Gibson headstocks

suspiciousminds

Why is it some gibson headstocks seem to differ in shape.
I've had a couple so far that when you look at the headstock face on one side looks shaped by the neck slightly different to the other side.
Is it a QC issue?or the norm for gibsons?

guitargeek62

I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but there'll be variance at transitions from hand-sanding, and between different neck profiles too.

suspiciousminds

So are the headstocks hand finished?

ICBM

It's because they're hand made. Same reason as why they can't get the neck angles consistent. But hand made is always better, right…?

suspiciousminds

Ahh i see

zenzeypher

They use a jig pattern and someone guides it through.. so might depend on how much they were paying attention that day aha.

although id say about 5% of it is made by hand... less so than epiphone.. which is surprising




about 1:10 onwards.

find the epiphone factory tour.. you'll look at em slightly different after.

richardhomer

A small, related point. I've recently bought 'The Beauty of The Burst' book which has lots of photos of '58 -'60 sunburst Les Pauls. It's amazing how often the truss rod covers are slightly off centre on them. Obviously the holes for the two screws were drilled by eye, rather than using some kind of jig.

As @ICBM says 'But hand made is better, right?' Makers like PRS, Anderson and Taylor really have mastered mass-producing perfectly made guitars - with high precision CNCs at the heart of their manufacturing processes.

You would imagine by now that a giant like Gibson would have refined its methods of building sufficiently to deliver much greater consistency.

HAL9000

suspiciousminds;13792" said:

Why is it some gibson headstocks seem to differ in shape.
I've had a couple so far that when you look at the headstock face on one side looks shaped by the neck slightly different to the other side.
Is it a QC issue?or the norm for gibsons?

Probaby depends how good the repair was after the guitar was dropped.

guitargeek62

richardhomer said:

As @ICBM says 'But hand made is better, right?' Makers like PRS, Anderson and Taylor really have mastered mass-producing perfectly made guitars - with high precision CNCs at the heart of their manufacturing processes.

You would imagine by now that a giant like Gibson would have refined its methods of building sufficiently to deliver much greater consistency.

The difference is that PRS, Taylor, et al have perfected the use of CNC where it counts, like for neck joints. Gibson seem to be sticking to hand techniques for the crucial areas, and the lack of time available per guitar shows up in the overall product. 

Don't assume that PRS & the others don't use hand-finishing at all though, it takes a lot of work to go from a freshly machined piece, to a ready-to-paint guitar.

richardhomer

guitargeek62;205758" said:

Don't assume that PRS & the others don't use hand-finishing at all though, it takes a lot of work to go from a freshly machined piece, to a ready-to-paint guitar.

I'm not. There are some excellent videos on PRS's site which show the amount of hand work that goes into them.

Yet in spite of this, you never see a PRS with obvious (minor but annoying) flaws, like off-centre truss-rod covers.

Even low-end Mexican built Taylors are perfect. My GS Mini e Rosewood Ltd cost £480, plays perfectly, was factory fitted with (expensive) Elixirs and a Duracell battery in the pre-amp. Clearly Taylor care a very great deal about protecting their brand by making sure everything with their name on the headstock lives up to their reputation....

suspiciousminds

The film tour of the factory was interesting - by the speed the workman was sanding the neck/headstock i can see why theres differences.

57Deluxe

...I wouldn't mind a rifle through the scraps skip...!