• 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.

Redeemer Anti-Jazz 4

scottyd

scottyd

Commercial User
Nov 17, 2006
2,887
657
Waco Tx
Disclosures
Builder/owner Redeemer Basses
#1
I've been asked numerous times to build F-der style copies, especially the Jazz style. And I've considered it, lots of companies and individuals have been successful doing so...but just can't get into it myself. Don't get me wrong I love the style and type of bass but me personally, I just couldn't put my signature on someone else's design work. I've had potential customers ask me to, you can't deny the popularity of them.

So in lieu of that semi-rant, a few years ago I started designing what I feel can be a nice alternative. In fun humor, I've coined it the "Anti-Jazz" and it's just that, similar in design but then again... it isn't really at all. It shares some classic looks with modern twists with influences from the Jazz, P, Strat, Dingwall, Mustang and even the M&M Stingray.

I've started the first build of one yesterday. It will be a 34/32 multiscale, DC-J shape, 25 frets, my dual-coil pickups, and pre-amp and bridge. The pickguard will be cut from carbon fiber and the pups and bridge will be veneered to match. I'm considering veneering the headstock in CF as well but am undecided...


Here's the design:
dcjv4homeoffice v27.png Untitled.png Untitled2.png

Wenge fingerboard sized and slotted, body and headstock templates made.
IMG_20191111_210236410~2.jpg

Body roughed out. "Texas Ash"
IMG_20191112_113003383~2.jpg


Neck blank roughed out and FB glued down.
IMG_20191112_135750653.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rôckhewer, herndonbassist, Novarocker and 8 others
#10
Bruce Johnson said:
I'm curious why you guys don't like the headstock design? I like it, and I think it works well with the body and pickguard shape. What is it about the shape that bothers you?
Click to expand...
I don't think the headstock design is "bad" per-se. But to me this corner is just too "sharp" and maybe pointed the wrong way if that's a good enough description -
Capture.JPG

The rest of it seems fine. to me. I, personally, would try to find a way to lessen the "impact" of that one corner because I think it sticks out in contrast to the rest of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wraub and scottyd
#11
lucas303 said:
Will the D string be running real close to that G string tuner, or is that just a trick of perspective in the drawing?
Click to expand...

The holes shown in the design are for the body of the tuner to pass through, the actual post that the tuner string goes into is about 5mm smaller in diameter. It is close though but will be fine, the goal for all of my headstocks is to keep them as compact as possible to keep more weight on the butt end of the bass.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lucas303
#12
TerribleTim68 said:
I don't think the headstock design is "bad" per-se. But to me this corner is just too "sharp" and maybe pointed the wrong way if that's a good enough description -
View attachment 3594245
The rest of it seems fine. to me. I, personally, would try to find a way to lessen the "impact" of that one corner because I think it sticks out in contrast to the rest of it.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that is what some are seeing. That's a glitch in the cad. Or most likely in this case the cad operator me. :)

It is supposed to actually look like this:

IMG_20191113_124053770.jpg
IMG_20191113_124108490.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matt Liebenau and TerribleTim68
#13
JKos said:
Thoughts on the non-slanted pickups on multi-scale?

- John
Click to expand...

That means they're biased the same way as the "regular" P pickups - some folks (the reverse P crowd) will balk, but I happen to think Leo got that part right in his second design - that the lower strings are there to provide low end, and that "slant" helps with that. Your design has equal small size steps between strings in how far the pickup is from the bridge, where the classic P has one big step between the D and A strings. Stay the course, I'm sure it'll be fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TerribleTim68
#14
scottyd said:
The holes shown in the design are for the body of the tuner to pass through, the actual post that the tuner string goes into is about 5mm smaller in diameter. It is close though but will be fine, the goal for all of my headstocks are to keep them as compact as possible to keep more weight on the butt end of the bass.
Click to expand...
That makes sense. I figured it was just me looking at the picture wrong in one way or another.

As an aside, the figuring of that fingerboard looks gorgeous!
 
  • Like
Reactions: scottyd and mmon77
#15
dwizum said:
Love the body design. Is that the color you're aiming for? It looks great against the black.

I also don't care for the headstock, but you don't need to listen to us rabble-rousers. :smug:
Click to expand...

This one will be red with gold and red metal flake. All the hardware and such will be black. Very similar to the design. I love rabble-rousers! Sometimes my own taste isn't as popular and that's a good thing to know!
 
#17
JKos said:
Thoughts on the non-slanted pickups on multi-scale?

- John
Click to expand...
I've done it both ways, it's such a small difference I don't think it matters, I don't care for it aesthetically myself.

On this build pictured below, I angled them. Beforehand I mocked up the coils over the top of the strings set them in place straight and angled and couldn't notice much (if any) difference by ear. I believe if the area covered a longer span it would prob be a little more detrimental... but IDK there's probably some Tone Wood Scientist rolling in his grave over most of my theories. lol
100_1503.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: mmon77
#18
Bruce Johnson said:
I'm curious why you guys don't like the headstock design? I like it, and I think it works well with the body and pickguard shape. What is it about the shape that bothers you?
Click to expand...

I guess, for me, it's two things. Firstly, I feel like it's hard to design a fender-ish headstock, yet make it distinct, that doesn't inherently look like you were trying to design a fender-ish headstock, yet make it look distinct. I really can't think of any 4 in a row or 3-1 headstocks that don't somehow fall victim to this. To me, they all look like someone started with a fender shape and then changed one thing to make it not fender. Secondly, I feel like the headstock is fairly pointy, while the body is fairly curvy. Of course, as I type that, I realize that my own typical headstock shape is very pointy, and all my instruments are curvy.

I guess my gut reaction was that it would be more in balance with the body curvyness if the top point were replaced with a ball-like round shape. But then it would basically be a fender headstock.

I hope everyone can read this as good natured personal preference commentary, not actual criticism! Scotty, I'm a big fan of your work and really loved the shop-made bridge on the bass in your last thread. I really can't wait to see this one finished up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wraub and scottyd

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back