Angus SG, I know, I know....

Well tell him I did think about that - BUT the Steinberger is very expensive! AND it sticks back quite a long way, which would be great for balance but would negate much of the advantage of the headstock chop. I'd think going the 4+2 MM style headstock would save on some length, and the body can be cut away right up to the bridge. I'd guess this would only be a matter of a cm or two longer than the headless option. + headless is damn ugly...
Status LED's for charge would be no issue, actually that power bank has the input on the top with the power button and LED array, and the output on the side, so I might be able to slip it into a cavity and plug the power in, leaving the port and LEDs visible!

An MM 4+2 would work, couple that with a standard Strat Hardtail would be about your shortest length option, unless you custom made some form of tuner bridge yourself. Unfortunately that doesn't get you around the ugly factor of the headless.
Really looking forward to seeing where this leads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrankenWashie

An MM 4+2 would work, couple that with a standard Strat Hardtail would be about your shortest length option, unless you custom made some form of tuner bridge yourself. Unfortunately that doesn't get you around the ugly factor of the headless.
Really looking forward to seeing where this leads.

---

I'm thinking the trem would stay, the speakers are the correct thickness to not require removal of the springs (just). I don't think the hardtail would be shorter, would it? I'm thinking the rear of the trem would extend beyond the body timber, with the sides of the aperture preventing it from moving down into the body by spring tension.
I do, however, have a lot of unpleasant SG sanding to go before I think about this one...

ah sanding, one of the penances we pay for the joys of building.....

Surely you can get a 3+3 headstock using mini-tuners shorter than a 4+2 arrangement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Barden

Surely you can get a 3+3 headstock using mini-tuners shorter than a 4+2 arrangement?

---

hmm, but cut from a paddle headstock? the D/G holes would be very close together, not sure of the strength issues
also I figure I can keep a strat-ish headstock shape with this arrangement too.

Maybe. You can still offset the holes slightly. Worth trying to draw up to see how compact you can make it, especially if you get an undrilled paddle headstock to start from.

Yes I think an undrilled one might work. Look a bit 'Gibsony' though, don't you think? I could put some sort of string tree to spread the strings a little, or have them go over the nut then turn a bit like a les Paul, but I think a 4+2 would look nice cut with a miniature strat headstock shape. I'll do the final measure up and compare with a stock suitcase when I get the bits and decide how small to make it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andyxlh

Yes I think an undrilled one might work. Look a bit 'Gibsony' though, don't you think? I could put some sort of string tree to spread the strings a little, or have them go over the nut then turn a bit like a les Paul, but I think a 4+2 would look nice cut with a miniature strat headstock shape. I'll do the final measure up and compare with a stock suitcase when I get the bits and decide how small to make it.

---

“Cough, cough, <scratchbuild> cough!” Excuse me, bit of the ‘flu.

In all seriousness, you can buy a decent neck blank on line, use a standard fender neck profile off the web and doctor the headstock however you like while maintaining that parallel Fender headstock ethos.

Ok so the horrid sanding is done, and my trusty Aldi airbrush has come to the rescue. The colour is now nice and even, but indeed it is a little too brown, but I'm not complaining compared with what it was!
The real ones seem to come in a variety of red to brown colours anyway, and I'm anticipating the clear coat will change the colour again, making it less opaque as it seems to.
Anyway, a successful evening's work!
Attachment 26876