First, everybody that builds musical instruments is a “designer”. It seems like the initial thrust of this thread was to not take your designs too far afield. That was the recipe for “designing for failure”.
Coincidentally, here’s something that was just posted; something I thought was somewhat apropos to the theme of this thread.
Obviously we’re looking at a very well-studied and talented luthier here. Here is his site:
http://lute.cepelak.cz/introe.html
But I would guess that his knowledge of how to produce sound in general kept this instrument from being a complete financial disaster. In other words, he didn’t spend as much time on this creation as one might imagine. Of course Ukulele luthiers aren’t this knowledgeable, right? They don’t get involved in anything this complicated, do they?
Well, maybe not quite this complicated, but the closest thing I can think of to something like this in the Ukulele World is the Harp Ukulele. And the two fellows I know of who have dabbled in that design have posted here: Duane “no longneck” Heilman and the OP: Pete “think payroll” Howlett.
It seems to me you guys did a great job. So what happened? Was that the experience that turned you’all against “experiments”? Were those your “designs for failure”? Do you maybe use that experience to “slap yourself in the face” when the desire to scratch that design itch hits? (though Duane has since built "ukulele-like" instruments). Seems to me that even if it didn’t make you’all big bucks, it may have given you both some cred (as well as personal satisfaction).
And here's a question. Not that they have to be mutually exclusive, but should the small batch luthier offer alternatives to standard instruments, offer simple standard instruments of high quality, or focus on fancy woods and adornments?