Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Extended Range Guitars' started by jco5055, Jun 21, 2018.
Ok guys it’s done...I put my deposit in!
Only thing I’m still on the fence that I could change down the line is hardware color.
I went rainbow sparkle w/gold hardware per the suggestion of Kyle, but I also think burned chrome would look great. Thoughts?
I think burned chrome would suit better the rainbow sparkle, but the choice is up to you!
luckily I have quite some time before the hardware gets added haha
I think Gold or a hybrid Chrome/Gold would look killer with that finish. Try maybe Chrome Pickup Cover/Gold Poles, Chrome Bridge/Gold Saddles, Chrome Tuners/Gold Buttons, and then Gold Switch/Knob.
The only thing keeping me from doing burnt chrome on a build is that Hipshot's Tuners literally melt when they try adding the burnt chrome effect to it. So the tuners mismatch with burnt chrome on all the other hardware.
Also unrelated, decided on Arctic Sunset + Chrome Hardware/DGS + Black Hardware for my next two builds. Going to order soon.
yeah I think I'm still leaning towards gold, which is what I put in...piezo is also an option which is nice (and that I'm getting)
I'll post the specs once I get "officially" confirmed, which will probably happen today.
i'd go black. keeps the focus on the rainbow sparkle.
In agreement with this, chrome and gold seem to look better than the burnt chrome. Jonathan, you doing a Arctic 6/7 string combo?
I'm going 6 string with both guitars! I already have my 070 as my main 7 since I only play in B Standard so I don't really need another one. Mine covers all my bases, but I want to get more 6 strings to cover my 6 string tunings. Arctic will probably be my E Standard guitar, and the DGS might be Drop B/C Standard.
Aristides are the single most disappointing brand out there right now, to me. I love that they're working in alternative materials. I love that they pay so much attention to detail. I love the things I'm hearing about their level of craftsmanship...
...But I hate their aesthetics.
It's really, genuinely disappointing. I've had a ton of issues with climate affecting my instruments since moving here to Korea, so I'd love something with more stable, less wood-y materials. Aristides seems to be the brand doing it the best at the moment, but I just can't get past those goofy ass hood scoops. Sadly, none of the other companies doing alternative material builds is any better in that regard. It's like there's some law stating that if you want to build a guitar out of something other than wood, you have to make it look stupid and/or ugly.
Oh well. Money saved, I suppose.
It makes the guitar aerodynamic so you can play faster
You can move across the stage faster (fixed that for you ;-) )
I feel that, if they didn’t have the non-wood aspect I probably would not buy one, their options are pretty basic (at least compared to a lot of other custom shops/luthiers) and the shape is overall kind of meh/a little too average for me.
Imo if they were wood they’d just be comparable to mayones, Ibanez j custom, caparison, high end esp, suhr etc....which would still be great guitars but for the price and shape I wouldn’t buy one.
But I figure I can play mine for 5, 10, or more years and hopefully by then they’ve made some big r&d developments for my 2nd build
Black or chrome all the way. Contrasts is what makes a design come to life, not blending everything together. Guitars aren't supposed to become a hardware-paintjob-pickups smoothie...
100% agree. I've been tempted numerous times, from hearing how well they play. But the problem is that the Aristides shapes are flat out ugly IMO. The only thing they really have going looks-wise is their ability to do crazy finishes.
They also have custom shop prices. €3000 will also get you RAN, Daemoness, Mayones, Skervesen, Waghorn etc - and they will let you customise absolutely everything. You're not stuck with a single scale length offering, and you're not stuck with everybody else having exactly the same guitar as you.
If they bring out those multi-scales, modernise the body shapes and headstock shapes, then maybe I'll be down for one.
Thing is that nature of the construction isn't prone to allow for much customization of the shapes - molds are expensive affairs and you'd need a new one per shape variation, not to mention the time required to have it done. In time, I see this sort of thing working from a more modular approach, making mold parts join to create the whole, but it's a lot of R'n'D and investment to get there.
It's just the nature of the beast. I love the shapes, so I don't complain, but I can see why this limitation is a turn-off for others.