Page 13 of 22
Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...
Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:53 pm
by walker
GREAT SCOTT!
Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...
Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:01 pm
by walker
johnallg wrote:So, where is the push/pull to bypass the flux capacitor?
Well played, sir!
Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...
Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:25 pm
by johnallg
walker wrote:johnallg wrote:So, where is the push/pull to bypass the flux capacitor?
Well played, sir!
Well, if you're only driving it to the grocery store, you wouldn't need time travel or to go 88 MPH.

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...
Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:48 pm
by walker
Aaaah, but if I DO need time travel, it's nice to have that option.
Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...
Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:00 pm
by congerz83

Why did I open myself up for the "Enter BTTF Reference Here" onslaught?

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...
Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:17 pm
by jps
congerz83 wrote:
Why did I open myself up for the "Enter BTTF Reference Here" onslaught?

Huh?

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...
Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:02 pm
by s4001
walker wrote:GREAT SCOTT!
Yes?
Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...
Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:35 pm
by jps
s4001 wrote:walker wrote:GREAT SCOTT!
Yes?

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:11 am
by walker
GREAT SCOTTS!
Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...
Posted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:26 am
by jps
Where's Doseck?
And, Mr. 366/12?
Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:53 pm
by walker
Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...
Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 11:06 pm
by walker
The McCartney bass references:
Body (reversed):
headstock:

Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...
Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:49 am
by lucky
Nice attention to detail Mark, looking forward to seeing the end result

.
Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...
Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 9:00 am
by teeder
+1!
Nice shaping on the peghead!
Re: The CORRECT McCartney Conversion...
Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 11:46 am
by johnhall
If accuracy was intended, hopefully that photo wasn't used as-is for the headstock outline, before the perspective was corrected. It's been a number of years since we went through that exercise now but as I recall the angle correction required was more than 10 degrees. It was rather extraordinary how much difference it made in the final shape.
The starting assumption came from measuring a number of vintage headstock thicknesses, then using that to project the flat surface onto an appropriately thick block in Rhino, rotating it back until the perspective offset as seen in the hook of the head was the right dimension. The key wind post tip would have been a better reference but the strings get in the way.