T-bird 5 string build idea.

[KB5]

I see that Kiesel has their neck-through blanks on sale. I have been wanting build a custom T-bird 5 string in the worst way. I like the dimension on the Kiesel neck but would prefer 22 frets. Can the fretboard be trimmed back by two frets on the Kiesel neck through blank? I hate having frets I can't access...

I have designed a modified body in MS paint (LMAO!) that I think looks better balanced aesthetically than other Birds with improved upper register access. My thought is to use a Hipshot D stye bridge and tailpiece. I want the string spacing around 17MMish and this bridge gives the look I want and some spacing options. I'm still working on a head-stock design. I want a 3x2 that is reminiscent of the T-bird head-stock. I want the body wings to be mahogany.

My woodworking skills are a bit lacking for a project like this. Is there a luthier out there that would build and rout the body, shape/drill the headstock, and leave the rest to me? Will T-bird pickups be wide enough for a five string?

Here is what I have in mind for the body. (please don't laugh too hard at my killer MS Paint Skills.) It actually uses a full size T-bird pickguard. Yes I want the three way switch, maybe without the poker chip. Black with all nickle hardware and pickup covers. Thunderbucker Ranch or china-buckers. VVT with gold tophats and the aforementioned three way switch.

Luthiers with interest in this project please feel free to PM or email me. If anyone has a recommendation please chime in.

Thanks!!

 

[reverendrally]

Wow, did Carvin become Kiesel?

 

[Jisch]

Wow, did Carvin become Kiesel?

Yes, they split the company into instruments and amps. The instrument side is now called Keisel.

 

[KB5]

This is what I'm thinking for the headstock. I have not scaled the neck width up yet. It is still standard T-bird dimensions. Fretboard length is for 22 frets and access to upper register is pretty good while still looking somewhat true to the original.

With original bird for reference to changes.

 

[KB5]

Neck and headstock scaled up. I think I have captured what was in my head.

 

[reverendrally]

I think I'd like 5 in a row, or 4+1 better than that 3+2 design.

 

[KB5]

I think I'd like 5 in a row, or 4+1 better than that 3+2 design.

I hear what your saying. I did try a 4+1 and it just didn't look right at all. Part of the problem is when you shorten the body the long headstock make the whole bass look unbalanced and out of proportion. I'm going to try a compromise with a slightly longer version of the 3+2 design. Either way I'm having fun with this.

 

[Slidlow]

I would elongate the 3+2 but put 2 on top and three on bottom. The bottom being longer would look more aesthetic with three tuners.

 

[KB5]

Some Options. More work later.

 

[reverendrally]

I think the 4+1 works best from those options. BTW, it would be worth looking at Firebird guitar headstock for inspiration. If you could use slightly smaller tuners, 5 in a row would be more like a firebird, which in my eyes would be pretty cool.

 

[KB5]

I'm going to make up some templates in hardboard or something to get a better feel for all of this. I really hate that one tuning machine hanging off the bottom of the 4+1. On a T-Bird headstock it looks very out of place. This has some rudimentary machines and bevel rout. The rout added some birdness and I think this is going to be close to the final piece. I need to learn some CAD...

 

[KB5]

I'm thinking these tuning machines. HB6 - 1/2

 

[Slidlow]

Seriously try two on top and three on the bottom. Also the 3/8 version of the HB6 tuners with the smaller button would not crowd the headstock so much.

 

[5tring]

Seriously try two on top and three on the bottom. Also the 3/8 version of the tuners with the smaller button would allow not crowd the headstock so much.

Agree. I like the headstock design but it needs to be two on top and three on the bottom

 

[KB5]

Seriously try two on top and three on the bottom. Also the 3/8 version of the HB6 tuners with the smaller button would not crowd the headstock so much.

"That's the way you do it. Money for nothin and chicks for free." I don't know why I resisted. I think we're on to something here...

 

[Slidlow]

Yes grasshopper, now you are travelling down the right path. Now consider having the tuners perpendicular to the headstock edge.

 

[Scoops]

IMHO, I just never liked the look of two on top 3 on bottom

May I suggest pointing the beak down and put 3 on top

 

[Slidlow]

Stay the course and keep two on top and three below. Venture into the unknown. Besides having the "beak" pointing down looks too Fenderish.

 

[ctmullins]

That’s how I did mine as well.

 

[Slidlow]

That’s how I did mine as well.

View attachment 3232641

There, see it does work and looks fine. I think with the reverse body shape the 2+3 compliments the overall look very well. To further set it apart Schaller has M4-2000 tuners with a different button that I am using on a six. They allow a tighter spacing of the tuners but I never see them offered. I had to order them and wait to receive from Schaller. I am using them on the six string to minimize headstock size.