Z Bass II - Preliminary Designs Underway

[Musiclogic]

I did warn you about the addiction Tony...LOL. Looking quite cool, love the bound black rendering.

 

[tZer]

So true - once it's in the blood, there's no going back!

If the core of this instrument is good (and I think it is) I'm excited that I'll be able to 're-face' it pretty easily. I am looking forward to creating a whole array of new tops for it.

 

[Rickett Customs]

Tony, You might want to consider opening up those pickup cavities on the core, to accept other pickups with other tops, perhaps soapbars, MM, darkstars,P,etc.

 

[tZer]

Tony, You might want to consider opening up those pickup cavities on the core, to accept other pickups with other tops, perhaps soapbars, MM, darkstars,P,etc.

Good suggestion and I am considering that. Since the core is effectively masked by the top, it can have larger cavities and I do have a soapbar that I'm very interested in installing. This mod may happen sooner than later.

 

[Getaway Driver]

This is a fantastic idea with the switchable tops and pickup assemblies. Even better if you can work out a system for yourself like EMG's with their solder-less plug system. Switching would be a breeze! You could do it on stage to be a showoff! On the other hand, it could be a pain. I'd need at least two different basses like that so I wouldn't have to switch EVERY time. I'm kinda lazy.

 

[tZer]

Getaway Driver - thanks! The idea behind switchable tops and electronics isn't necessarily to be like a NASCAR pit stop - it's not an 'on the fly' thing - more like an "I'm a little bored with this look/pups config... Let's try a single H and a Sunburst..." - while it's super-easy to swap a top - you do have to take off the strings, so there's a little bit of a time commitment. Not a huge one, but it's not a 'between the songs' sort of operation.

That said, you could conceivably be playing a different bass each time you decided to change your strings!

UPDATE:
I just received another package from Stewmac with my binding, knobs, pickup and pickguard screws. So my next operation is to route the top and install the binding. Once that's done I'll be ready to finish this thing!! FINALLY!!!

QUESTION: I'm going with solid black for the paint job. I've got my white pickguard, black screws and knobs, white binding. Does anyone have a preferred finishing process to get a good, shiny, opaque black paint job? It seems straight forward enough and I was thinking about rattle-can lacquer... I know I need to treat the top - pore filling, sealing and priming... Is there a reason I wouldn't want to use rattle-can lacquer?

Thanks in advance?

 

[Ol'Bass'ead]

Rattle can lacquer tends to dry a lot slower-at least thats been my experience-but I imagine that it depends on the brand.

 

[tZer]

Let me layout my next steps as I see them and ask that if anyone sees any flaws in my plans to please shout at me.

I just received my white plastic binding from Stew Mac. So I plan to bind the swappable top using:

to glue the binding to the top and:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

to weld the binding joins.

Once the binding is on, I'll be ready to start the finishing process.

I plan to sand to at least 220. The wood on the top is poplar. I've been told that if I use lacquer paint that I wouldn't have to do anything beyond sanding and that the lacquer would fill and level.

Is this true or should I do some pore/grain filling or use primer?

I am thinking about this spray-on lacquer paint:

Is there any reason I shouldn't use that?

I'll be masking my binding with pinstriper's tape and masking tape then putting on many, many coats of paint before applying the lacquer clear finish.

I plan to put try to get the finish as glassy as I can. Am I heading down the right path?

 

[tZer]

I was just looking at this thread:

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=504392&highlight=spray+lacquer

And my only question is about step 3. Shoot color coats as needed...

Since I am planning to finish using clear glossy lacquer, should I use black lacquer paint or is the curing time too prohibitive?

 

[tZer]

As the title suggests - I added white binding to the top.

...and started the belly cut and forearm easing...

Oooo it's getting close! I'm going to get the body shaping finished over the course of this week and hopefully I'll begin painting and finishing by the weekend!!

After more than a year - it's about freakin' time!

 

[tZer]

Our experimental jam/jazz/younameit band will be relocating to a new lab. The guitar player who hosts our jams is moving about a mile away and our last jam in our current lab is this Friday.

We started this project somewhere around 2004 and it's been going strong ever since so we're all a little sentimental about leaving this lab behind even though our new lab is said to be much better! (Can't wait to see that!! The current lab absolutely ROCKS!)

So I decided to light a fire under under my butt and committed to bringing both ho-made basses to the final jam; Z-Bass I - fretless 5'er AND the current build, Z-Bass II, fretted - replaceable top/converta-bass.

Z-Bass I has been languishing on the wall since it had numerous 'flaws' that kept me from wanting to use it regularly at lab jams - so I took her down, fixed the flaws and was super-surprised at how GREAT she played and sounded!!!

On top of that, I decided to go ahead and wire up the Barts in Z-Bass II and even though it's still raw wood, I decided to put a light finish on it to protect it and bring it along as well.

So I wired it up, plugged it in, and it sounds FANTASTIC!!! Zero noise!!! 100% Killer!!!

I'll post clips after our Friday jam. Just had to share!!!

 

[Musiclogic]

Hmmmmmm...Tony, Ric-o-Jazz maybe? Very cool looking.

 

[tZer]

Yep - it's an unashamed Ric-o-Jazz - and thanks for noticing! Still have a lot of finishing to do on both Z-Bass I and this one - but they're both playable and both sound pretty darn good, if I do say so myself!

I'd been procrastinating on this one for a lot of reasons but our impending 'good-bye to the old lab' jam coming up inspired me to go ahead and wire it up - mostly to finally see what it sounds like.

I has definitely 'Jazz' qualities. When the bridge pickup is soloed, you get the bark/burp thing - when the neck pickup is soloed, you get a big, woody, round thing. Together, they sound great.

I shielded the entire control cavity with copper. I don't know if that's why or if it's just the nature of the Bartolini's, but it's DEAD QUITE - no hum whatsoever. I was expecting a little hum since they're single coil and most J's have a small hum when you solo a pup - but this one is absolutely silent! I was a little scared when I first fired it up because I didn't hear anything - no shhhhhh, no hmmmmm... just silence. So I thought I'd wired it wrong. Then I hit the strings and they rang out like bells!

I am really looking forward to playing my two babies Friday! It's going to be a real kick to spend the entire session playing my own instruments!

 

[Rickett Customs]

Tony, that is just awesome!

Get someone to back you financially, and I believe that you have something here...

 

[tZer]

Tony, that is just awesome!

Get someone to back you financially, and I believe that you have something here...

Thanks, Jason!

I looked into patenting the concept of the replaceable top and found it's neither novel nor non-obvious, unfortunately. So as for securing the right to produce this without violating a patent, no good. A guy by the name of Robert E. Childress of Forest Hill, MD holds Pat. No. 6,911,590 B2 - and has effectively protected any and all ways one could create a guitar with interchangeable parts.

I learned a lot about patents as a result of this build. When you go for a patent, you cover all bases near to, sort of like, related to your concept. If you look up his patent you'll see what I mean.

That said, I LOVE this 2nd build and the fact that I can make a number of killer tops, from traditional sunbursts and solids to fancy woods and beyond. I need to get the first top painted (inky, jet black - lacquer - shiny and slick) - then get right on a replacement top - probably sunburst - but I may be inclined to go for a fancy flamed maple or some other pretty wood just to show the fact that this bass can go from rock 'n roll to boutique in the time it takes to change the strings.

Here's Z-Bass I with it's freshly radiused and epoxied fingerboard:

I am going to re-open this build and try to resolve some of it's issues. It sounds really great but has a few woodworking gaffs that need addressing. I may even turn it into a replace-O-top like no. II if I can.

Thanks again!

 

[pilotjones]

Thanks, Jason!

I looked into patenting the concept of the replaceable top and found it's neither novel nor non-obvious, unfortunately. So as for securing the right to produce this without violating a patent, no good. A guy by the name of Robert E. Childress of Forest Hill, MD holds Pat. No. 6,911,590 B2 - and has effectively protected any and all ways one could create a guitar with interchangeable parts.

I learned a lot about patents as a result of this build. When you go for a patent, you cover all bases near to, sort of like, related to your concept. If you look up his patent you'll see what I mean.

From my reading of the patent claims, Childress has not protected all manner of configurable guitars. He gets into the configurability for sure, But all his claims require a unique element which you are not using.

Claim 1 depends on there being sliding pins, connected to string(s), included in the headstock.
Claims 2-15 are dependent on claim 1.
Claim 16 depends on there being a humidity tuner included.
Claim 17 is dependent on claim 16.
Claim 18 depends on there being a bridge using one of several specified quick-disconnect mechanisms.
Claims 19-28 are dependent on claim 18.
Claim 29 depends on there being a humidity tuner in the neck.
Claim 30 is dependent on claim 29.
Claim 31 depends on there being a humidity tuner, plus some per-string tension compensation built into the bridge.
Claims 32-48 are dependent on claim 31.
Claim 49 depends on there being sliding pins, connected to string(s), included in the headstock.
Claims 50-51 are dependent on claim 49.
Claim 52 depends on there being retractable frets.
Claims 53-55 are dependent on claim 52.
Claim 56 depends on there being a funky headstock protector to cover this mess.
Claim 57 is dependent on claim 56.

 

[tZer]

From my reading of the patent claims, Childress has not protected all manner of configurable guitars. He gets into the configurability for sure, But all his claims require a unique element which you are not using.

Claim 1 depends on there being sliding pins, connected to string(s), included in the headstock.
Claims 2-15 are dependent on claim 1.
Claim 16 depends on there being a humidity tuner included.
Claim 17 is dependent on claim 16.
Claim 18 depends on there being a bridge using one of several specified quick-disconnect mechanisms.
Claims 19-28 are dependent on claim 18.
Claim 29 depends on there being a humidity tuner in the neck.
Claim 30 is dependent on claim 29.
Claim 31 depends on there being a humidity tuner, plus some per-string tension compensation built into the bridge.
Claims 32-48 are dependent on claim 31.
Claim 49 depends on there being sliding pins, connected to string(s), included in the headstock.
Claims 50-51 are dependent on claim 49.
Claim 52 depends on there being retractable frets.
Claims 53-55 are dependent on claim 52.
Claim 56 depends on there being a funky headstock protector to cover this mess.
Claim 57 is dependent on claim 56.

As I understand it (and I don't), the 'non-obvious' factor is what I think gets in my way.

In the Abstract it states:

A guitar having a shell body and a main body. The main body and/or a portion of the main body is detachably connected to the shell body. A neck is connected to the main body and/or the shell body. A bridge is connected to the main body. The neck includes a headstock and a fret control that at least partially raises and/or lowers at least one fret on the neck.

My bass stops after the detachable body and does not include the headstock nor all the other dozens/hundreds of detachable components - but he effectively describes exactly how my bass would facilitate replacing the top - right down to the sandwiching around the core instrument.

As I understand the 'non-obvious' aspect of patenting, just because he doesn't describe every way the top can be attached, if it's obvious (sliding pins vs. bolts vs. screws, vs. velcro) he's still covered.

He also describes how one main body can be used with multiple shell bodies which is very close to what I am doing short of the concept of the entire body being detachable and replaceable. Mine is a singular body style with replaceable tops, but it's only one generation away from the entire body being replaceable.

ALL THAT SAID, I have not hired a patent attorney to look into whether or not my concept fits the non-obvious, novel criteria for patenting and I have been basing my assumptions on a rather long conversation I had with a Patent Law Prof. at Washington University about patents. Not specifically my invention, but the generalities of what qualifies as patentable.

Based on that and Mr. Childress' existing patent, it seems likely that my concept would get declined due to being not non-obvious.

But I have NO experience in patents and essentially shelved the patent idea based on how expensive pursuing it is and what seems to be the high probability that mine would be rejected.

My research also uncovered Invalid Link Removed and their 'core body, multiple outer body' concept.

Again, different than mine, but very similar.


Do you think I've stopped too soon?

 

[mikeyswood]

Yes. The use of the word "shell" implies the legal definition. You have a "solid body" and neck-through at that.

I believe that you have a use that is materially different than the existing patent.

 

[tZer]

Yes. The use of the word "shell" implies the legal definition. You have a "solid body" and neck-through at that.

I believe that you have a use that is materially different than the existing patent.

Fig. 14 clearly shows a solid body - essentially neck-thru design - that is virtually exactly the same as what I'm doing. The main differences being his 'bottom' is also detachable and the bottom and top essentially 'sandwich' the core instrument - as mine does - only my bottom is glued and non-detachable. Otherwise, it's so similar that I don't think arguing the word 'shell' is adequate.

Believe me - I am all for finding a really good reason to re-up the patent application mission. If I am being too cautious I am more than open to hearing how. I really appreciate the feedback you and PilotJones are offering regarding patenting this idea. I admit that I've lost hope that my idea is truly novel and non-obvious in light of the Childress patent - but I am open to having my mind changed!

I know that when it's all said and done, I can expect to have spent nearly $5000 pursuing a patent. I know the initial costs are less than that - as "low" as $500 to get things rolling and see if it's viable. That's a pretty good chunk of change to put out only to discover it's neither novel nor non-obvious as I have come to believe is indeed the case.

I suppose I can re-meet with my Patent Law Prof. friend and go over Mr. C's patent and compare/contrast it to mine to see if I've stopped too soon.

Thanks again for the counterpoint! I'd love to find a really strong argument that says I should keep going for it.

 

[Musiclogic]

I don't even dabble in patent law Tony, just adding that this has really come together, let us know how the "adios jam" goes and what your thoughts ended up being. Have fun with it.