Hi Alan,  Chip finished the mock-up of the body shape:  

 

  It's amazing what you can do with carpet tape.

Mica,
 
    I trust that isn't my neck there - I wanted the cone headstock as on John's basses, not the V shaped.  
 
    After reviewing photos of John's basses, I still think it's too thick at the waist if you will, e.g., where the upper and lower body halves pinch together in the middle of the body, particularly on the lower horn.  The cutaway on the lower horn also needs to be deeper from what I can tell as well - on the picture I sent it appears to be almost even with the end of the truss rod.
 
    The curve upward from the middle of the upper half to the upper horn also appears to have less of an upward angle in the picture I sent as opposed to the mock up.  In other words, it's a bit more parallel to the ground as it were if we were to hold the instrument parallel to it.  The lower horn appears to be too thick across, and shorter than on the picture I sent as well.  From what I can tell the end of the lower horn is almost equal the middle of the 17th fret.
 
    Overall, not a bad first attempt at all.  Chip did very well indeed.  Let's go ahead and try making those changes and see what we come up with.
 
    I must say, seeing a FTC thread for my bass has me stoked!
 
Thanks,
 
Alan

since i have tons of free time on my hands [while at home on a sunday afternoon], i made an animated gif showing [first and darkest] the original spider [from thewho.net] with the new one superimposed.
i drew lines up the center of the neck laminates and across the bottom of the fingerboards, and scaled the new body to the width of the fingerboard of the original.
this is for entertainment purposes only.
 
 
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y121/ventrata/animatedspi.gif

Peter,
 
    Thanks so much.  That really helps put the two in perspective and assists greatly in getting the body shape right.  
 
Mica,
 
     Please take a look at what Petre's done.  It pretty much confirms what I stated in my original response to the pictures.
 
Thanks,
 
Alan

Here's round II:

  Overlay of round II over original body reveals there's a touch more "massaging" to do on the shape, but it's closer than the first one:

  Round III should be conclusive.    More to come soon.

Here's something that concerns me about this replica. The original control layout is not good:
 

 
Notice how the neck pickup volume and Q switch are really crammed right up against the edge of the bridge. Now, that can't be fun to use. Also, the bridge Q switch is cramped to use.  
 
I regard the original layout as a mistake. There is actually room to scoot the controls away from the bridge and leave each with a little more breathing room.  
 
My question is do you want us to replicate the original layout of the cluster, or should we improve it while keeing the controls on the horn the same?

Mica,
 
    Looks better.  I think we'd agree we've got a ways to go, but this is a step in the right direction to be sure.  Can't wait to see Round III!
 
Thanks,
 
Alan

Mica,
 
    I'm all for improving it, as I think that's what John would have done.  Besides, I'm playing this instrument, not him.  Let's see where we can move them to.  Having them up against the bridge would indeed be problematic for me, anyway.  Lower horn looks fine.  
 
Thanks,
 
Alan

If you're planning to fix: the electronics layout, you may need to leave a little more wood in that area.  I suspect at least part of the reason it ended up so cramped was a lack of space in that quadrant.  I doubt Alembic would have designed it that way on purpose...
 
-bob

Bob,
 
    We'll see how it goes, I guess.  It's not something we have to decide on at the moment, but getting the body shape right is very important to me.  It's why I went with this custom in the first place - get it as close as possible to the original.  I am willing to make some changes as I'm the one playing the instrument, but not so much that I lose the original intent of the project.  I really like the original's body shape - it is much sleeker than my Spyder.  Looks to me like we'll be able to make it a reality.
 
Thanks for the input, I do appreciate it.
 
Alan

Alan-  
 
Just pointing out that there may need to be a trade-off decision there.  Once the wood is gone, it can't be added back, so best to consider it before further body slimming occurs.  
 
I love playing Exploiters, they balance so well.  I will be watching this one shape up, good luck with it!
 
-bob

Bob,
 
    Roger, got it.  This is why we went the mock up route - we have the opportunity to play with it a bit before we actually go to cutting the wood for the actual bass.  One of the things Susan told me when we discussed this instrument was that for some reason, they didn't keep the template for this bass, though they now do such things.  Additionally, the Spyders were designed to have a body shape that would appeal to a wide audience of potential players.  John's basses were made to his specs, and this bodyshape is no different.  Same goes for the neck, etc. - his fingerboards, for example, were completely flat.
 
Anyway, If we don't get it right, we can go back to square one with a Spyder body shape and start over.  This is what I think Chip did with the first iteration - as I own a Spyder, what he did looked like my bass.  Now that he's cut it down somewhat, it is much closer to what I've got envisioned.   Again, I'm not averse to making changes I feel will make it more playable for me.  Now, if it were the actual wood for the bass, then we might have a problem.  Luckily, in this case, it's only the mock up, so I think we're good here.
 
     Anyway, from what I can tell things are moving along nicely.  Can't wait to see round III!
 
Thanks,
 
Alan

Alan, if John's fretboards were flat, does that mean that his strings were all the same heighth?

Chip has been working on this body a bunch. Here is the latest:
 

 
To my eyes, we are almost there. The upper bump (I can't call it a horn) needs to be rounded slightly. The lower horn needs to be a scoonch longer and ever so slightly more pointy.
 
Keep in mind when comparing the solid Mahogany body to the finsihed bass on the right to follow the Mahogany on the finished bass for comparison. It's easy to be distracted by the top laminate being smaller, so everything looks much bigger in mock up than it does when finished.  
 
If you agree with me about the little issues, we will probably just start building the body for your bass with those very slight changes to the template, rather than making another mock up. You'll let me know.

Mica,
 
    I agree that the upper bump needs to be rounded and smoothed at the waist and at the top of the bump before it goes down into where it meets the neck.  It also needs to be a bit more parallel to the neck, if you know what I mean.  The angle on the upper bump going towards the neck appears a bit too steep to me.  And I agree on the lower horn - it does indeed need to be more pointy.  I also think that on the bottom of the bass, the body needs to be more rounded at the points (the upper rear of the bass, and the lower rear of the bass near the controls).  Might be a photo-ism that I can't see, but that's what I think it needs.
 
     Please extend my sincere thanks to Chip - he's doing a fantastic job.  But then again, this is Alembic after all - of course he's doing a great job!  ;-)
 
     Also, wanted to make sure that we all know that I wanted a walnut body, with Bird's Eye maple for the top (and back).  I'm considering the idea of walnut lams for the neck, maybe ebony (and yes, I know that will increase the price; I'll work this with Beaver F as needed), but I haven't made a definitive decision yet.  As we haven't begun building the instrument yet, we have a bit of time.  Let me know if this is untenable for you guys, and whether you need a decision now.
 
     I'll be home fairly soon, and I plan a trip to Santa Rosa sometime in August.  I can't wait to finally visit and see my bass in progress in person!
 
Thanks for the update,
 
Alan