Green Girl (Gritante) news

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:25 am

I'm actually liking this one. Should be a nice player, that neck joint looks fantastic.

ekwatts · Post by **ekwatts** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 3:26 am

Welcome to 1986. Mulletland.

James · Post by **James** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:02 pm

I suppose the general opinion here would be "not really my style, but it looks nice and it looks like its coming together very well". I'd go with that.

These threads usually result in people having a little more respect for Icey (he's a pointy guitar fan and is fine with it, knows what he wants and carries on that way) and a little less for watts (he's just being a tosser pillhead as always).

luke · Post by **luke** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:23 pm

I don't think the matching back plates serve a point. It's still perfectly obvious that they're removable, so what's the point in trying to hide them? I think he could've more tastefully hid the rear routes as well, those are three pretty randomly placed blobs.

I don't think it's all that impressive, but I'm not usually entitled to a negative opinion in these threads.

a66jagdream · Post by **a66jagdream** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:46 pm

Malik wrote:I don't think the matching back plates serve a point. It's still perfectly obvious that they're removable, so what's the point in trying to hide them? I think he could've more tastefully hid the rear routes as well, those are three pretty randomly placed blobs.

I don't think it's all that impressive, but I'm not usually entitled to a negative opinion in these threads.

I think it's a neat idea but those cuts and routes are really ruff and the way the spring cover meets the control cover just looks terrible.

euan · Post by **euan** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:19 pm

The one dubious thing I have to mention is that the routes have got suspiciously bigger between the non covered photo and the covered one.

a66jagdream · Post by **a66jagdream** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:33 pm

euan wrote:The one dubious thing I have to mention is that the routes have got suspiciously bigger between the non covered photo and the covered one.

Yeah i noticed that too, but they're still not very straight, they need to be cleaned up a bit.

Post by **Hurb** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:37 pm

ofcourse they got bigger, well that is to say the uncovered pic has no ridge for the cover to sit in. duh!!

lookin good ice.

Dillon · Post by **Dillon** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 pm

a66jagdream wrote:
Malik wrote:I don't think the matching back plates serve a point. It's still perfectly obvious that they're removable, so what's the point in trying to hide them? I think he could've more tastefully hid the rear routes as well, those are three pretty randomly placed blobs.

I don't think it's all that impressive, but I'm not usually entitled to a negative opinion in these threads.
I think it's a neat idea but those cuts and routes are really ruff and the way the spring cover meets the control cover just looks terrible.

Well, it looks better than plastic, wouldn't you say? And they are not randomly placed; that's a pretty standard location for jackson and ibanez style guitars.

a66jagdream · Post by **a66jagdream** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:23 pm

Dillon wrote:
a66jagdream wrote:
Malik wrote:I don't think the matching back plates serve a point. It's still perfectly obvious that they're removable, so what's the point in trying to hide them? I think he could've more tastefully hid the rear routes as well, those are three pretty randomly placed blobs.

I don't think it's all that impressive, but I'm not usually entitled to a negative opinion in these threads.
I think it's a neat idea but those cuts and routes are really ruff and the way the spring cover meets the control cover just looks terrible.
Well, it looks better than plastic, wouldn't you say? And they are not randomly placed; that's a pretty standard location for jackson and ibanez style guitars.

Yes i agree it looks better, but i dont like the way they meet but i guess thats how all those types are.

iCEByTes · Post by **iCEByTes** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:40 am

a66jagdream wrote:
Dillon wrote:
a66jagdream wrote: I think it's a neat idea but those cuts and routes are really ruff and the way the spring cover meets the control cover just looks terrible.
Well, it looks better than plastic, wouldn't you say? And they are not randomly placed; that's a pretty standard location for jackson and ibanez style guitars.

Yes i agree it looks better, but i dont like the way they meet but i guess thats how all those types are.

over black its not apear so much

but its looks fugly at Unmatched colours

looks an improvisement to close the routes , thats why i stick matched

, its looks more natural

Mo Law-ka · Post by **Mo Law-ka** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:52 am

icey, man im glad to see people that dont just say "its not a 60's shortscale" in this thread. also, the guitar looks ace, are you gonna leave it natural or paint it? i say leave it.

light rail coyote · Post by **light rail coyote** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:02 am

its not a 60's shortscale.

I do like the wood back plates though. I'd just worry about them cracking or something.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:22 am

light rail coyote wrote:its not a 60's shortscale.

I do like the wood back plates though. I'd just worry about them cracking or something.

Meh, if they crack, you could easily replace them with plastic if need be. But I doubt they'll crack easier than plastic, and chances are they won't all crack at once.

iCEByTes · Post by **iCEByTes** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:02 am

Mo Rocca wrote:icey, man im glad to see people that dont just say "its not a 60's shortscale" in this thread. also, the guitar looks ace, are you gonna leave it natural or paint it? i say leave it.

i thinking about green flame

....
but natural sounds nice idea too

Nick wrote:
light rail coyote wrote:its not a 60's shortscale.

I do like the wood back plates though. I'd just worry about them cracking or something.
Meh, if they crack, you could easily replace them with plastic if need be. But I doubt they'll crack easier than plastic, and chances are they won't all crack at once.

low chances its 5mm Plates maded of self guitar wood , luthier did careful cutting for use self wood from places they removed for do the pockets

a66jagdream · Post by **a66jagdream** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:07 am

iCEByTes wrote:
Mo Rocca wrote:icey, man im glad to see people that dont just say "its not a 60's shortscale" in this thread. also, the guitar looks ace, are you gonna leave it natural or paint it? i say leave it.
i thinking about green flame ....

.

DONT DO IT! natural or maybe a dark mahogany stain.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:17 am

iCEByTes wrote:
Mo Rocca wrote:icey, man im glad to see people that dont just say "its not a 60's shortscale" in this thread. also, the guitar looks ace, are you gonna leave it natural or paint it? i say leave it.
i thinking about green flame ....
but natural sounds nice idea too

If I were you I'd do a natural toned Transparent finish or stain. That's some beautiful wood there. I would let it speak for itself, instead of coating it in a flashy green finish.

It's your custom made guitar so you know what you want better than I do. I'm just saying....in my opinion, green just wouldn't do a custom guitar like that any justice.

iCEByTes · Post by **iCEByTes** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:23 am

ok i will think about

Clean is nice idea too ^^

light rail coyote · Post by **light rail coyote** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:00 am

GREEN ROCKS

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:03 am

Not like that it don't.