BigJay, I suspect you are arguing for the sake of arguing but i will try to enlighten you.
One needs only to look at the old picture and note the lines of the grain in the wood, the small mineral deposits and the join of the 3 pieces. Note the 3 small dots in the wood on the front of the body just behind the bridge. I called them knots but was informed that they were mineral deposits. Then look at the current picture and except for a few small differences accounted for by wear and sanding you see it is 99.9% the same. A 99.9% match in fingerprinting would get you a long sentence. It would be next to impossible to find 3 pieces of wood with identical grain patterns {on both sides}and mineral deposits to reproduce the body. However we must assume that my pictures are legit and the pics from the book are legit and you are a law student practicing your debating skills.
It is probably my fault for assuming most people would know about comparing the grain and its patterns to do a match. Sorry for the confusion.
Here are some more pics comparing the photos.
http://soundlogic-usa.com/electron/FDP/fdp229a.html

Don't know if anyone saw this, but GC is doing a west coast tour of Blackie and Lenny....

http://gc.guitarcenter.com/legends/

_________________
'95 Custom Warmoth Soloist Solid Flame Koa Body/Neck, Duncan Classic Livewire SSH, Sperzel locking tuners, Wilkinson VS100 bridge, all black chrome.
2008 MIM Lonestar Strat Black/White Pearl
2008 Taylor 114 CE

Oh my: I'm away for a day - and just look at all the fun I miss! There's a lesson in that...

Regarding authenticity of this story, I think everyone's missing one vital piece of evidence. Orvilleowner said:



Takes a lot to coax a statement like that from that particular gentleman! Good enough for me, far as a chat in a Forum is concerned. ('Course, if I were being asked to part with cash no one would be offended that I'd require slightly more... )

Anyway: much more interesting than who owns what is to look at the guitar itself. What's striking me is the back cavity on Leo's prototype. The spring cavity is carved so it can only take three springs side by side. And yet the trem block cavity is made to hold a full width block that holds up to five springs:



That's a published photo that definitely show's a real Strat prototype. So I'm not questioning anything: just wondering about the sequence of events that lead to those contradictory cavity routes. I get that the bridge in there now is not the original. But the block cavity is made to hold a unit similar to the one that went into production. How did that get married to that odd skinny spring cavity?

I'm just speculating and wondering about the design process: that's all.

BTW: regarding the Turin Shroud, mentioned earlier on this thread. I happen to know it's not real: I'd use it as a table cloth.

Cheers - C

Ceri,Is the cavity for the block that big for 5 springs? Or is it that big to feed all 6 strings through? Is that the original block? or did they fit one in after starting to work on the newer design on a different body?

My gut tells me, the cavity was cut so you could feed the strings through the block, not because they had already decided to add more springs. Remember the whole block moves, I think they didn't like how it traveled with the springs all bunched up like that.

_________________
I'm not an expert, but I play one on the internet.

Right. That's the sort of thing I'm thinking about.

I've never seen earlier prototypes for the vibrato. Once they arrived at something like what we know on the production model, was the full size block always part of it?

I guess I'm just trying to imagine what I'd be seeing in the block cavity if after all they had stayed with that three spring arrangement we see in the pic.

I'm sort of tantilized by the idea that the Strat didn't have to turn out how it did. What attracted me to Strats beyond any other guitars is that it is such a perfect piece of industrial design. Every time you try to second guess it or dream up improvements you discover it just has to be the way it is. It's architypal.

And yet those pics are a glimpse into an alternative universe where the Strat turned out something different. Fascinating!

Cheers - C

I agree. Look at all the designs prior and concurrent to the Strat. The all hold a lot of similarities, but the strat is different. Even the Les Paul is essentially a carved top Telecaster. the originals had single coil pick ups. The Tele is essentially a rework of Bigsby's solid body made for Merle Travis.

The Strat is a pretty big leap compared with any other models that came out in that era. It's really neat to see one step in the development process, we have all seen the Strat so many times, its hard to imagine it any different. I would love to see a detailed photo-log of the whole development process. Like we could see them trying out different belly cuts, or rejecting a horn shape design. Maybe a couple different attempts at the neck join, all would be a valuable insight into the thought process involved in making our axes what they are today.

What's always amazed me is, in the first 5 or so years of the production electric guitar, how much the manufacturers got right, fresh out of the gate. Almost all the innovation in the field (as far as features, not necessarily manufacturing process,) happened in those early years between 50-58. I would say easily as much as the whole intervening time since. There have been new things, like the Floyd rose, or active electronics, but it's funny how the more pricey instruments seem to float back toward those early designs.

_________________
I'm not an expert, but I play one on the internet.

This is so true. People often point out how amazing it is that the Strat has remain almost unchanged since the beginning, where cars, TVs, refrigerators - not to mention computers - have changed vastly. It's a cliche to say it - but it really is a bit of a miracle, and worth gasping over from time to time.

Taylor have invented a somewhat new neck joint for their electrics (partly to prevent neck switching with other models, I'll bet). It is probably slightly superior - but not nearly enough to worry about.

At a silly level, I once sat down to try and design a new six-on-a-side headstock that would be so innovative it would make the Parker Fly look conservative. I went through somewhere around a hundred designs, drawing across sheet after sheet. Gradually I refined it, trying out minute changes of curves and angles.

In the end I came up with a design I felt looked really nice. In short, it looks pretty similar to the headstock on the Peavey Omniac and others, except mine's angled back by two degrees (no stringtree, regardless of tuners). I'm pleased with it - and it looks so close to what Leo & Co came up with 60 years ago as to make no meaningful difference.

I could look those sheets out and post them sometime, if only for the comedy value...

Cheers - C

That is the original block and bridge, the saddles are from 54. In the book it said that Leo recognized the need for the block { something solid to anchor the strings in} but for whatever reason decided to use 3 springs. Here is a pic of the block showing only 3 holes for the springs to mount to. It is not known if he tried another 3 spring version but if this didn't do the job then why try another of the same design. I suspect and in the book it says that after the 3 spring didn't work, he went to 5 springs. I am speculating here but it appears this is the only 3 spring version ever built and the record seems to support that.

Ha! That's a really useful picture. Thank you, 53 strat.

BTW: when I first saw your username when you first arrived on the Forum I assumed it was some kind of waggish joke. How wrong was I?

Cheers man - C

Thanks for the photo 53. It is awesome to have something like this preserved, kind of a window back in time. Gives a few of us something to chat about too! My guess would be that they opted for a wider spread on the springs, and that just opened up room for the extra springs. Having them bunched in the middle seems like it might not balance properly, given the different tensions of the high and low strings.

_________________
I'm not an expert, but I play one on the internet.

Here is another pic that shows the saddles and the slotted head screws used to hold the block and bridge plate together. All the parts seem rather crude as if made in as hurry. The bridge plate has no plating on it and the saddles although known not to be the earliest ones ever seen are rather crude looking and you can see 2 of them appear to have some sort of plating on them {possible nickel} the others do not.

That really stands in line with it being a prototype. I would imagine the first priority is making a working model, and worry about making it pretty later.

Thanks again for sharing. I just ordered the book online, I really need to read it I think.

_________________
I'm not an expert, but I play one on the internet.

Notice how those early saddles had pat pend stamped in. They must have been a bit of a way into the bridge design and committed to it at that point.

_________________
No no and no