Author Topic: 225 Dark, Medium and Light (SOLD) (Read 1062 times)

mica · « **on:** November 21, 2002, 03:14:47 PM »

This billet is thick enough for a matching top and back.

bigbadbill · « **Reply #1 on:** November 12, 2003, 12:11:39 PM »

Mica

Are this piece and 503/504 (I like 'em all!)considered to be upgrades on a Signature bass? If so how much are they? Would they be big enough for a triple omega?

Thanks

Shaun

mica · « **Reply #2 on:** November 13, 2003, 09:18:01 AM »

Most of these woods are not upgrades for the Signature Standard or Deluxe models. This particular piece is wide enough for a Triple O.

I must go an reclassify that Wacky Walnut... upon closer inspection, I'm now convinced it's Myrtle. We bought it so long ago, nobody remembers for sure. When in doubt, pull out the stereo microscope!

bigbadbill · « **Reply #3 on:** November 13, 2003, 01:27:42 PM »

Thanks Mica, that's great. I hadn't really considered walnut until I saw the bass in the Bass Centre, but its definitely in the final 2 now; I'm torn between that and the buckeye (although I love maple I think I've decided against it for a triple O), but I do love the piece above. Having said that, the myrtle/walnut is great (I thought it was a really unusual walnut; that explains why!). Just out of interest, what are the weight/ tonal characteristics of myrtle?

Cheers
Shaun

mica · « **Reply #4 on:** November 13, 2003, 06:36:50 PM »

It's a tad lighter in weight than Walnut. I don't have much experience with using it for tops. When I was a kid we made many more Myrtle instruments, but I wasn't listening too closely back then :-)

Now we use it primarily for cores in Brown Basses. That's not a good indicator for a top wood, especially since those basses have oil finishes and Mahogany necks.

wayne · « **Reply #5 on:** November 14, 2003, 09:45:45 AM »

For what it's worth -

I heard a Goodall acoustic guitar made with Flame Myrtle back and sides. The tone was like Maple with any harshness in the highs taken out. Very balanced across all the strings.

Just go ahead and put Ebony in the neck, and then pick the top wood purely for appearance. ;-)

C-Ya............wayne

bigbadbill · « **Reply #6 on:** November 17, 2003, 02:12:45 PM »

Thanks for the input Wayne. I am quite taken with the myrtle, particularly as its not so common, although having little reference point in terms of sound is difficult (smooth maple sounds good though..). I'm having a tough time deciding which wood to go with (walnut or the wacky myrtle); Im even wavering about flame maple again, although I think it would be too heavy as I'm trying to keep the bass as light as possible. Mica, as I've now put an order in (which I've e-mailed you separately about), would it be ok to discuss a couple of these woods? And would you say I'm right in thinking the flame maple would be heavier than the walnut? Would it be possible (if I specify which pieces) to see a couple with a touch of acetone on them to get a better idea? I quite like the idea of having a pattern which kind of breaks up the bulk of the body somewhat, if you get what I mean (i.e. NOT straightgrained), which is one of the reasons I like 225 . Could you advise if I chose a top and back from the above piece of walnut, would it be bookmatched? If you would prefer I ring to discuss, please let me know. Also if you have any pictures of myrtle-topped instruments I'd be really interested to see them.

Thanks

Shaun

bigbadbill · « **Reply #7 on:** November 18, 2003, 10:16:33 AM »

Hi Mica
Further to the above post, I've been looking through the custom archive and I absolutely love the top and back on the Big Bass (March 2003). I love the radiating flame and the figure, but especially the colour, which has a paler, almost greenish cast (or is it just the photos?) compared to, for instance, the much redder look of the Triple O 4 (March 1999). Do you have anything similar in colour and pattern to the Big Bass woods available? 232 and 236 look vaguely similar, but I can't tell with regards to the colour. Sorry to go on, but this may be my only ever custom Alembic so I want to get it right!

Many thanks

Shaun

mica · « **Reply #8 on:** November 18, 2003, 05:31:05 PM »

Any of the top woods we feature will be bookmatched. Not every piece is big enough for bookmatching to center (where the neck is covered). This particular example is still in billet form.

Walnut tends to either have a cooler greenish cast or a warmer reddish cast. Yahya's is a tad on green side. Woods that look similar to his might be 232 and 236. I'll do some digging in the shop later this week and see what I can't find for you.

bigbadbill · « **Reply #9 on:** November 19, 2003, 11:20:50 AM »

Mica, you're a star

Thanks very much for that. I'll await your possible discoveries (or confirmation of 232/236, although I'm also still interested in 225) with barely disguised excitement,i.e. read completely undisguised! Just out of interest (and certainly not pushing as there's no rush), how long do you think it'll be before the bass gets started? I'm only curious because I have a couple more things I'd like to chat to you about regarding rear neck profile etc. Still, I guess that's a way down the line yet. By the way, if you have any suggestions for the top and back for my Triple O, bearing in mind what I've said, I'd be happy to hear them as you're in full command of the facts (i.e. wood and templates!).

Thanks again

Shaun

mica · « **Reply #10 on:** November 19, 2003, 05:52:02 PM »

Here's a swipe of acetone on 225:

It has some nice flame characteristics, and I don't think it will look quite this dark with the regular finish, but this will give you a general idea.

mica · « **Reply #11 on:** November 19, 2003, 06:00:40 PM »

I added an acetoned pic of 241 over on its thread.

I'm afraid i wasn't able to locate 232 or 236, but I'll try again tomorrow with Chip's help.

(Message edited by mica on November 19, 2003)

bigbadbill · « **Reply #12 on:** November 20, 2003, 09:35:37 AM »

Hi Mica

Thanks a bunch for that! 225 looks different than I imagined; the left side almost reminds me of zebrano on the picture (almost John Paul Jones' 8 string-esque?). 241 looks fantastic! Ironically, today I found a note to myself which I wrote weeks ago which just said 241. Wierd! Anyway, I'll await 232/236 if they're still there and see how we're doing, but 241 is looking good at the moment. I'd be interested to see what mad myrtle (as opposed to wacky walnut) 503/504 look like as well if you get chance as I've absolutely no idea how they'd come out! And I thought choosing the wood would be the easy part....

Many thanks

Shaun

mica · « **Reply #13 on:** December 11, 2003, 03:00:04 PM »

Sorry, still no sign of those two - I'll mark 'em as gone.

bigbadbill · « **Reply #14 on:** December 13, 2003, 10:35:37 AM »

Thanks Mica

Never mind!I recently continued the thread on 241 which you may wish to look back on for clarification (it could get confusing jumping from billet to billet!); just to confuse you even more I was asking if 240 was around and what your thoughts on that for a back and 241 for a top would be, given my previous comments. Any chance of seeing how the body shape would look against these woods (chalk line maybe?), and of possibly seeing 240 swiped (if its still around)? Alternatively I'm also very interested in anything resembling Brian's custom bass (i.e the one which turned out not to be his!)i.e. the Yu-Gi-Oh bass.

Thanks a bunch

Shaun