reverse, but the scallop looks like a cross-section of some kinda gland to me... 
I love the shape of the ABO tho - it's way cool.
I love the shape of the ABO tho - it's way cool.
A reverse to me looks like using an existing part that was not really meant to go the other way. It takes away from the design aspect and looks like a compromise of function rather than form. Your basses have too much artistic value to have this headstock.
Here is a Celinder with reversed headstock. Just to show a classic design with the debated headstock. Not my bag, but to each his own.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Not a fan of the reverse headstock on this bass, but a 2+2 reverse headstock to me is pretty cool.
wow-
I didn't figure there'd be that many negative towards the reversed headstock. i figured there'd be a few people who dug the reverse style esp in lite of Dingwalls being unique instruments (and the benefits a reversed headstock provides).
IMO a typical modern-looking Dingwall headstock really didn't work w/in the vintage styling, so this was a good compromise and it kept w/in the feel
I didn't figure there'd be that many negative towards the reversed headstock. i figured there'd be a few people who dug the reverse style esp in lite of Dingwalls being unique instruments (and the benefits a reversed headstock provides).
IMO a typical modern-looking Dingwall headstock really didn't work w/in the vintage styling, so this was a good compromise and it kept w/in the feel
Add me to the list of not really digging the reversed headstock.
It would look absolutely fantastic as a standard head
It would look absolutely fantastic as a standard head
I dig the reverse headstock. A lot. Do not bow to these Philistines!
I do now, however, dig a nut narrower than 1.85" or about 47mm.
Make it wide, like, 2" wide. 2" on the 5er, and 1.75" on the 4 bangers. (Hell, I'm already in the minority with the headstock thing, might as well throw out an unpopular nut widths as well.)
I do now, however, dig a nut narrower than 1.85" or about 47mm.
Make it wide, like, 2" wide. 2" on the 5er, and 1.75" on the 4 bangers. (Hell, I'm already in the minority with the headstock thing, might as well throw out an unpopular nut widths as well.)
