[QUOTE=Carson O’Genic]
Rapid randomness ensues.
Yepper, I’d nix the pine too.
Nothing wrong with spray cans. Guns offer economic and custom blend advantages along with fine adjustments to delivery.
There was a question upthread about using oak. It is a very similar wood to ash, and I’ll betcha most laypeople could be fooled one from the other. Not necessarily heavier either.
Traditionally, coarse grained woods like that don’t get highly finished, possibly because they require lots of filler to obtain plane, and quick build fillers contribute to opacity. One does see startling exceptions, i.e. black epoxy or metal filled grain with clear topping.
I assumed you were looking for the see through finish that the SG standards seem to typify. If you are talking a solid colour then my prior post should be disregarded.
A fleeting thought was to laminate an ash body with mahogany skins, easy enough to do given the right equipment but perhaps hard for you. Would give the best of both worlds. Use a rigid glue, not aliphatic resin ( ala Titebond).
I get a Tele sound out of my standard (humbuckers). Each p/u has separate output and can be phase swapped.
Gotta go.
[/QUOTE]
All good - thanks. Will keep you posted about the wood choice, in plenty of time to consider finish issues.
I have never really considered buying a body made of a base wood with a veneer/laminate of other wood on top. Dunno why - just not my thing if it is just for visuals. If it is for the sound - like the obvious example of most Les Pauls, made with mahogany + a maple cap - then sure. But heck, even my main Les Paul, Gracie, is a 1-piece mahogany-bodied Custom, not a maple-capped Standard…
As for pickups - yeah, clearly there are many paths to get to the Fender-AND-Gibson space:
- My approach: design basically for Fender, but have controls that enable you to dial-in Gibson. Kinda.
- Buy a Gibson (dual-coiled) humbucker that enables coil-splitting, so you can flick a switch, shut down one coil and have something close to a Fender single-coil pickup. Kinda.
- Buy a digital-modeling guitar, like a Line 6 Variax, which takes your strummy/picky inputs and puts them through a digital program where they can assign tone profiles from a wide array of classic guitar and amp sounds. Kinda.
- Use effects - stompboxes or something on your amp - to put a layer of tone influence thick enough to “override” the original tone and impart a more Gibson-like tone - as **An Arky ** said, that is the direction these things tend to move - take a Fender and impose a thicker Gibson sound on it. Kinda.
There are other approaches, too - so, do you get the idea that being able to access tone versatility out of a single guitar is a sort of Holy Grail that we player-types have been messing with since the invention of electric guitars? 
I am sticking with my option. Why?
[ul][li]Well, the digital approach won’t cut it - I am not building a digital guitar (and wouldn’t want to, anyway). [/li][li]Using effects in the way I describe above - to slather on a layer of tone not present originally - well, obviously I don’t look too favorably on that. Pedals can add spice to a fundamentally great tone, but to depend on the spice to carry the whole entree? That’s asking too much of your pedal. (nice shmushed imagery, I know…)[/li][li]Buying a splittable humbucker - well, this is a very attractive option. To my knowledge, **Crotalus ** is contemplating this approach for his build. Fundamentally, it comes down to whether you want to work from Gibson towards Fender or from Fender towards Gibson - either because that is what you want from THAT guitar, or because you feel one solution meets your playing needs better. There are countless reports on line and in recordings done by top players which prove that a coil-split humbucker is a great approach.[/li][/ul]
I think I am sticking with my approach because, for some reason, I am more comfortable twiddling knobs than flicking a switch (insert appropriate Beavis and Butthead reference here!
). I have the knob-twiddly, single coil set up on my first project Tele and it does achieve what I want, and the tonal variations I am looking for feel, to me, like the changes I am making in neck scale, fingerboard, and maybe body wood will get me where I want to go - more than changing to a different Gibson-to-Fender strategy will. Also - well, I have gotten to enjoy rockin’ it old school - the touch-dynamic responsiveness of tweaking the Tone control a hair - well, it’s cool. You know how a wah pedal sounds as you rock the pedal through the spectrum? Well, I love listening for that wah-like “Ow” sound as I tweak the Tone control to dial in a sound that speaks to me today. And yeah, I am trying to design a guitar that is responsive enough where you can really hear that subtle, wah-like transition, as opposed to rolling off the tone and just hearing sludge.
Gotta run…